John Doyle’s Genesis 1 as ‘Truth Myth’ post has generated some excellent discussion, but it is getting a bit overgrown. I have taken a couple of cuttings off the branch and transplanted them, mainly because I felt that freespirit’s contributions were taking the discussion in a rather different (and somewhat cabbalistic) direction:
Wisdom, understanding and knowledge
Wisdom, spirit and creation
There are links to these posts from the original thread. They raise a very different set of questions about how we interpret scripture, which I think should be addressed separately. I hope freespirit sees this as a constructive and respectful editorial move.
It’s always a problem with a discussion-based site like this to keep things reasonably coherent. It’s important to keep in mind, though, that these conversations are not just for the benefit of the participants. As far as possible we should help anonymous readers to follow the arguments, which means keeping one eye on continuity, consistency, clarity, and probably many other things beginning with ‘c’. By all means go off at a tangent, but consider starting a new thread.
Could I also take this opportunity to ask contributors to avoid posting directly from Word if at all possible. Either use the built-in editor or a simple RTF editor such as Wordpad. If you’re using Firefox, the Xinha here add-on offers a convenient way to put html formatted text into text boxes. I would add that overenthusiastic use of bold face and underlining generally detracts from the argument. Basically, keep the formatting as simple as possible.
Anyway, thanks for your consideration. I’ll try not to disrupt the flow of things too much.
Re: On editorial intervention
Andrew,
That seems like a good idea. I’m prepared to respond to Peter’s latest comment, but I see that his and my most recent remarks have been appended to freespirit’s post. Should I place my comment there, following Peter’s, or back in the True Myth string? If the latter, should some of the preceding comments be moved back to the original track so that the train of thought can continue chugging along relatively smoothly? Either way is fine with me. I’ll post immediately after Peter’s last comment — if you decide to reroute I think I can find my way back on board.
Re: On editorial intervention
OK, I’ve reorganized the comments again. Your recent response to Danutz about myth 3 and exchange with Peter is back here. I hope I haven’t mangled things too much.