Re: Schaefer's Book.

Peter

I do have grave problems and doubts about the attempts you, Glenn and others
make trying to find some CONCORD between modern science and Genesis one. The
writer had no knowledge or concern about science and beyond the fact that
God is creator of all that is and a very superficial concord (which breaks
down if we attempt any detailed harmony) there are no links between Gen 1
and science. I see Gen 1 as a hymn to god the creator put in the cosmology
of its day, and am close to Paul Seely on this..
I won't make a big issue about this as there are more important things to
worry about e.g. whether there is a God, whether the earth is ancient and
whether we are running out of oil, etc.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Schaefer's Book.

>
> George Murphy wrote:
> >Peter -
> > Simply repeating that the "firmament" & creation of celestial
> bodies on
> >the 4th Day are "misconceptions" doesn't make it so.
>
> You're right, George. I should have expressed my different conviction
> more politely. Sorry!
>
> Shalom,
> Peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
> <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
> "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 14 18:23:58 2004