I wouldn't get quite so excited, Jim. It can be a lonely island and not
a very important one. As George and others have pointed out, the
significant part of Christianity is Jesus Christ. While I happen to read
Genesis One this way, I don't thank that it is a very important
theological issue. I recognize that it might be wrong and that would
have zero impact on my core beliefs.
Walt
Jim Eisele wrote:
>
> I am not trying to "form an alliance" to vote everyone else off the island.
> But Walter has done it again!!! I read up to "astronauts" and got very
> convicted.
> Did this happen to anyone else?? -Jim (thank you, thank you, thank you
> Walter)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: Jim Eisele
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things
> previously)
>
> Before anyone gets too excited, someone corrected me on the usage of the
> phrase "jump my bones". That part is retracted.
>
> Back in the late 60's, Eric Von Daniken wrote a book called "Chariots of
> the Gods?". I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS BOOK!. However, the author voices the
> opinion that humans were visited by astronauts and they were told by
> them how the earth and humanity came about. As best they could, they
> remembered this story and repeated it from generation to generation.
> They wrote it down when they had learned how to write. (A recent
> Discovery Channel presentation attributed the first books of the Bible
> to Moses since he learned to write in Egypt.)
>
> Replace the astronauts with God or the HS and is this not a credible
> story?
>
> Walt
>
> Jim Eisele wrote:
> >
> > Hi Walter. I've only read the the first few words of your post. But
> you're
> > now my best e-mail friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 4:55 PM
> > To: Jim Eisele
> > Cc: phseely@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things
> > previously)
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > So that you will not feel 100% alone, I have always thought of Genesis
> > One as amazingly close to what current science has to say. I don't
> > consider it to be a science textbook, but the general structure is
> > something that strikes me as something quite unexpected from a culture
> > thousands of years old. I may be wrong but I think that other cultures
> > were far removed from anything like this and had rather bizarre outlooks
> > by modern standards. In fact, as recently as the fifties (when I was in
> > college), The big bang was ridiculed as something that was adopted only
> > by non atheists who believed in "a beginning" to the universe. When the
> > background radiation was discovered, Jastro(?) noted that when
> > astronomers climbed to the top of mountain of discovery, they found it
> > inhabited by philosophers who had been there for thousands of years. (or
> > something like that).
> >
> > I have always taken Genesis One to indicate some degree of "insider
> > knowledge". They often jump my bones for that attitude.
> >
> > I may not be correct, but at least I am company.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > Jim Eisele wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul. In Gen 1:1 and concordism (was Apology) you wrote
> > >
> > > >Preach God as a Father caring enough to speak to his little children in
> > > terms of their pre-understanding.
> > >
> > > Thanks for that remark. It fits beautifully.
> > >
> > > I wanted to at least respond to that much. We may disagree about
> Genesis
> > > One, but I have no argument with that.
> > >
> > > As far as your comments about Genesis One, I haven't had time to fully
> > > review them yet.
> > > One quick thought, though.
> > >
> > > You wrote
> > >
> > > >Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth." is taken by most
> > scholars
> > > >today as either an introductory title or summary covering the entire
> > > creation
> > > >story down to 2:4
> > >
> > > Most, perhaps, but not all. And have scholars ever been wrong before?
> I
> > > haven't studied all the work of all the scholars. But could "God
> created
> > > the heavens and the earth" simply mean that God created the heavens and
> > the
> > > earth? I don't want to disrespect scholarship, I just want to debate
> that
> > > notion.
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm starting to realize that we
> > have
> > > more in common than I thought. -Jim
> >
> > --
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 15:51:22 EST