Concordism )
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:04:11 -0500
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
Jim,
Why don't you tell us how YOU interpret Genesis 1 to be scientifically
accurate. Is it on the same lines as Hugh Ross' Reason's to Believe
scenario? I haven't really seen your take on it, per se, just that you say
it is scientifically correct. What about angiosperms?
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
=========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jim Eisele
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:36 AM
> To: Paul Seely
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: The truth will prevail (was Re: The Fourth Day falsifies
> Concordism )
>
>
> 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 - 17:20:26 EDT