> 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.
This *sounds* rather naive - though I certainly know from my time spent
lurking here you are far from naive.
The "concordist" school of thought, indeed seeks "the evidence" to
demonstrate the historicity of biblical narratives, but is, in my
experience, full of many, many people who know full well that the Bible is
composed of many forms of literature.
-------------------------------------------------
joel anderson * joela@nts.umn.edu 625-7389