No, and if you had really read what I was saying you would know better. I
am tired of always having to argue this chestnut which is nothing but a
stereotyping of my position. I don't care if Noah had 15 pairs of animals
on the ark, there must be a historical basis for the account. What I do
insist on (in the face of much criticism) is that God have some
communicative abilities. If God can't figure out how to tell a simplified
but historically true account of creation, then he is incompetent as a
communicator and didn't really tell us what happened. And if He didn't tell
us what happened, then his communicative abilities are no better than mine.
I too can tell a false story of creation but that doesn't mean one has to
take my story as theologically true but historically false. Indeed, there
is no reason to take it as theologically true. Or conversely, maybe I
should INSIST that you take my a false story I tell you about creation as
theological truth. I know you wouldn't take my false account as theological
truth, so why do you take a false account by God and treat it as
theological truth? Why should we apply a double standard to God?
>But if you believe there is no way to determine a correct theological
interpretation, what have you
>gained when you have a factually inerrant Genesis? The problem of
theological interpretation remains
>and I don't see how it is mitigated by a successful concordist scheme.
I would beg you to read a bit more carefully. Cursorial readings don't do
much except show that the person hasn't really read or understood what he
has read.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution