Tom: I’m sure there’s a true fact of the matter about theodicy, but it’s not like everybody agrees on just what it is. I don’t think this undermines my own respect for the truth of scripture. Sometimes there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible.

Jeff:  This was what I was arguing with Meph.  IF there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible, then all valid deductions and inferences from those interpretations would have to be equally plausible.  If they’re not, then you don’t really believe there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible, for the deductions from them are simply part of the meaning of the interpretation.  And IF mutually exclusive interpretations are truly equally plausible, what possible reason is there to debate them?  Or do you contend that there are only equally plausible interpretations of “unimportant” theological matters?

That’s brings me to another logical problem I have with Scott’s view that I thought of after corresponding with him.  He says God doesn’t care whether we take Genesis 1-11 as true history or not.  It’s not important.  But doesn’t that mean there’s NO “true fact of the matter about theodicy” that God expects us to understand?  For surely a theodicy based upon Gen. 1-11 being historical differs from other theodicies wouldn’t you say?  Seems so to me.

Tom: Again, I don’t see your point. scripture hardly makes any ONE particular view of natural evil unambiguously clear. This doesn’t mean there’s not a truth of the matter about natural evil and that this truth is infallible. That’s my point.

Jeff:  I would disagree.  IF Genesis 1-11 is a straightforward and accurate account of what happened, it would be a no-brainer to conclude that virtually ALL of what we call natural evil was unintended originally by God (for open theists, at least), and that the Fall was in some way or ways responsible for it, directly or indirectly.  Here’s where Doc and I are in total agreement if I understand him correctly.  The ambiguity comes when one DENIES that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of what happened.

Tom: I haven’t even touched on historical and scientific claims. Try not to suppose what I'd do with such issues.

Jeff:  But your contention was that scripture is accurate on “theology, doctrine, and teaching.”  Are you saying that includes science and history?  If so, then what part or aspect of scripture is demonstratively false?

Tom:  By focusing on theological claims, Jeff, I’m trying to find out if there is ANY

category of truth-claim we ought to believe scripture is right on 100% of the time. Is

there no claim the Bible makes, or no category of truth-claim, we are simply not

prepared to admit it can be in error on?

Jeff:  I assume it’s all accurate until proven otherwise.  I for one don’t know what part has been demonstrated to be false.  What’s your best example of such a case?  I've bought books at Scott's recomendation and start down their list of so-called discrepancies.  The one's I read were so eaily solved I wearied of it.  Gimme a bona-fide case so I'll know what all the fuss is about.

Jeff: IF there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible, then all valid deductions and inferences from those interpretations would have to be equally plausible. If they’re not, then you don’t really believe there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible, for the deductions from them are simply part of the meaning of the interpretation. And IF mutually exclusive interpretations are truly equally plausible, what possible reason is there to debate them? Or do you contend that there are only equally plausible interpretations of “unimportant” theological matters?

Tom: I’m not sure what I believe now! Just kidding.

When I say “equally plausible” I mean “given our limited scope and understanding,” and not objectively equally plausible. “Equally plausible” is a commentary on my own epistemic state. So there’s no problem in saying truth-claim A and truth-claim B are equally plausible AND mutually exclusive. I can know enough of claim A and B to know they can’t both be true but not know enough to judge which one is in fact true. In addition, it may be the case that the little I do know (including all the deductions that follow by logical necessity from a particular view) is compatible with both claim A and claim B. But since I know they’re mutually exclusive claims I’d obviously have to admit that there is evidence out there I just haven’t yet discovered which shows one view in fact to be wrong and one to be true.

For example, take the claims “Galatians is the first-written of Paul’s NT letters” and “1Corinthians is the first-written of Paul’s NT letters.” These are mutually exclusive truth-claims. But given the evidence, many scholars are unable to adjudicate the pro’s and con’s of each and so simply admit that both are equally plausible views. The plausibility is epistemic given the limited pieces of the puzzle we have. If all the relevant facts were on the table, we’d have every reason for affirming one and denying the other of these two claims. I’m just saying that with regard to many beliefs (about God, us, the world, sin, evil, faith, etc.) we sometimes don’t have all the evidence. We know preterists and amillennialists embrace mutually exclusive eschatologies. One is right and one is wrong. But which? Well, we may have to admit that both are plausible, i.e., plausible cases can be made for both. But they’re only both plausible because we’re so ignorant!

----------------------

Jeff: That’s brings me to another logical problem I have with Scott’s view that I thought of after corresponding with him. He says God doesn’t care whether we take Genesis 1-11 as true history or not.  It’s not important. But doesn’t that mean there’s NO “true fact of the matter about theodicy” that God expects us to understand? For surely a theodicy based upon Gen. 1-11 being historical differs from other theodicies wouldn’t you say? Seems so to me.

Tom: Yeah. I think they do differ. But Scott’s point seems to be that given the evidence we have and our own limitations, logically possible and biblically consistent cases can be made for theodicies built on the literalness of Gen 1-11 and also for theodicies built on non-literal interpretations of Gen. 1-11. Obviously a literal reading of Gen. 1-11 and a non-literal reading of Gen. 1-11 are mutually exclusive. They can’t both be right. But we may not know enough to finally adjudicate the cases. The little we know (about God, the Bible, interpretation, good and evil, Satan, open theism, and the kitchen sink) may in the end permit one to take a non-literal or a literal reading of Gen. 1-11. But those who hold to a literal interpretation and those who hold to a non-literal interpretation all agree that somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong. It’s just that sense CAN be made of both on the limited scope and knowledge we have.

----------------------

Tom: Again, I don’t see your point. scripture hardly makes any ONE particular view of natural evil unambiguously clear.This doesn’t mean there’s not a truth of the matter about natural evil and that this truth is infallible.That’s my point.

Jeff: I would disagree.

Tom: Now why did I KNOW you were gonna say that!

Jeff: IF Genesis 1-11 is a straightforward and accurate account of what happened, it would be a no-brainer to conclude that virtually ALL of what we call natural evil was unintended originally by God (for open theists, at least), and that the Fall was in some way or ways responsible for it, directly or indirectly.  Here’s where Doc and I are in total agreement if I understand him correctly. The ambiguity comes when one DENIES that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of what happened.

Tom: I’m smiling because I’m guessing Doc does not take a literal view of the creation narratives. I’d guess he believes in evolution, doesn’t believe there was a literal human couple, a literal garden, a literal tree, literal fruit, a literal serpent, etc. Don’t quote me, but I’m relatively confident he takes a much more symbolic approach to the creation narratives at least. I’m not sure about chs 5-11. I haven't read up on Genesis in years, so I don’t know what reasons folks would have for reading these chapters non-literally as well. This just goes to show that taking a non-literal LITERARY approach to Gen. 1-3 doesn't mean one doesn't believe there are very literal, historial events BEHIND the text (like a literal God, a literal and "good" world, literal and historical human beings (however they got there!), historical choices, real sin, real historical consequences to sin, a real Satan, etc.). I never thought folks who take a non-literal LITERARY approach to these chapters also denied that the truths these chapters teach (about God, humanity, Satan, sin, creation, etc.) were not literally and historically true.

So those who read the creation accounts non-literally don’t claim the accounts are inaccurate. They in fact claim that what the author intends to communicate non-literally is quite accurate.

----------------------

Tom (earlier): I haven’t even touched on historical and scientific claims. Try not to suppose what I'd do with such issues.

Jeff:  But your contention was that scripture is accurate on “theology, doctrine, and teaching.” Are you saying that includes science and history?

Tom: No. I’m saying it excludes science and history (at least where the science and the history are, as the old dudes used to say, “profane” or incidental to the theological or doctrinal point being made.

-----------------------

Tom (earlier):  By focusing on theological claims, Jeff, I’m trying to find out if there is ANY category of truth-claim we ought to believe scripture is right on 100% of the time. Is there no claim the Bible makes, or no category of truth-claim, we are simply not prepared to admit it can be in error on?

Jeff:  I assume it’s all accurate until proven otherwise.

Tom: So you’re open to the Bible being wrong on, say, the existence of God, salvation by faith, the sinless character of Christ, etc.? Is there NO belief of yours, derived from scripture, about which you’d say, “I’m not putting this on the table. Any scientific or historical evidence to the contrary is by definition inaccurate. Whatever seems to conflict with these beliefs, I believe will in the end prove to be false”? You really can be convinced that Paul didn’t teach salvation by faith just as you can be convinced that Luke’s claim that the census Caesar ordered which took Joseph to Bethlehem was really conducted “when Quirinius was governor in Syria” (Lk 2.1) even though Quirinius did not become governor until after Herod died in AD 6?

Jeff: I for one don’t know what part has been demonstrated to be false. What’s your best example of such a case? I've bought books at Scott's recomendation and start down their list of so-called discrepancies. The one's I read were so eaily solved I wearied of it. Gimme a bona-fide case so I'll know what all the fuss is about.

Tom: I hear ya. I. Howard Marshall (don’t have his book with me) complains a lot about Lk 2.1 (Caesar’s census and Quirinius’ govenorship in Syria). But there are “plausible” (!) defenses for the accusation that Luke just flat out got his history wrong. But the question arises, what if Luke WAS wrong? I hear you saying you don’t have a problem. OK. It’s a census. Big deal. But I hear you also saying it’s ALL on the table for you. You’re prepared to be convinced that any theological claim the Bible makes is false. I can’t say that. I guess my faith is too shallow!

Let’s ask Mephi. Hey Mephi! Give us your top five bona-fide falsehoods (historical or scientific) in the Bible. Let’s have a look.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/17/2005 10:46:31 PM (GMT-6)

Mephi-

No lie…I typed “pictures of dogmatic people” into Google’s search line and up popped a link for one of John Macarthur’s books!

What happened to your giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt as a supernaturalist? Dude, give me SOME historical, philosophical, logical, textual, or any other reason why a miraculous historical event (not a miraculous interpretation of a non-miraculous historical event) cannot be behind the exodus. Looks like your benefit of the doubt is out the window. Now the Bible has to provide modern, precise, scientific, test-tube proof that what it describes as a miraculous event was indeed miraculous? I don’t get it. If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, what’s the problem with believing God really, genuinely, historically, and miraculously lead Jews out of Egypt?

And OF COURSE there were real human beings who really, in history, sinned and OF COURSE their choices had horrible consequences for their children. I honestly don’t understand what overwhelming evidence you have (as a supernaturalist who always gives the Bible the benefit of the doubt) for thinking otherwise. Look, even if I took the Creation narratives as symbolic or as some myth AND embraced an evolutionary theory on human origins, I’d STILL have every reason for supposing there was “a” human couple that stood at the head of it all. It’s being a literary “myth” wouldn’t rule that out. Even atheistic evolutionists have “Eve” boxed up in Paris. Even they agree that Homosapien had “a” beginning with a particular couple (or so I’ve heard). The race didn’t spring up simultaneously in several different unrelated lines. So what’s the problem with believing human sinfuless had a beginning with a frick’n human being?

On N.T. Wright. Guys, I love the man (from the little of him I have read elsewhere). But his article left me with more questions. I guess I’m just thick-headed. What’s the deal? I don’t see where he really addressed the question of how to square scripture’s authority (which he—and I agree—takes to be shorthand for God’s authority) with belief in the existence not of profane error (incidental error that doesn’t at all impact the content or heart of the message) but of fundamental error (theological error). That’s what I was looking for. At least that’s the apologetic issue where the unbelieving world takes up the scripture and questions it. “Here’s an error,” they say. “There’s another, and another,” they point out. And what happens when the Church agrees, suggesting other even more fundamental-theological flaws in the Bible’s message? I liked a lot of what Wright said. Much of it resonated with me. But it just didn’t address the issue I’m interested in, which is: What’s the relationship, if any, between “error” and “authority”? What impact, if any, does being “wrong” have upon the sort of “authority” one is supposed to exercise especially when that authority is mediated precisely through what is believed to be in error, viz., what one says? I heare Mephi saying it doesn't have any impact whatsoever; the Bible can be ridden with historical and theological error without sacrificing any of its authority or uniqueness. What am I missing?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/18/2005 5:22:14 PM (GMT-6)

Tom: When I say “equally plausible” I mean “given our limited scope and understanding,” and not objectively equally plausible. “Equally plausible” is a commentary on my own epistemic state. So there’s no problem in saying truth-claim A and truth-claim B are equally plausible AND mutually exclusive. I can know enough of claim A and B to know they can’t both be true but not know enough to judge which one is in fact true. In addition, it may be the case that the little I do know (including all the deductions that follow by logical necessity from a particular view) is compatible with both claim A and claim B. But since I know they’re mutually exclusive claims I’d obviously have to admit that there is evidence out there I just haven’t yet discovered which shows one view in fact to be wrong and one to be true.

For example, take the claims “Galatians is the first-written of Paul’s NT letters” and “1Corinthians is the first-written of Paul’s NT letters.” ... But they’re only both plausible because we’re so ignorant!

Jeff:  I agree with your clarified point.  But I don't think there are many interpretations of any real importance where there is not a clear superior plausibility which is evident when a sound inductive hermeneutic is applied to the text.  And a sound inductive hermeneutic, of course, assumes a sound common-sensical view of reality in general.  I’m interested in examples to the contrary if you disagree.  Your example doesn’t particularly touch on hermeneutics.

Jeff: (earlier) That’s brings me to another logical problem I have with Scott’s view that I thought of after corresponding with him. He says God doesn’t care whether we take Genesis 1-11 as true history or not.  It’s not important. But doesn’t that mean there’s NO “true fact of the matter about theodicy” that God expects us to understand? For surely a theodicy based upon Gen. 1-11 being historical differs from other theodicies wouldn’t you say? Seems so to me.

Tom: But Scott’s point seems to be that given the evidence we have and our own limitations, logically possible and biblically consistent cases can be made for theodicies built on the literalness of Gen 1-11 and also for theodicies built on non-literal interpretations of Gen. 1-11.

Jeff:  Don’t think so.  He specifically said God doesn't CARE what we believe as to whether the text is historical or not.  And his position leads to another question.  If God doesn’t care if we believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical, does that mean that “where much is given, much is required” does not apply to “profane” knowledge?  Is God truly indifferent to me believing matters that are supposedly “demonstrably” proven false with our superior modern knowledge?  Isn't that intellecutally dishonest?  Doesn't God expect me to be rational about all knowledge?

Tom: I’m smiling because I’m guessing Doc does not take a literal view of the creation narratives. I’d guess he believes in evolution, doesn’t believe there was a literal human couple, a literal garden, a literal tree, literal fruit, a literal serpent, etc. Don’t quote me, but I’m relatively confident he takes a much more symbolic approach to the creation narratives at least. I’m not sure about chs 5-11. I haven't read up on Genesis in years, so I don’t know what reasons folks would have for reading these chapters non-literally as well. This just goes to show that taking a non-literal LITERARY approach to Gen. 1-3 doesn't mean one doesn't believe there are very literal, historial events BEHIND the text (like a literal God, a literal and "good" world, literal and historical human beings (however they got there!), historical choices, real sin, real historical consequences to sin, a real Satan, etc.). I never thought folks who take a non-literal LITERARY approach to these chapters also denied that the truths these chapters teach (about God, humanity, Satan, sin, creation, etc.) were not literally and historically true.

So those who read the creation accounts non-literally don’t claim the accounts are inaccurate. They in fact claim that what the author intends to communicate non-literally is quite accurate.

Jeff:  I realize Doc holds that the text is metaphorical.  But he derives a theodicy from it which is only legitimate if it IS historical IMO.  I say that for this reason:  language is supposed to convey meaning – whether it’s figurative or literal.  Doc says Genesis 1 is metaphorical but doesn’t tell me WHAT it MEANS.  But to plead ignorance is to admit that he has no hermeneutic which can simultaneously exegete BOTH a denial of the historic nature of that text AND the “literalness” of the “Fall” or the theodicy thereof.  A hermeneutic has to give meaning to the whole text – not pick and choose.  If you pick and choose, your EISegeting, not EXegeting.  I suspect it is Doc’s philosophical predilections that cause him to favor the theodicy that is more consistent with the historical reading of that text.  But philosophical predeliction is NOT exegesis.  Nor is it authoritative, theologically.  Although it CAN be philosophically authoritative if it can be proven philosophically.

Tom: So you’re open to the Bible being wrong on, say, the existence of God, salvation by faith, the sinless character of Christ, etc.? Is there NO belief of yours, derived from scripture, about which you’d say, “I’m not putting this on the table. Any scientific or historical evidence to the contrary is by definition inaccurate. Whatever seems to conflict with these beliefs, I believe will in the end prove to be false”?

Jeff:  What I’m saying is this.  If Genesis 1-11 is non-historical, I would find scripture to be so unlike other written texts that I would be incapable of ascertaining it’s meaning by inductive and deductive reasoning.  Would that mean that I would cease to BELIEVE things?  No.  But it would mean that I would cease to attempt to change anyone’s mind about it’s meaning.  For there to be teachers, the text must have a discernable meaning (why else were the Bereans called noble for testing Paul by searching the scriptures to see if he was right?).  But if it’s that subjective, I don’t see why my opinion about it should be relevant to you or your’s to me.  Private certainty is one thing.  Rational defensibility is another.  And the latter is what is relevant to public debate and discussion.

Tom: I hear ya. I. Howard Marshall (don’t have his book with me) complains a lot about Lk 2.1 (Caesar’s census and Quirinius’ govenorship in Syria). But there are “plausible” (!) defenses for the accusation that Luke just flat out got his history wrong. But the question arises, what if Luke WAS wrong? I hear you saying you don’t have a problem. OK. It’s a census. Big deal. But I hear you also saying it’s ALL on the table for you. You’re prepared to be convinced that any theological claim the Bible makes is false. I can’t say that. I guess my faith is too shallow!

Jeff:  I had once thought of my own solution to that one.  I’ll have to read up tomorrow to remember what my thoughts were.  I’ll get back with you on it.

Jeff, Tom is correct as to what I believe.  What I earlier tried to say (on a few occasions) is that ahistorical and historical (ie "concordist") interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are both possible, which are internally consistent and consistent with reliable mainstream science and history.  But:

Because I find that reasonable concordism needs to depart from literalism so much in order to fit with what is reliably known about science and history from the convergence of other sources,

And because I find that concordism doesn't gell with what is known about the literary genre and epistemology of the time (to which I see no reason God would not have accommodated himself) nearly as well as an ahistorical approach does,

And because I don't find concordism to be particularly necessary and valuable in constructing theology,

Therefore I bend toward some form of ahistorical approach and advocate it here.  Sorry for any confusion about my view.

Scott

PS. Responding to the last couple of sentences above: I don't see anything in scripture to suggest that God cares much about our "profane" knowledge/beliefs, or expects us to hold to certain profane theories in light of certain profane data.  The God of Greek and Enlightenment rationalism might place some moral weight on, for example, our believing by now that the earth is a planetary sphere, in light of today's overwhelming evidence.  But I don't see any concern expressed by the God of the Bible about "intellectual honesty" or any such rationalist construct.  On the other hand, what we do with our profane knowledge/beliefs, right or wrong, in relating to God and to people - that, I would say, he is as much interested in as any other moral concern.  God may not care whether people still hold to a 6-day creation and a 6,000 year old universe, but when we attribute such beliefs to his truth, making them barriers to entry and hindrances to the church's witness - that, I would suspect, he cares about.

Hey Scott.  Thanks for the clarification.  I have a couple of comments and questions for you, though.

Scott:  Therefore I bend toward some form of ahistorical approach and advocate it here.  Sorry for any confusion about my view.

Jeff:  Actually, if the text is not historical in a straightforward manner - the manner in which other biblical writers seemed to have understood it - I would agree that the ahistorical approach is superior to the excessively metaphorical concordant approaches.  Those views seem so implausible to me as to be pretty useless - even Glenn Morton's, whose previous paradigm I still somewhat adhere to.  In fact, the last time I corresponded with Mr. Morton, he showed little interest in theodicy, so I'm at a loss as to why the historicity of Adam and Eve, etc. is so important to him.  To me, the theodicy is the MORE important thing.  It's amazing how different our sense of what is important can be!

Scott:  PS. Responding to the last couple of sentences above: I don't see anything in scripture to suggest that God cares much about our "profane" knowledge/beliefs, or expects us to hold to certain profane theories in light of certain profane data.  The God of Greek and Enlightenment rationalism might place some moral weight on, for example, our believing by now that the earth is a planetary sphere, in light of today's overwhelming evidence.  But I don't see any concern expressed by the God of the Bible about "intellectual honesty" or any such rationalist construct. 

Jeff:  I think the scripture IMPLIES that we are to be reasonable people in general.  Obviously, if a Christian aborigine converted by a missionary has no knowledge that would cause him to doubt the historicity of Genesis, God would not hold him accountable to doubt it.  For where little is given, little is required.  Even atheists recognize that.  But when the information IS available, it would seem that God would expect us to incorporate that information into our worldview in the most rational manner.  Maybe I'm wrong here, but that seems pretty intuitive to me.

Scott: On the other hand, what we do with our profane knowledge/beliefs, right or wrong, in relating to God and to people - that, I would say, he is as much interested in as any other moral concern.  God may not care whether people still hold to a 6-day creation and a 6,000 year old universe, but when we attribute such beliefs to his truth, making them barriers to entry and hindrances to the church's witness - that, I would suspect, he cares about.

Jeff:  What, specifically, do you mean by the "church's witness," and how would one's belief about a 6-day creation pose a barrier to that "witness" per your understanding?

Post Edited (Starkman) : 3/19/2005 7:33:21 PM (GMT-6)

Starkman: I used to think this also, but the theology, regardless of the historicity of the account, is clear: man fell from paradise. You can't miss that. So, whether the boy who cried wolf—analogy our good brother Scott likes to use—is an historical account or not is beside the point. The language of the account, does, in fact, convey exactly what it is supposed to.

Jeff:  I can't see that.  Whether or not carnivory, for example, was originally intended by God is entirely dependent upon the historicity of the text.  You can look at it as a parable if you wish, but both Scott and Meph contend that the biblical writers most probably did NOT look at it that way.  That means they had a different hermeneutic than you, Scott, and Meph - most probably, the hermeneutic of authorial intent.  But Doc says he agrees with authorial intent - hence, his inconsistency.  This is what proves that his theodicy is more a product of philosophical need than exegesis.  And that's fine as long as one admits that and doesn't claim theological authority in one's teaching about Genesis - as long as one admits that they would believe that theodicy about carnivory whether or not Genesis 1-3 existed.  And I believe Doc WOULD believe it whether or not Genesis 1-3 existed.  Ditto for C.S. Lewis.

Starkman: An historic nature of the account is only necessary to explain the metaphor of what really happened at creation and in the garden, not, however, to explain a theodicy; that is self explanitory within the theology of the text, regardless of whether the account is historical or not.

Jeff:  If it's so self-explanatory whether or not it's historical, why do Scott and Meph not believe it?  Neither of them, as far as I can tell, agree with Doc's theodicy - that carnivory is contrary to God's original benevolent purpose. 

Starkman:  Now, if we do not hold to the account as literal, then, yes, I would submit we are at a loss to explain what really happened; the details and actual historicity of the fall. But though we may not possess a literal account, this neither negates a mythological interpretation of the text (in the utilitarian sense of the word) nor dillutes the theology. Thus, there is no eisegeting here.

Jeff:  As long as one says that a) authorial intent is not important to do true EXegesis or b) Genesis 1-11 SEEMS non-historical, I would give him/her the benefit of the doubt that he/she is doing SOME kind of textual exegesis.  But I have no idea how such a hermeneutic could exegete as opposed to eisegete.  Hence, I, personally, would be pretty uninterested in their interpretations until they gave me a detailed explanation of how it DOES work.  Recently, Meph asked Scott how to "tease" the meaning out of the text once authorial intent is abandoned.  That implies Meph doesn't know how, particularly well.  Moreover, Scott conceded a lack of detailed understanding himself.  Those concessions simply prove my point as far as I can tell.

Starkman:  I do hold that at some point man fell from perfection, but I am at a real loss, with only two to three chapters in Genesis as an explanation, to attribute the culturally rich style of the genre toward a telos affording us an accurate historicity. I don't think the author was interested in that (though he could have if that is what he wanted to do), and I don't think he had to be interested in this. I think he was much more interested in the theology, which is, most certainly, inspired and accurate.

Jeff:  But that's like saying since the end of Luke is radically shy of the detail of Acts 1, that the end of Luke is not historical.  That argument just doesn't fly.  There is simply no doubt that all biblical writers chose precisely those historical details that served their literary ends.

Starkman:  As I noted, somewhere in time, however, man did go awry; that we know. Knowledge of the details is not necessary. That he did is clear; the theology would be useless in Genesis if man has not gone awry.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 3/19/2005 8:35:22 PM (GMT-6)