<<
Then it would appear that the 'allegorical' form of communication failed
prettly badly here. No one got the allegory. As to foundationalism that
you mentioned:
At least in the group of geoscientists I run with, they see no reason to
believe a book that is patently false when it comes to the science they
work with every day. And they find it absurd to believe something is
divinely inspired when they find is scientifically aburd. That is why I
take the approach ...[accidentally snipped]>>
But that's the point. To many in our culture (myself often included), any
type of literature (modern or ancient) which is not 'literal' or 'historical'
etc., will necessarily be misread and hence misinterpreted. And any
apologetic catering to the misreading of some text will to that extent be
misapplied.
But of course this brings up the question of determining literature types for
a particlular Biblical text. And now we're more or less back where this and
several related threads started.
BTW, Glenn, I hope you'll reconsider and not leave the listserv. We'll all be
poorer if you do.
Karl
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com