<<I am probably going to get soundly beaten about the head and shoulders for
this one. I stand here awaiting my punishment. :-)>>
Then let the thrashing begin!
We can start at the point we always seem to start at, Glenn, namely,
misrepresenting my position. Why does this keep happening? May I gently
suggest that the thought forms you have set up for yourself are keeping you
from what we used to call an "open mind"?
I say this because, as I have point out before, your "either/or" (a very
non-Hebraic thought form, by the way) limits you when approaching Scripture. I
took great pains (I can still feel them!) to explain to you the dominant
evangelical view of Genesis 1, most potently explicated by Bloesch (have your
read that book yet?). Most of the pain was in trying to get you to see that
poetic does NOT mean non-historical! Yet you still write things like this:
<<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 think you're trapped this mode because, for you, historical HAS TO mean only
one thing: journalistic, VCR style reportage. Well, it doesn't. It's as simple
as that. Or do you think Paul Revere never existed simply because Longfellow
wrote a poem about him?
So that's the real reason we can't get together on this. Your categories, as
evidenced by the diagram, are limited. Your diagram is unacceptable.
How many more lashes would you like? ;-)
Jim