<<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?>>
The fuss is that allegory or metaphor does not, ipso facto, mean that the
assertion is the opposite of what is written. Why would you make such a jump?
Could it be because you so easily jump to believe in the sequential transition
of whales?
I'm only semi-funnin' here. You do make jumps over data problems when it suits
your argument. Here, because you want to force Genesis 1 into a particular
mold, you reach a conclusion that is not supported in logic or fact.
New hearing aids, maybe?
In his new volume, "Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation"
[IVP 1994] Donald Bloesch (one of my favorite theologians, along with
Pinnock), states that Genesis 1 is in the literary form of saga, where "the
focus is not on recorded history, but on the wider significance of the
dramatic events that give people their social and spiritual identity. [Saga]
is a tale or story that has historical basis, but its PRIMARY CONTENT is moral
or theological, NOT historical." [pg. 264, emphasis added]
Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?
<<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. >>
Contact Para Publishing on the WWW. Dan Poynter is the dean of self-publishing
and can help you out. Tell him Jim Bell sent you (but if you mention whales,
you're on your own).
Jim