<<If evidence of archaeological nature is not applicable to Early
Genesis then what on earth are we able to discuss about this issue?>>
The discussion rightly centers on first premises. You can discuss archaeology
till the hominids come home, but if it is irrelevant to the text then it is a
false road.
<<Every time I raise an observational data point you have treated it with
irrelevancy as if it does not matter and now you are saying that events in
Scripture should leave footprints in history. >>
You've got to read the Bloesch's book in its entirety. It's just not computing
over the computer. You have an "either/or" approach that the Heberews
definitely did not share. And the author of Genesis was a Hebrew.
<<I see you have now stated that only at Genesis 1-11 does the irrelevancy
of data apply. Please summarize why he feels Early Genesis is not subject to
the verifiability criterion?>>
I have been talking about "early Genesis" all along. And early Genesis is
saga-history. [Please see Bloesch, "Holy Scripture" Ch. 8 for a full
clarification.]
By the way, have you read Genesis in the original Hebrew [as opposed to
tracking down certain words?]
Jim