Mark

pinklight

i do not believe the two different accounts of creation contradict each other. Nor do i believe in the hype of source criticism and the like. However to adopt an over literal view which is what you and Cheryl are promoting, naturally comes into problems, namely the issue about when animals were created. If i remember correctly i think what Cheryl saids is this must be one half of the species (i.e the males or females) and the other gender is what is in view in Gen 1.

The simple fact is they are two seperate accounts with different emphasis. Gen 1 is an overview, Gen 2-3 is a more precise analysis of the human/God relationships and the fall. They are not intended to be understood over-literally.

However it seems to be that Cheryl thinks to not accept the over literal view equals liberalism. The problem with this, is that evangelicalism supports what i am saying not the over literal interpretation.

Anyway maybe we should proceed to another of my points.