FW: Re: Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1?

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 16:48:41 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: early Chr. scientists & Gould/was My Daughter is a YEC"

    Paul, as usual, makes his hand-picked quotes. Paul, I still couldn't
    pick out your primary objection to day four (other than you'd have to
    admit you were dead wrong if God intended for it to reflect history).

    Paul, you are a smart man. How can one have light and darkness, day
    and night, and evening and morning without the sun!

    Paul, this is the year 2002. It is time to stop hiding behind
    old understandings of Genesis One.

    The "solution" that you and your quotes provide begs far more questions
    than it answers.

    What is the purpose of a creation account that does not describe creation?
    Are you denying that Gen 1 reads as a creation account?
    Are you saying that Gen 2 - Revelation 22 is based on real (or future)
    history, but the very first book of the Bible isn't?

    I suppose that I will stop there. No disrespect intended. I have learned
    from you in other areas.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question
    http://genesisinquestion.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 22:08:00 EDT