I think we probably agree here. Accounts of various things inspired by God
can be simplifed, abbreviated, missing parts, but it can't be made up out
of whole cloth. I would add that any historical event which is proposed to
be the source of a given Biblical account can't be so contradictory to the
Biblical account as to make is impossible to have derived the account from
the event. In geology, astronomy, and biology people present papers that
tell us what the historical sequence of events are. Such papers, to be
accepted for publication, must present a scenario which matches the facts
of geology, astronomy or biology. There is a match of their scenario with
the observational facts.(this is what the group I manage does--create
historical scenarios consistent with the seismic/geologic/rock property
data) If the scenario is contradicted by the facts, then the paper is
rejected. Let me take as an example, my favorite topic, the flood. If our
proposed scenario of the flood (the observational data) does not match the
account, then we are not even living up to the standard that we expect
geologists, astronomers, and biologists to live up to when publishing their
papers. If one were to present the Biblical account as the explanation for
the Mesopotamian geology or the Black sea geology, one's paper would be
rejected. This is why I adamantly object to the Mesopotamian/Black Sea as
locations for the flood. But since we are in the area of theology,
everyone's standards fall to the floor and any set of watery facts is said
to be a possible cause of the flood story. This is unacceptable.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution