RE: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

Scientists often write books and/or articles popularizing very technical topics. The author writes simple enough that nonscientific readers understand and learn. Nonetheless, the author is careful to write not do simply so that even an expert in the field knows that the author knows the very technical aspect of the subject. Now, I ask, what writing techniques does the author uses? Does it make sense to call it myth or metaphor? May that be the style used by the author or that who revealed the content of Genesis?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of RFaussette@aol.com
Sent: Mon 11/22/2004 5:37 PM
To: "Charles Carrigan"; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

In a message dated 11/22/2004 3:20:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Charles Carrigan" <CCarriga@olivet.edu> writes:

>Rich,
I can live with your use of the terms myth and metaphor, myth meaning there is still some historical significance (although it may be extremely minor, of course). Do you apply this same definition of myth to other mythological writings (e.g., greek, roman, egyption, etc.)? would make sense for greek mythology.
however, I dont' get the impression that this is what Don meant. Don, care to clarify your position on myth vs. metaphor, given Rich's comments?

Best,
Charles

--------------------
Hi Charles,
I will wait patiently for Don's clarification. I would use myth when referring to Greek, Roman, Egyptian texts where a historical precursor is suspected and/or evident. I have interpreted events in Genesis from a Darwinian perspective and am always interested in how others view Genesis. I don't see Genesis as myth but as allegory deliberately fashioned to convey theological structure and natural processes.

rich faussette
Received on Mon Nov 22 18:28:41 2004