Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

Randy posted: "b) those who claim no clear historical content need a
sound justification for rejecting the physical history of what at the
very least appears to be an historical account while accepting the
theological message and yet avoiding the pitfall of arbitrarily picking
and choosing interpretations to justify a presupposition of accuracy."

Not all who see no "clear historical content" make a claim to that
effect. Speaking just for myself, while I don't see a clear historical
content in early Genesis, I would hardly claim that none exists. Perhaps
that is why I continue to see Glenn's "very old Adam" and a Med flood as
the most credible approach to finding history in Genesis that I have
encountered. Glenn keeps looking for data; I like that, even when the
data is fragmentary and does not meet with "my expectations."

Glenn frequently makes the statement to the effect that someone "wants"
there to be no history in Genesis. I doubt if that describes anyone here;
none of us are so wedded to one or another particular view that we cling
to it rather than seeking truth. Well, few of us, anyway; naming
exceptions would not be charitable.

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 21 10:44:38 2006