>
>Glenn writes:
>
><<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.
>
So in what way is the Cambrian Explosion and the sudden appearance of Upper
Paleolithic tools relevant to the text?
><<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. >>
I wrote:
><<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?>>
>
Jim Replied:
>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.]
>
Why? Why must I read things and you don't have to? Why is early Genesis
saga and Abraham-Joseph not saga-history?
>By the way, have you read Genesis in the original Hebrew [as opposed to
>tracking down certain words?]
>
No, I have not read it in Hebrew. Chinese is my language.
glenn