[Dataman]

I've requested the book via ILL and will review it. I trust you realize that academic discourse deals with varying degrees of probability and that it is not wise to blithely toss about the accusation of "speculation." Even the most tightly demonstrated and argued position, with evidence that will choke a cow, can be dismissed as "speculation" by those whose minds are closed.

You won't be disapponted in the wealth of information you find in the book. Regarding the speculation, since at least the days of Tubingen, the Bible has been assumed wrong until proven right. Almost all other ancient lit is assumed to be more reliable inspite of the trainload of supporting scriptural mss. It has survived baseless criticism for thousands of years and has been found to be in error only by fiat. Higher criticism has been hammered --by legit scholarship-- for the past 150 years and is now flatter than a Texas road armadillo.

[Remole]

I can assure you that I am not in the camp of those who assume the Bible is wrong until proven right. My perspective on the Genesis Flood account is NOT to figure out if the Bible is "true" from an historical or geological analysis. Rather, my interest is in the truth of the theological message; and that message can be clearly seen--perhaps MORE clearly seen--when one reads it in light of the Ancient Near East texts that resemble it (notice that I did not say "parallels").