RE: Troy's two cents.

From: Don Perrett (don.perrett@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Mar 16 2002 - 13:47:32 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: Troy's two cents."

    I commend you on your position that what is important is that God is
    supreme. You bring up the point of translation. If you go to a univ library
    and find sev diff math texts, you will find that each has a diff approach in
    teaching. This does not take away from the fact that each is correct. Some
    words used in the Bible may be translated in diff ways by diff people but
    this does not take away from its accuracy. One may say half-full another
    half-empty, but they are still the same. The question of time is not
    important. With the expansion of space-time, there will be some diff in time
    dependant upon sev laws of physics. This does not mean that one day is diff
    nor the same as another. The question should be, is the sequence of Gen 1
    the same as we now begin to observe in Evol/Big Bang. Keep your faith
    strong, and mind open.
    Don P

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of Troy Elliott Eckhardt
    Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:23 PM
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Troy's two cents.

    I must confess that I have Young Earth Creationist leanings, but that I do
    not claim to have it all worked out. The workings of it all, however, are
    the be-all, end-all of neither my existence nor my salvation.

    I must also confess that I recognize only the Authorized (King James) Bible
    as scripture in English. (Do I hear feathers rustling?) There are too many
    differences between the versions for them all to be correct. I also don't
    care for, nor do I intend to initiate, a debate on this issue. I have
    debated it before, heard all of the arguments both for and against, analyzed
    the situation, and have made a personal decision. Either there is absolute
    authority, or there is not. This decision is based on my belief in the
    inspiration of the Textus Receptus over the Latin Vulgate, if you really
    want to know.

    I understand that yom (day, era, time, etc.) can mean several things when
    translated into English.

    The clincher for me in the "what is a day?" discussion is "and the evening
    and the morning were the nth day." I wonder if we cannot trust the word
    "day" in the Bible, whether we can trust the words eternal, life, atonement,
    blood, redemption, salvation, etc. My concern is that either the Bible is
    true or not. If it is not perfectly true, then I can throw it into the cult
    section of my library, which may include works and references which some of
    the readers of this forum may hold in reverence, therefore I wont name them.
    Suffice it to say that I believe the entire Bible, and I believe it
    literally. Merely because I cannot understand portions of scripture does not
    prove the fallibility of its author, conversely, it proves my own.

    I also understand that light was created on the first day, dividing light
    (Day) from darkness (Night) , but that the lights in the heaven were created
    on the fourth day. And I too wonder how there could be days and nights for
    three days without the sun.

    I also see that the Earth itself was void and without form, yet it may be
    that it existed before the works of creation on the first day.

    Aye, what a conundrum!

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:43 AM
    Subject: Days of Gen 1

    > To my YEC friends (and I really don't have anything personal
    > against you).
    >
    > Where in Gen 1 does it say that the creation days are
    > necessarily one right after the other? My NASB says
    > there was one day, a second day...not Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
    >
    > I have heard much commentary over why the text doesn't say
    > "first day." Could us modern westerners have misinterpreted
    > before we had sufficient scientific evidence?
    >
    > I realize the NIV uses "first day." Everything I have read
    > indicates the NIV translation is looser. This is not without
    > risk.
    >
    > Jim



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 13:47:38 EST