RE: Days of Proclamation

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:58 AM
  To: jack syme; Asa; Glenn Morton
  Subject: Re: Days of Proclamation

  Glenn,

  This "Days of Proclamation" scenario would be so much more cogent without
the "Days." Why would God announce his plans in increments of a day?

  GRM: One can play this game for all eternity. Why would God give us a
totally untrue story of the Creation? Why would God give us a story which
requires modern literary technques to decide that it is not historical at
all? Why would God have no ability to convey to an anceint people that
evolution occurred (he did to others). One and on and on. Better go ask
God for an answer to your question.

  Whenever the ingenuous reader comes across "...the evening and the morning
were the [nth] day," he's going to interpret this as a clear demarcation.

  GRM: I would infer from this that you are not ingeneous cause you don't
believe it means a day? :-) And remember, the word day is also used as a
long period of time. This is the basis upon which the Day-Age theory is
advanced. Apparently the Hebrews didn't necessarily mean a day is a day any
more than we do in this DAY.

   The stuff that happens on one day is clearly separated by such comment
from the stuff that happens on the next day. It's an effective literary
device, and the author absolutely had to have intended it as a sharp
demarcation.

  Why he incorporated such demarcation I don't know; but because I've
regarded Genesis 1 more or less as Abraham's myth--and hence not
history--for some time now, it's not an issue for me.

  GRM: For someone for whom it isn't an issue, you sure present a long list
of arguments for literal days. :-)
Received on Wed Feb 11 07:21:53 2004