>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.<
endquote
I know that those who hold this view are saying that they see a broader
truth.
Logically, I fail to see this broader truth. In the case of the parables, it
clearly marks them as parables. Such is not the case with early Genesis.
What part is historical and what part is metaphorical? Where is the clear
demarcation? The metaphorical status of the scripture usually extends through
chapter 11 so that means that the flood is metaphorical.
The flood section doesn't read metaphorically. And there is only one way to
look at the question of whether or not there was a flood. It either happened
or it didn't. The event described as the Fall either happened as described
or it didn't. I see very little middle ground here. If these events didn't
occur as described, then how do I know that the Scripture is better than the
Gilgamesh {sic?} epic?
You write:
>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.<
I agree that Gen. 1 is in poetic form, but even a poem can convey true
information. Homer conveyed some true information in a poem
glenn