>I'm not sure where our disagreement is--if Christianity is understood to
>*not* primarily be about presenting a biologically, geologically true-to-fact
>theory of the origins of the universe, solar system, and life on earth, but
>most importantly about other things, then any discrepancies between the
>Christian understanding of biology or geology are relatively minor, and can
>be worked out with no great disturbance to the rest of the faith. If, on
>the other hand, Christianity is mostly about providing semi-scientific
>stories about geology, biology, and history, then remedying factual
>discrepancies in these areas is a critical task and holds the entire faith
>hostage until completion.
No one has said that the flood and Genesis are the MOST important. But they
are not meaningless either. Adam and Eve are viewed as the originators of
sin. If you have Adam and Eve after sin was on the earth, then they are not
the originators of sin contra what the Bible seems to indicate.
My disagreement comes from the belief that the problems of geology are
minor. If God doesn't know and can't relate what happened in Earth's
history, then is He really God?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm