Glenn writes, in response to Mark's view of Genesis 1:
<<Yes, lots of my friends take this position and they feel comfortable with
it. I do not. I keep asking myself, "So is the account historically accurate
in so far as it goes?" Everyone agrees that it is not a scientific account,
but is it a true account. By that, I mean if I were a fly on the wall at
creation would I have seen what God tells me here. If I wouldn't have seen
that set of events, then in what fashion is it true?>>
I think you have missed the point here. You assume a view of "truth" that is
empirical only. But Mark and scholars who hold this view of Genesis are
talking of truth in a broader sense. Call it theological truth, or spiritual
truth.
The question is not what a fly on the wall would "see," but what a human being
reading the text, as is, should "know."
Thus your view...
GM<<Truth is objective. Something either happened as reported or it
didn't.>>
...is incorrect (or rather, arbitrarily limited). A simple example is the
parables of Jesus. The prodigal son did not exist. This account didn't "happen
as reported." But the metaphor is plain, and in service of a more profound
truth.
Now if Jesus explicated deep spiritual truth via metaphor, why should you
limit God in Genesis 1 to a lesser standard?
The terms of Genesis 1, according to most Hebraic scholars, are mytho-poetic.
God, it seems, is TELLING us not to limit this chapter to some objective
standard of reportage.
That being said, I wonder what your view of Scripture really is? As a
Christian, surely you know that Jesus himself upheld all of Scripture as the
reliable voice of God. How do you reconcile your view of Genesis 1 with the
view of Christ?
As always, enjoying the show.
Jim