>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.<
Last time I checked Genesis 1 was still part of the Bible. As such the claim
the Bible makes for itself as the inspired word of God applies equally to it.
Thus, I have real theological difficulty having God tell us things that are
not factually true without clearly marking it as a parable. If God can do
that then how in the world am I ever going to be sure that He is telling me
the truth about how to be saved? What surprises me is that you, an
antievolutionist, are arguing for an allegorical Genesis 1. If it is
allegorical, why don't you accept evolution?
Content is different than literary form. That is what I showed in my two
bad poems. One can write a poem which tells all the truth or some of the
truth or even none of the truth. I do not think that it is straining genesis
through my own gauze to expect objective, not subjective, truth out of
something that purports to be God's word.
Under the interpretation I see you pushing, the conclusion would be that God
might not have done something about plants on the third day. To believe that
might be straining it through my own gauze. God might not have done
something about the lights on the fourth day. That, too, is using gauze as a
strainer. My point is, if the account doesn't bear any connection whatsoever
with something God did in a specified order, then the account can mean
anything I want it too. If that is the case, then I, and you, can each make
up our own story.
You wrote:
>
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!<
Because the observational data supports that view. :-)
You wrote:
>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.)<
Congratulations. You are the first person to ask me about this apparent
contradiction in the views I have been talking about. I really am surprised
that no one else has asked me how can you do that. You, like everyone else
thinks they know what an evolutionist must believe. Theistic evolutionists
believe in long ages for the days, allegorical Genesis 1-11 etc. There is a
way to have it all, modern science AND a historically factual Genesis
including the short time frame days..
I don't believe the theology which normally goes along with TE. I can not
take Genesis as an allegory. I have mentioned that my view of epistemology
requires that statements of fact either be true or false. Genesis 1 is a
series of statements of fact. These statements are either true or false.
That is why I believe that it is important for Genesis 1 to bear some
resemblance (while incomplete) to what God actually did. If I beleived that
Genesis 1-11 were allegorical, I would probably not be a believer any longer.
I am going to hold off for a little over a month before explaining this. I
am not trying to avoid the issue, but in a month I am going to tell the two
publishers who are still looking at my manuscript to give it back (it is time
for them to make a decision) and I will sell it myself. The reason I don't
want to get into it now, is that I have found that my views can not be
discussed piecemeal. Any part I put out raises questions which can only be
answered by other portions of the explanation. I have attempted to publish
an article on part of my views but there are always legitimate questions,
which if I were the reviewer I would ask and which can not be answered
without publishing the entire book as an article - an impossibility. You can
pick at my views at that time.