OK, but then how can we be so sure that other parts of Genesis 1 aren't
meant to be true? What I find inconsistent is the lack of standards in
determining what is or isn't to be considered true. We want it to be true
that God created the universe, but it is NOT true (historical) how it is
described that he did it. It seems to me that if inspiration means
anything that it would have been better for God to simply inspire the
writer to write:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. [all
chopped out until} Genesis 12:1, "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get
thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will show thee:"
There would be NO scientific issues at all to worry with. But as it is, we
choose to believe 1:1, believe that there was a fall of some sort and a
flood of some sort and all else is to be allegorized. This to me looks
like cafeteria theology. Choose what makes you happen and reject the rest.
That is the inconsistency I was talking about.
(I know this will get me introuble again)
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm