Cheryl Schatz

Dave said:

And because you are claiming that some words (or at least a word) in Gensis is not “actual” Cheryl has likened your methadology to liberal methadology (I do not think Cheryl has called you a liberal).

Thanks for understanding me, Dave. Yes, this is exactly what I was doing. I saw the methodology as akin to liberalism. Now I am wondering if I am wrong. Maybe it is more of a postmodern thought process where there is no concern for the literal but only the aura of the story. This allows everyone to have their own view of what is said because the literal words are not really important since they are only there to facilitate a story and a feeling not anything that we can put to the test literally by the context.