<<No. This issue does not revolve around the literalistic view of ths
Scripture.>>
Yes, this issue does revolve around a rigid view of Scripture. I can
understand your discomfort at this, as it renders most of your conclusions
moot. But just the same, that's the way it is. Forcing a certain
interpretation on early Genesis leads to certain conclusions. But your initial
premise is faulty, in my opinion, and thus the conclusions as well. It's as
simple as that.
<<I am not trying to be unfair, but explain to me a simple question which you
don't want to respond to. How does your view of man's creation help the
Christian cause? Does it match with known archeological fact? >>
How? By upholding the special creation of man. How's that for starters? By
being truer to the data than a 5.5 million year old, sea bearing hominid, for
another. By seeing the exact evidence of God's hand operating in different
levels of the cosmos. By being true to the intent of Scripture, rather than
forcing and sticking with a certain personal viewpoint merely so a theory
might hold water (you'll pardon the pun). By continuing to keep up with the
latest in theology as well as science, and not turning a blind eye to the
former.
That's enough for now. And again I see an unfairness in saying thing like this
is a question I "don't want to respond to." When did you ever ask this of me
before? Why this characterization? Does the answer above count?
<<I realized when you were quoting Tattersall a few days ago that you were
quoting the man's conclusions and not his evidence. >>
What exactly is one to do with this? Citing the conclusions of a recognized
expert who lays out his evidence in a 270 page book is a legitimate form of
debate. It also saves a bunch of time. If this doesn't satisfy an
indiosyncratic standard, I'm afraid I can't do anything about that. It is
still unfair to be told I "never" deal with scientific data, etc., etc. Those
sorts of generalities should be eschewed, especially when they have no basis
in fact.
<<Of course it is possible my hermenutic needs revising>>
And I would direct you to Donald Bloesch and the others I've cited for that
revision. Keeping current in theology is essential, and will do much to clear
away certain obsessions with timing and journalistic details which the Author
did not intend.
Jim