[The following is the latest post in an ongoing discussion with the Evangelutionist aka Touchstone over at Triablogue. I began commenting here, then here, then here, and finally here. But it'd probably be best to start here and work your way to the latest discussion.]
Hi Touchstone,
Thanks again for the comment. I appreciate it.
However, I have to say, you’ve unfortunately not given me a whole lot to work with here as far as an argument for why Genesis (or at least Genesis 1-3) should not be considered historical narrative. Or the alternate argument that it should be considered allegory. So I can’t really respond simply because there’s not much to respond to or work with.
But I can still make a couple of points:
I can’t but shrug and wonder why Kurt Wise thinks Genesis is *monolithic*, and should be considered homogeneously historical or allegorical right across its face. Surely he, and you are familiar with any number of textual analysis of Genesis that divide up the book into much smaller chunks, each of which have different dispositions as to their expressive form.
Dr. Wise doesn’t argue for an across the boards “monolithic” or “homogenous” reading of Genesis. His argument is much more nuanced.
Many exegetes carve of Gen 1-11 as being primarily allegorical, then pivoting from there forward into a more historical mode. Others slice the allegory at Gen 3