<<If you are representing the views of these modern scholars correctly, then I
am not highly motivated to go read them.>>
We really can't go on then. To dismiss entire works based on a few quotes, to
draw up conclusions with only a cursory understanding of what is written, are
ways to deal with difficulties, but not very productive ones for future
debate. Because you haven't read the works, you keep asking questions that are
off base, like:
<<These quotes send chills up my spine for the future of Christianity. If the
Biblical writers were not always concerned to " distinguish the factual from
the nonfactual" how do I know if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were so
careful? >>
If you read the works you'll find distinctions in the Biblical literature.
Why? Because they are there. So the central problem I've finally seen is a
theological one, and we are unable to go further because you have elected not
to. Okay. I need a rest anyway.
Jim
P.S. By the way, the question you keep asking, "anything about how his 50,000
year creation of man view fits with modern archaeological knowledge" is
irrelevant, which is why I've charitably ignored it. As I keep saying, you
wouldn't ask these questions if you understood where I'm coming from. But
since you insist: Early Genesis is not about counting, but about theology. It
transcends history (the limited view). Thus, modern archeaological data is a
wrong, self-imposed measure for Scripture here. And wrong measures lead
inevitably to wrong conclusions. That's the way I see it.