>Actually, Ramm (and I) are not concerned to give a precise
>identification of the "kind" of Genesis 1 with any particular
>modern biological classification:
>
Not defining what one is talking about works real well at avoiding having
to defend one's statements. When faced with a difficulty, one can always
claim that was not what was meant. Of course not defining a word leaves
the word with no meaning. This, of course, makes for great conversation.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm