>As far as I am concerned this data leaves only the evolution option. But
>that then raises the issue of having Genesis be nothing more than myth. And
>that is something I don't want. I think the best approach is to figure out
>how to have a historical Bible without denying modern observational science.
This statement indicates a persistent misconception within the evangelical
community about scriptural exegesis. It seems to say "if it isn't literal
(historical) then it isn't true." Scripture, indeed language itself, is
much more rich than that. The truth of scripture is communicated through a
wide variety of literary styles representing many cultures spanning
thousands of years. The challenge of scriptural interpretation begins with
understanding the type of literary techniques being employed by the
authors. The first chanpters of Genesis are true, but they are not to be
understood literally or historically. This has been well-argued by several
evangelical Old Testament scholars including Meredith Kline, Bruce Waltke,
Henri Blocher, and others. To assume that scriptural truth equals
scriptural literalism is to create unnecessary conflict and to risk missing
the very truth we are trying to defend.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www.ksu.edu/~kbmill/