<<The difference between the Bible and Homer is that the Bible claims to
be the work of God; Homer claims no such authority. It is that claim which
makes the truth of the Bible more important than the truth of Homer.>>
This isn't the issue. An argument elevating Homer to some sort of
authoritative level analagous to "the Bible" wasn't made. We were talking only
about Genesis 1, and its particular form. The point was that Homer, by his
terms, is a particular literary form. So is Genesis 1. To strain it through a
gauze of one's own making does violence to it.
Your gauze is that of "objective, literal truth." But the text itself
confounds your position. I think the text should be taken on its own terms.
<<Can you point to one of my posts where I have said I don't see
Genesis as factual?>>
Well, to Mark Phillips you wrote: "The Scripture says that God created things
in 7 days. I know the arguments that the days can be periods of time, the
plain fact is that long periods of time do not have evenings and mornings. "
I didn't think you believed in a literal, 24-hour/7 day creation. If you
don't, you don't think Gen. 1 is factual. If you do, please explain as I don't
quite get your position. (Sorry if I've missed it before. Be patient.)
P.S. To Terry Gray you wrote: << I like solid observational data; not the
waters of the philosophical ocean. >>
Then why do you believe in macro-evolution? <g> That is a veritable bog of
philosophical detritus!