Troy Elliott Eckhardt writes, "... Personally, I do not believe that the
universe and the earth are only 10,000 years old, as many
young Earth creationists believe. I draw this conclusion not only from the
works of current cosmologists, but from the belief that the stones of fire
upon which angels walked were the Earth, their abode from which they were
outcast."
To turn the current debate into another direction (a "faint hope clause"),
what's the general view of the ASA correspondents on angels? I don't want
to turn this into a debate on the maximum possible angel density on a small,
domed, metal surface, but what we are to make of angles in general? Troy
mentions that "the stones of fire upon which angles walked." If I were to
take this in a literal sense, I end up with created beings that are subject
to gravitational attraction (they "walked") and that have feet that can
withstand high temperatures ("stones of fire").
I've renamed this subject "angels." I'm sure that there are many books
written on the subject and, if anybody can direct me to one or more that
look at the concept of angels from a more scientific viewpoint (what must
they be like, physically; do they obey "natural laws," what is the purpose
of their wings (OK for low altitudes but do they have to have hollow bones,
like the birds, and what do they do at higher altitudes, do they need to
breathe, etc.). Frankly, like many topics, I've never given angels much
thought as I've been more occupied with angles. ;-)
Shalom,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Elliott Eckhardt [mailto:SpamFilter@BizTaxPros.com]
Sent: Sunday March 17, 2002 10:18 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: YEC
I attend an independent KJV baptist church. We really don't have an
official statement about what type of creationists were are. I know that
neither the pastor nor I are theistic evolutionists. Personally, I do not
believe that the universe and the earth are only 10,000 years old, as many
young Earth creationists believe. I draw this conclusion not only from the
works of current cosmologists, but from the belief that the stones of fire
upon which angels walked were the Earth, their abode from which they were
outcast. I am also intrigued by God's commandment to Adam and Eve to
REplenish the Earth, and by the statement that the Earth was void and
without form, perhaps from a divinely induced catastrophe.
I do believe that the Earth AS WE KNOW IT, that is, the geological
formations and the species here, including Man, are young, possibly only a
few thousand years old.
Now is that what you'd call young Earth creationism, or at least some minor
departure from it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: YEC
> Walt Hicks asked about my YEC church. Another prominent
> ASAer attended this church (at least at one time).
>
> I don't go to Sunday service. From my small group, I
> hear that the current position of my church is that the
> earth is young. God just made it to look old.
>
> Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 10:45:32 EST