You say:
> The theological question at issue is not one of personal
> preference or presupposition that determines one's
> reading of the text.
But then you say:
> The individuals Jim Bell
> is citing are arguing for a particular genre in the
> early chapters of Genesis, and they do so on the
> basis of observation (in extrabiblical literature
> and within the text itself).
How do we ever decide whether Jim and Bloesch are correct?
I suspect that we wouldn't come to agreement. Don't our
differing conclusions then become one of `personal preference
or presupposition'?
> It's a very relevant
> question that is directly related to our understanding
> of the specific texts.
Given that we are not likely to agree, the only reasonable
way to proceed is by each clarifying our assumptions as needed.
An independent discussion of theology might be interesting, but
for the reasons I gave in my post, I think such a discussion should
be very low key.
What was happening instead is that Jim declared it impossible
to proceed because Glenn's views violated Jim's presumptions.
> Those who dismiss the question
> are in fact assuming a particular answer to it.
I don't think this is at all true.
I dismissed the question because I think it is unresolvable. Jim's
version of Bloesch might indeed render Glenn's argument moot, but
I assume that there is *not* a particular theological answer as
to how to interpret Genesis, and thus Glenn should be allowed to proceed.
But since Jim feels so strongly about his particular answer on the
interpretation of the text, dialogue became too difficult, which
is a shame.
I of course do have my own answer, and it happens to preclude the
necessity of categorizing passages into a particular genre. Such
categorization makes it to easy to readily dismiss the content,
and I am suspicious of such an approach. My preference is for
arguments that say: how can that be true when the Scripture says this?
Rather than: you aren't supposed to pay attention to what it
actually says. My preference springs from the belief that the Scripture
is better understood by fisherman and shepherds than scholars.
I also have my own interpretation of the apparent conflict between
Genesis 1 and 2, which I was unable to interest anybody else in
even commenting on. So I would be content to have a discussion of
Glenn's (and perhaps Stephens).
--Dave