You wrote:
>>Though Glenn is an evolutionist, he still believes in the historicity
of Gn 1-11, so there is more common ground between him and
PC's like myself, than there is between us and TE's who believe that
Gn 1-11 is a collection of unhistorical ANE myths.<<
I have noticed several positions on the reflector concerning the status of
evolution and the historicity of the early part of the Scriptures. Perhaps a
diagram can help us keep them straight.
1 historical/no evolution 2.nonhistorical/no
evolution
--------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
3 historical/evoluion -------------------------------
4.nonhistorical/evolution
The YEC's would fit into 1. Stephen, I think you would fit into 1. I think
Hugh Ross would also try to fit himself into 1 as evidenced by his
earth-centered exegesis of Genesis 1.
Jim Bell would fit into 2. What I can't figure out about this combination is
why any of the evolution stuff matters to that position since Scripture is
not historical.
I would fit into number 3. I don't know anyone else who would fit there (by
my definition of historicity) and this may account in part for my inability
to get anyone journal or book publisher to publish my ideas. Thus y'all are
stuck with me. (Then again I might be totally wrong and everybody else sees
it except me)
Denis and most TE's would clearly fit into number 4.
I think the fact that Jim and I are on opposite extremes explains in good
measure why we can not agree on anything but we will most assuredly keep
trying.
I want to thank you Stephen for agreeing with me publically here. Not many
are willing to do that.
Hope the above diagram does not mangle too badly anyone's position