Glenn wrote:
"From this I am gathering that you believe that Genesis is also an ancient
myth."
I am amazed that you still don't understand.
No.
You still fall into the dyadic fallacy.
There are n beliefs one may have about Genesis 1-11,
where n is a number at least one bigger than the number of possibilities
in any list anyone has made.
My position is that I DO NOT KNOW how much
"real history" is contained in Genesis 1-11; it may be a lot, it may be
some,
it may be little, it may be none.
Actually, I think that's your position too. The difference between us,
and I respect that difference, although I don't really understand it,
is that you think it of high importance to figure out and I do not.
I think it may be of high INTEREST, but that interest is academic,
and largly unrelated to my Christian position.
---------------------------------------------------------
You went on: "By myth do you mean that they have little historical truth?
If so, why
on earth did you chastise me for calling them 'little more than fairy
tales'?"
Because, my good friend, there is a whale of a lot of difference between a
myth, or
a family story (same thing) and a fairy tale. If those two terms are
synonomous
to you, then we need to search for better terminology. But I see a
substantial difference. To call a family story a "fairy tale" is
pejorative; a
put down. When your grandfather tells of "the old days," going to school
in the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways, I suggest that if you call his
family story a "fairy tale" you'll get slapped upside the head.
---------------------------------------
Glenn: "...you can't deny historicity for these accounts and then claim
that they are all real in someway."
Why not? Anyway I don't deny, I just withhold judgement on that factor.
Their "realness" may, or may not, be rooted in "real history."
---------------------------
Glenn: "I will accept Ramm as a conservative. But he denies evolution.
Remember I said that you couldn't name a conservative writer who both
accepted the age of the earth and evolution (both things that modern
science
accepts). Ramm believed in progressive creation NOT evolution..."
I've read Ramm; the quotes were unnecessary. OK. So you define a
"conservative writer" as one who does not accept evolution. Big deal.
That's
just a definition, and as such, beside the point. Let's drop it.
-------------------------
Glenn went on: "For something to be an analogy, which I most
assuredly understand, it must be analogical. One can't explain drilling for
oil by saying it is like grass growing."
I'm going to pass on this one. From my point of view either you did not
read me correctly, or I was simply (as usual) unclear.
---------------------------
I wrote:
> Genesis 1-11 contains "truth," Glenn. But that truth was written in a way
> people of long ago would recognize and accept. To assert that it must
also
> conform to the myths of the 21st century is naive.
and you, mysteriously, replied with this non-sequitor:
"And I keep pointing out, but no one notices or pays attention, their were
ancient societies who understood evolution. Here is what Encarta 2000
says:"
(snip -- quoting Bill Gates is not really necessary)
"Now, this concept that the ancient Hebrews were too stupid to understand
evolution and therefore had to be fed some fairy tale that wasn't true,
simply insults the intelligence of the ancient Hebrews and flies in the
face
of the fact that ancient cultures UNDERSTOOD evolution!!!!!"
Nobody (but you) ever posed the idea that the ancient Hebrews
were too stupid... .
We seem to go around on this every few months, without getting very far.
I'll let you conclude this time.
Burgy (I'll be back! < G >)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 13:45:36 EST