OK, Stalingrad - though that has its own unfortunate connotations. (I don't
want to make an analogy between myself or anyone else & Hitler - but he did have a
penchant for heroic stands to the last many with little military value.)
> And in Glenn's case, though I have not "bought" his thesis, I
> have not, so far, seen anyone develop a falsification for it
> -- it may well be "unusual," it may well be "new," but
> those are not arguments which cut any ice with me. I am particularly
> impressed that the thesis contains, at least potentially, falsification
> events/discoveries.
I think Glenn wants to focus more strongly on the Flood than I do. The object
of my criticism is not so much his specific thesis (though I have problems with it) as
with the tendency of many conservative Christians to think that all biblical accounts
could in principle be verified as historically accurate if we could just find the
evidence. There is simply a refusal to give serious consideration to the possibility
that the Bible contains other types of literature.
> My own theological position is probably close to yours & Howard's
> on the "proper" way to read the early chapters of Genesis. But a small
> part of my mind keeps on insisting that the type of verification Glenn
> seeks is worth the game.
> I appreciate all the dialog here -- from others as well as you, Howard &
> Glenn!
>
> Burgy
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@imperium.net http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy