Hi Troy. Thanks for bringing up relevant issues.
>The workings of it all, however, are
>the be-all, end-all of neither my existence nor my salvation.
I completely agree.
>>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.<<
My belief is in the inerrancy of the original autographs.
>My concern is that either the Bible is true or not.
Fantastic logic. Thank you for bringing this up. Why would God
make the Bible, say 98.3% true?
>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.
Another great point. As always, I recommend Ruest & Held's
Genesis Reconsidered on ASA website for a "match" between science
and the Bible. You can't have days and nights 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.
I see Gen 1:1 as bold statement (as opposed to trying to prove the
existence of God). I see Gen 1:2 as a description of early earth.
If I may, this fits evolution. The earth started out with no life,
and then hosted increasingly complex life forms. Coincidence?
>Aye, what a conundrum!
All the evidence points to Gen 1 being a "quick, snapshot" match of
creation.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 15:10:24 EST