Re: Genesis in cuneiform on tablets

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 14:38:11 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: conservation of information"

    Paul, I give you tons of credit for your intellectual integrity
    and hard work. If that could create a heaven, it would get you in.
    I'm afraid that you'll have to settle for respect from your fellow
    humans who know your work. And, from an ethical standpoint, I
    applaud your resistance to the YEC farce (it is much more powerful
    coming from a Christian).

    << My "faith" in day-age was based on a deep assumption
      that the "God" who created the universe was the same "God" behind
      the Bible. >>

    >To be a little more accurate, this should read, "My "faith" in day-age was
    >based on a deep assumption that the "God" who created the universe was the
    >same "God" behind the Bible AND that he would not accommodate the
    revelation
    >of himself as sovereign creator to the scientific beliefs of the times, but
    >only in agreement with scientific truth." It is in fact this latter
    >unbiblical assumption, not the former assumption, which was falsified by
    the
    >facts that Jim found and that led to the unraveling of his faith.

    I deeply respect the honesty of this position. I sharply differ with
    the logic. I really don't know where to begin. Off the top of my head,
    I'd estimate there are dozens of arguments against this position.

    For the sake of discussion, the one that comes to the front of my mind
    is that an omnipotent, truthful God would not have worded Gen 1 in the
    way that it is worded. A Hebrew religious writer? Now that makes sense.

    Paul, the text says 6 days. Everybody knows it. This is not accommodation.
    It is presentation (made up, uninspired despite it's "theological merit").

    I really could go on and on about all of the different ways that a real
    god would have inspired the Genesis writer. Your position, though
    respectfully honest, is not tenable. It represents "the best that we can
    do if we assume the resurrection" happened. Without the resurrection
    assumption, Genesis gets discarded as just another myth a long time ago.
    I guess that's enough for now.

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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 21 2002 - 23:41:29 EST