I agree entirely with Joel's comments, and would also ask Jim and Mike to
continue their discussions off-line.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Cannon" <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu>
To: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
Cc: <jan@dekoning.ca>; "Mike Satterlee" <MikeSatterlee@cs.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Scholasticism...ENOUGH!!!!!
> Jim, Mike:
>
> Can anyone who wishes to continue, please carry on about the
> historicity of Genesis, scholasticism, biblical estimates of the
> number of years between Adam and Jesus, and other such discussions on
> off-line? I suspect there is a large majority of silent listeners that
> agree given, for example, Allan Harvey's comments on his departure
> after many years on the list. Others may also feel along with me that
> what was a significant forum for the exchange of ideas has been
> highjacked by what seem to us to be meaningless discussions. I am
> close to following Allan after something like 8 years on the list.
>
> Jan's statement that Mike's reading of the bible is strange speaks for
> many of us (he has said the same in so many words for your reading,
> Jim). No doubt our readings of the bible seem equally strange to you
> two. The fact is that we live in two (or more) different intellectual
> universes and have much different outlooks on science, scripture, etc.
> that makes the prospect of useful dialogue so unlikely that we do not
> wish to attempt it, and we wince when someone else does. One only
> needs to look at you all's responses to Jan, someone who has a
> significant theological background, and whose input has been respected
> over the years to confirm this.
>
> Several months ago, Jim, you mentioned formation of your own chat
> room (listserv?). That might be a better forum for you all. You could
> invite anyone else that is interested to go with you.
>
>
> Jan, George, David, and others: Would you please resist the temptation
> to respond to these sorts of discussions. Your words will not be
> heard. It only fans the flames of fruitless discussions when you do.
>
>
> >
> > Jan writes
> >
> > >In my Bible it simply stated that the Israelites were 430 years in
Egypt.
> >
> > Yes, Jan, that is exactly what it states. The Bible makes a "big fuss"
> > about the arrival of Israel and his sons in Egypt. I am in full
> > agreement with you here.
> >
> > >but I must say, that your reading of the Bible is strange.
> >
> > This needed to be said.
> >
> > Mike is largely correct with his Bible chronology.
> > He writes, among other things
> >
> > >You better red Gal. 3:17 again.
> >
> > Mike, you need to do a much better job of taking context into
> > consideration. 3 out of 3 (haven't checked my fourth yet) Bible
> > commentaries have backed the 430 years being time in Egypt.
> >
> > A recent post mentioned how silly Bible inerrancy can be if we
> > are just going to butcher interpretation.
> >
> > Stick with Bible chronology disproving YEC. Leave the "numbers
> > games" to the lottery people. While I'm writing, Bible chronology
> > also disproves any creation theories placing Adam before 5,000-4,000 BC.
> >
> > How about using your considerable skills and intellect to push
> > non-Biblical interpretations off the cliff (or into outer space) where
> > they belong?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- > Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146 > Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu > Washington and Jefferson College | > Washington, PA 15301 | > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 12:40:16 EDT