> Even if I were to admit that Genesis is not historical, the response
would
> not be "OK, I can now believe the Gospel." It would be, "Finally, Glenn,
you
> are coming to your senses about that nonsensical Christianity".
>
> They claim that christians are inconsistent in the way they apply the
> standards of truth. Something is true if the Bible says it but not
> necessarily if observation says it.
I think what this says is that, in worldly terms, the Bible does not make
sense. And I'm afraid this is true. Insisting on a hard and fast rule of
interpretation is not going to make things any easier.
The argument seems to be the "slippery slope" problem: If I give up the
factuality of early Genesis, what happens to the Resurrection, or some
other such item? I'm generally susceptible to such arguments, but I have
to opt out of this one.