>>and that the means are not all that important, a perspective we can lose when focusing on details.<<
>I beg to differ here, David. God spelled out the means. It is our job to interpret.<
I do not think we are talking about the same thing here. In general, I would classify your arguments as claiming that God spelled out the timing. Apart from "let the earth bring forth", "out of the dust", etc., there is little in Genesis about the means used. While I am sympathetic to the view that "let the earth bring forth" hints at evolutionary means, I do not see this qualifying as spelling out the means.
>I "disagree" in that the OT is steeped in history. What would happen if people started claiming the Exodus was "a nice story?"<
I did not say it was not steeped in history but rather that it is more important to recognize His story. I would assert that Genesis 1 is history in that God did, at some point in the past, create everything (a little complicated in that time was among the things created). I am not convinced that the text here was originally intended to convey chronology or sequence, but that does not keep it from being historical.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 12:41:51 EDT