> In interpreting "scientific details" it appears to me that there are at
> least three possibilities for any text: (a) figurative language (i.e.,
> Psalm 98:8); (b) phenomenal language (your example of Matt 16:2,3 or Eph
> 4:26); or (c) plain statements of historical fact (Gen 9:17-23, *I
think*).
> I would take Joshua 10 to be possibly a combination of (b) and (c).
>
and Steven Schimmrich replied:
--------SNIP------------
> I guess that the way we all read and interprete the Bible is based to a
>large extent on our personal backgrounds and experiences but, in my
opinion,
>the creation stories don't appear to be an historical narrative at all.
They
>have a definite mythological (I'm not using the word in a perjorative
sense)
>flavor to them.
I'm *not* committed to the YEC position - I lean to the day-age view - but
I would be interested in what you see that gives the creation account a
"mythological flavor." To me, a plain reading of the text yields plain s
tatements of historical fact. Would your interpretation be the same if the
scientific evidence was neutral regarding the age of the earth?
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson