> I thought I had answered that one in a previous post where I pointed out
> that the text of Genesis 4-12, gives all the journalistic type of features,
> who, what, when where why and how.
It is far from clear that Gen.4-11 have "journalistic"
character. When I point out apparent exceptions, your response is to
argue that they _could_ be interepreted in that way - no matter how
speculative (as with 6:1-4) those reconstructions might be.
> Being true to your epistemology, you would quietly accept the verdict
> knowing that true things do not always have to be historical.
The kind of evidence ("nature of texts") appropriate to a court
of law is not the same as that appropriate in science, literature,
theology, etc. Your error here is shared by Phil Johnson.
>You would try
> to prevent your lawyers from immediately filing an appeal.
No, actually what I do is sue you for libel for telling this
story about me over the internet. Because, you see, having accepted
your theory that only documents that claim to record actual history are
valid, I've decided that you are claiming that these things really
happened to me. It couldn't be just a story you made up about me being
on trial for murder. You wouldn't do something like that!
Just kidding! (I know I have to make that official.)
> > I recognize that one can go too far in this direction & abandon
> >concern about history entirely. I don't. OTOH, one can go to the other
> >extreme & think that the historical accuracy of every bit of the gospels
> >is essential for salvation - & then lie awake at night worrying about
> >whether Jesus restored the sight of 1 or 2 blind men at Jericho &
> >whether they were entering the city or leaving it. (& the fact that
> >some "harmonizations" answer triumphantly "all of the above" is a
> >self-refutaion!)
The account of the blind man/men at Jericho isn't a parable.