>> Ed,
>>
>> Let me ask something about your story. Why couldn't you accept the
>> generally accepted liberal Christian view that early Genesis is 'true' but
>> non-historical?
>
>I can't accept that simply because I don't know what "true" could
>possibly mean other than "historically true", and because, once divorced
>from its historical validity, the story has no more claim to being
>"true" than the Dogon creation myth or the Hindu creation myth or any
>other.
That's what I figured, and I agree with you. This is why I fight so hard
for historicity of the Genesis accounts, in my opinion, the YECs are correct
that if Genesis isn't historically true, then it can't be God's word. This
of course upsets my libral brothers in Christ. On the other hand, the YECs
propose a theory that can't possibly be historically true--infact it is
already falsified
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm