essay wrote: Well, caf, of course I believe the sources I cited. The EB, EJ, AB. The fact that Ben considers Asimov 'no Bible scholar' is his own opinion. His (IA's) 'Guide to the Bible' is quite good, tho' admitedly somewhat superficial due to the limitations of size, which were probably imposed by his publisher, and this may be part of the reason why he wrote two additional books on Genesis. I could have checked 5 or 10 additional scholarly sources, all of which would have said pretty much the same things.

Yes, they would have said pretty much the same thing, which has little in common with what you've said. No list of original sources, because there isn't one, it's become a notion handed down as though it were all settled a hundred years ago, a tradition of liberal theologians, but also no references to "cribbing" or "plagiarizing" or "not one original word." You certainly are generous to Asimov. You should try the same generosity sometime toward someone who actually believes the Bible and actually has a clue what it is about and how it is organized. F. F. Bruce would be a sufficient start.

essay wrote: Asking me to do personal research on the topic, in a country where books in English, not to mention my time, are severely limited, is rather disingenuous. A choice between the EB-EJ-AB-IA alliance and your prejudices is no choice at all.

So, since you're in Germany, unsupported opinions, misrepresentations, over generalizations and vitriolic comments are legitimate and should be accepted? Your closing claim here is an odd twist considering what you have stated and repeated over and over again, as also quoted repeatedly in my own requests for the sources you claim to have. Again, none of the books you cite supply what you've said, they supply no list of myths or pagan sources from which Genesis 1-2 was copied, nor do they use words like "plagiarized" or "cribbed". I challenged your own claims, and your own statement that the pagan originals were right there in the library where you connect, and could be read anytime. How was that disingenuous? However, when you suggest that I am being unreasonable by asking you to produce the very thing you said you have available, or else give an honest acknowledgment, you are indeed being disingenous. I'll echo your statement regarding prejudice though, a choice between the Holy Spirit's alliance of Moses, the Prophets, and the New Testament versus your favorite scholars and their prejudices is no choice at all.

essay wrote:I have enjoyed the exchange - I think I'll end it here because 1. we have reached and passed the point of repetition and 2. as you may have noticed, there's a new participant who simply wishes to hurl insults while contributing nothing, which is annoying and, I think, demeans the purpose of the forum.

I will check back from time to time, however, looking for your long-promised tretise on Gen 1 and 2. I can't wait to learn whether God created the animules before Man or vicey versey. You are truly a poster boy for Fundamentalist anti-intellectualism.

Yes, do end it here. Do you often have problems with mood swings? Nevermind. It's swell that you've enjoyed the exchange. As I've suggested before, someday you should make the effort to learn what a Fundamentalist is, but why bother you with facts when you'd rather use labels?

essay wrote: 'Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent account of the character, power, and works of God.' Absolutely, and I'm glad we can end on a point of agreement.

Ah, Susan, at least in terms of Scripture, you are a romantic to the end.
romantic
adj 1: belonging to or characteristic of romanticism or the Romantic movement in the arts; "romantic poetry" [syn: romanticist, romanticistic] 2: expressive of or exciting sexual love or romance; "her amatory affairs"; "amorous glances"; "a romantic adventure"; "a romantic moonlight ride" [syn: amatory, amorous] 3: not sensible about practical matters; unrealistic; "as quixotic as a restoration of medieval knighthood"; "a romantic disregard for money"; "a wild-eyed dream of a world state" [syn: quixotic, wild-eyed] n 1: a soulful or amorous idealist 2: an artist of the romantic period or someone influenced by romanticism [syn: romanticist] [ant: classicist]