From: bivalve (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 13:44:29 EST
I am sufficiently uncertain about the definition of "broken myth" to
think that a definition would be helpful in this discussion. Could
George (or anyone else) provide it? Perhaps a bit on the technical
sense of myth would also be appropriate.
Otherwise, folkth may myth the point.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jay Willingham" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:23:04 -0500
>> > Jim wrote:
>> > " ...With a few exceptions, I think
>> > most of this list has accepted Gen 1-11 as mythology/exaggeration.
>> > It's gotten a little boring to talk about."
>Jay Willingham wrote:
>> > I'm coming in on the tail end of this, but I believe I am one of the
>> > "few exceptions".
>> > How few are we?
>joel anderson wrote:
>> No idea - but, me too. And yeah, the miracles of the NT too. ( I even
>> believe it is genuine leather :) ) Following the discussion freedoms and
>> limits in Schaeffer's "No Final Conflict", I think there is tremendous
>> range within Christendom for understanding the history of Genesis 1-11.
>Christians do have a tendancy to get all wound up over how many angels can
>dance on the head of a pin and whether Jesus owned the clothes he wore.
>Thereby we miss the point.
>God bless you all this Advent...
>Jay Willingham, Esquire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 15:59:23 EST