On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Steven Fawl wrote:
>
> > 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 |
>