Featured The Historicity of Adam: how important?

Thanks for corrdting me on that aspect of His views regarding genesis.

 

he fits it into a Framework of using myth to tell real events...

 

IMHO, if you dismiss the B-E-G-I-N-N-I-N-G of "whatever" as not true (by whatever means - fable, allegory, too "complicated for the audience", distorted oral history, or whatever destroys the literal meaning) when there is no given indication to not accept as literal truth, then you have just destroyed any future worth of that "whatever" as nothing is exempt from "un-literalizing" the rest of it!

 

Bottom line is that both jesusand paul spoke of it as being true historiacl account of real history and real events and persons...

 

LOL. He's just saying he doesn't know science well enough to refute the arbitrary presuppositions and the debilitating weaknesses in the scientists' own Naturalistic theories to argue with them, so he tries to render Genesis 1 irrelevant to natural history.

If the mechanism they offer requires the falsification of a point in the Genesis account we can safely reject it. If their mechanism requires the heavenly bodies to be formed before the earth is formed, then it can definitely be discounted on the basis of Genesis 1. If their mechanism requires Adam and Eve to have progenitors, then it can on the basis of Genesis 1 be discounted.

The problem doesn't lay anywhere in Genesis.

 

The basic problem is that he wants to have the scriptures be able to teach to us evolutionary process and extreme old age, so he wants "accepted scientific facts" to override scripture!