frankispeakin
They are incoherent to "you" they weren't incoherent to the original audience to whom they were address. We must remember the original audience. I think it was pretty self-explanatory in my statements.
Your argument implies there was clear understanding of, say, the prohecies of Daniel, Jesus and John, when they were written.
There was no such thing. There still IS no such thing. They are apparently meant to contain coded symbolic accounts of the future that would be understood in their due time.
If parts of the Bible were meant to be understood in their due time and were not understood when they were written, your argument fails, and it raises the question WHY were the creation accounts not written in the same way?
What greater evidence of divine authorship could you ask for than an account that would have been impossible for the writer to conceive, but when read with modern knowledge would be an explantion of the big bang, stellar and galactic formation, planetary formation and gravity and the development of life on Earth that matched modern scientific understanding?
You also forget that you are placing the comprehension and belief of a few thousands or tens of thousands of Israelites as of greater importance than the comprehension and belief of billions of people today. You are forgetting that many of these people would allegedly have seen things that proved there was a god; a privelege that we don't have today. Why do they get all the breaks and billions of modern humans get none?
I deliberately stayed away anything too precisely scientific (such as orbit durations etc.) in my faux-Genesis. They're not needed to give proof of divine authorship. I think that is why you've critiqued Alan's, but not mine - Alan F can flatten me with his level of knowledge about evolution and many other areas, but I think I'm better at faking (or collating) creation accounts! (sorry Alan F )
I think my one illustrates the point very well, and I think its language and symbology would not render it useless to the original target audience, whilst giving clear indication of inspiration to a modern one.
So, you say it seems silly because it was written for Bronze Age patoralists, and that a account that would not be silly to us would be useless to them. I feel I've refuted that statement and look forward to your rebuttal.
I was looking forward to mattkoo's rebutall, but I have a feeling mattkoo bit of more than he could chew... yet another hit-and-run igevoltuionist who assures us evolution is wrong, has every piece of cut and paste counter evolutionary argument shot from underneath them, and doesn't have the courtesy to even respond.
I think you have made a mistake in the way you've handled frenchbabyface frankie... and you were warned about it too, so you'll get no help from me...
