The writer of Genesis, unlike the Gospel writers, didn't preface the Flood
account with 'And he spake a parable unto them," Luke 6:39.
If the writer of Genesis had said that, you would have a case, but he
didn't. And I can easily understand the preface in the Gospel accounts and
I note that one is lacking in Genesis 6. When you said in your book that
God worked in history to save Noah and his family, you either used history
in a funny way, or God didn't work in history. Historical events leave
evidence of themselves (even if only temporary); non-historical events
don't. And the evidence must be consistent with the account.
On 8/17 you wrote:
>>The fact that a lot of the details in the resulting account don't fit
with >the way a huge flood in Mesopotamia would have taken place - as you
have >often argued, & note in the following - is far from crucial.
Tell me this. Why can't a Mormon claim that his book is 'true' but
non-historical and support his religion in the same fashion you do
Christianity? And by doing so, the Mormon can escape the problem that
horses were not on North America prior to 1492, that there were no chariots
on North America, and that there is no evidence of Jews here either. But
of course the devout Mormon will say that he doesn't care that the details
of his book have been exaggerated a bit. Why couldn't the Mormon simply say
(paraphrasing you):
The fact that a lot of the details in the resulting account don't fit with
the lack of horses,chariots and Jews in North America - as you have often
argued, & note in the following - is far from crucial.
Thus we can conclude that Mormonism is as valid as traditional Christianity!
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm