Thank you for finally answering this clearly. You have been wrong in saying I
did not understand where you were coming from. I suspected this was your
view, but with your anti-evolutionist views, I couldn't believe that you
really held to this view of Genesis. Besides you kept citing evidence in
support of your position which is inconsistent with method implied by your
view.
I do not understand then if the evidence is all irrelevant (since Early
Genesis transcends history), why you continually cited the Cambrian Explosion
as being evidence of God's creation, and the explosion of human artifacts as
being evidence of God creating mankind (I believe it was you who started the
thread "human explosion"). In both of those cases you were using
observational archaeological data to support your position and you had no
qualms about pounding on Jim Foley because Foley didn't see the data the same
as you. And when I started citing observational archaeological evidence and
asking questions of your position you suddenly didn't believe in any data.
It is usually bad form to cite observational data in support of one's
position when you do not allow your adversaries to cite other, possibly
conflicting observational evidence.
I also find it very, very curious, that since you believe that Genesis
"transcends history (the limited view)" I fail to see why any of this matters
to you. Any evidence one presents to you can have absolutely no effect on
your view as it is immune from any refutation. I am somewhat envious of that
immunity because one does not need to spend as much time as I do looking at
data. Besides, my view is always subject to observational refutation.
And if Early Genesis is "not about counting, but about theology." I fail to
see why you are so opposed to evolution. It seems to me that Early Genesis
is only about Theology, then the mechanism God used for the origin of life
and man's origin should make no difference whatsoever.
You are correct that there is not much point in going on. Our approaches are
far too different to ever come to agreement. I believe that the Bible does
have historical accounts although we may have some argumentation over which
parts are historical and which parts aren't. But if everytime we have a
difficulty with Scripture conforming to observation, we take the approach you
do, there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that transcends history.
I have on occasion enjoyed our debates and on occasion not. But I do wish
you well. You actually got me to read a theology book which is quite a feat.
But I see no future anymore discussing observational data with you as you
see little future in my career as a theologian..
glenn