> I have a bone to pick,
>
> >1a. Recent Creation: Appearance of Youth.
> > The Genesis 1-2 account of creation is literally historically true; the
>
> <snip...>
>
> >2a. Progressive Creation with Special Creation of Each Lifeform.
> > The earth and the universe are several billion years old. At various
>
> You have set up a situation where, if you do not believe that the creation
> is recent, then you do not believe that Genesis 1-2 is literally
> historically true. I would think that many in this group would disagree
> with you (including myself). I am afraid I didn't read the rest. I
> couldn't get past this point.
Sorry about that. "Sewing terseness often reaps confusion."
I know that many PCs (and one or two TEs) argue (convincingly) that their
position IS a "literally historically true" reading of Genesis 1-2.
The Hebrew terms, IMO, do allow for this.
On the other hand, a fair number of PCs do NOT hold to a "literally
historical" hermeneutics of Genesis 1-2, or at the very least say that it
is not _necessary_.
YEC positions have a fairly uniform Genesis hermeneutics, so I mentioned it.
PC and TE positions have a range of Genesis hermeneutics among their
advocates, so I said nothing about it those definitions.
I should edit my definitions to avoid confusion in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I made no attempt to be innacurate, |
but I want to make it clear that I | Loren Haarsma
was not attempting to be precise." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Josh Steiner, Treasure Dept. Chief of Staff |