Paul writes
>So, listen up, Jim, there IS a consensus about the meaning of Day 4
>and therein concordism as a whole.
Paul, you began your post by talking about what a bunch of very dead
people thought about Genesis. Not folks who died yesterday. But, rather
folks who have been dead for hundreds and hundreds of years. Paul, this
is simply silly. People back then didn't know as much as we do now. How
could they possibly have known the true meaning of Genesis?
>It is that the Bible is saying the sun did not exist as a functioning body
until
>the fourth day.
If you could summarize your argument, we would have something that we
could discuss. Trying to blitz me with references only muddies the
waters.
>Concordism is to the biblical
>data what creation "science" is to the scientific data. For the sake of a
>"private interpretation," they both suppress light.
The same could be said of your interpretation. But, you're still
fun to debate :).
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 16:48:39 EDT