>
Hi Vernon;
You wrote to Dan;
> To insist that Genesis 1 is a 'scientific statement', and to be treated
> as such, is, I believe, incorrect. I suggest that God intended all
> generations of men to accept it verbatim as an account of how things
> began by divine fiat.
>
But to take it verbatim destroys any rationality of its message from two stand
points: 1) internally, i.e. sun on 4th day when three days have past, etc., and
2) scientifically, i.e. doesn't line up with data as we presently have.
George
--------------2270EE27C5D2B688554CAE8F
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------2270EE27C5D2B688554CAE8F--