Jim Bell replied:
>As I've explained, you must take the text as it is, and Genesis 1 is
"clearly
>marked" as different in style from the rest of the Bible. You don't deny
this.
>But, inexplicably, you do deny that one's hermeneutic must be flexible as a
>result. This is inapt.
Jim Bell further wrote:
>Your Aristotilean mind is playing tricks on you. You set up "fact" as
>objective/verifiable, and then apply the law of "either/or." The fallacy is
in
>your major premise, as I've explained.
>
O.K. for the sake of argument, I will agree with you here. I am hopelessly
Aristotelian and need to be sent to a re-education camp. Genesis 1 is to be
taken allegorically. Let's see.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
It is allegorical. God really didn't create the Heavens and the earth. Gee,
then what is all the fuss about?
Jim wrote:
>I guess this discussion gets put on hold while you hound potential
>publishers.
>Good luck.
I've run out of luck. I just need to get the final two to tell me no. I had
one editor write me back and bluntly tell me I would never get it published.
But he wanted to buy two copies of the manuscript. One for himself and one
to give to a friend. Seems like a strange way to say that a manuscript is
not worth publishing. :-)
glenn