I must protest. :-) No matter how many times I say this no one seems to
hear it (and I have said it often). I am not arguing for inerrancy. I will
shout this. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR INERRANCY. I am arguing for historicity.
THere is a big difference. Inerrancy means every detail must be exact. I DO
NOT HOLD THAT VIEW. But it seems that everyone wants to categorize people
into certain preconceived niches. What I am arguing for is that there must
be a historical basis to the account. And the account must substantially
match the event which founded the account. To say that Mr. Plum murdered
Mrs White in the kitchen with a knife can hardly be viewed as the event
that started the story that Col. Mustard bludgeoned Ms. Scarlet with a
candlestick in the bedroom. And that is what Christians try to do when they
make the Mesopotamian flood or the Black sea or the Caspian sea the basis
of the Flood.
>My comment:
>
>By adopting the attitude that concordism speaks, not to the "logic of
>inerrancy", but to the "logic of our yearning", we can look at the "match
>between the Genesis text and the evolutionary record" in a very different
>way. To take Glenn"s ideas as an example, which is more important?
>The hundreds of details depicted in the story of Noah"s flood - or - the
>single fact that the Sumerian tradition contains an almost identical story?\
ONce again, I am not an inerrantist I AM NOT AN INERRANTIST. Do you
understand? But force fitting the stepsisters feet into Cinderella's shoes
doesn't make it fit very well.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution