On 2/18/96 you wrote:
> The problem here is the level of significance attributed to this
> belief. I believe that the age of the earth is a *minor* issue in the
> church. Ham believes that it is a *major* issue. He will (repeatedly)
> stress that unless one interprets Genesis 1-11 correctly one cannot get the
> rest of the Bible right. Genesis 1-11 is "foundational" he says.
I'd definitely agree with Ham that the interpretation of Gen 1-11 is one key
factor in getting the rest of the Bible right, and many theologians would agree
with him that it is foundational. The problem is that few of them would agree
with him in his interpretation of either its meaning or significance. At issue
is that Ham has excluded the key themes of that passage from his view. For my
part, it is very difficult to see how the age of the earth is a primary theme
in those passages, either by reading them or by looking at how the church has
interpreted it before the middle of this century.
Steve Anonsen