From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 19:57:04 EDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Josh Bembenek [mailto:jbembe@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:58 AM
>
>Glenn, this was precisely one of the most strongly reinforced
>messages that
>Ken Ham wanted to convey. Even further, the doctrine of a YE is critical
>for a correct understanding of the fall. Therefore the issue of
>age becomes
>a major cornerstone to one of the fundamental truths of the gospel
>message:
>the Fall. Without the fall, we don't need to be saved, etc.
>therefore the
>earth must be young. If anyone comes to the realization that the truth of
>the Fall of man is completely independent of the age of Creation, then Ken
>Ham will lose a great deal of rhetorical momentum.
Josh, you are absolutely correct here. We finally agree on something. :-)
The problem is allegorical approaches to Genesis might make the Fall
allegorical and that is one of the reasons that approach doesn't convert the
people in the pew. And given the YEC suspicion of evolution, they don't like
any approach that involve it either.
In another note you wrote:
" Many who have devoted time
and effort to closely examining Genesis are convinced that their
interpretation is just about as solid as all the evidence Glenn offers as
proof for an old earth. The difference is that they are studying God's Word
which to them should take priority over the information we can derive from a
fallen world. Just my perspective."
Correct. They place highest epistemological emphasis on what they get from
the Scripture without realizing that one cant find out how many teeth are in
a horses mouth from Scripture. By placing highest value on Scriptural
knowledge, they actually make it such that scientific evidence has no place
in their thinking.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 19:57:22 EDT