From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 10:41:21 EST
At 10:53 PM 25/10/2003 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>"What puzzles me is the number of purportedly respectable academics who
>support young earth creation - specifically ICR."
>
>Yes, Burgy, I can well understand your frustration with these infidels and
>sense your leaning toward a gulag-like solution to the problem, as you see
>it. But I suggest the _real_ problem lies elsewhere: on your own doorstep,
>in fact. For it is clear to me that like many on this list you are content
>to base your beliefs on a selected _subset_ of the available data. As a
>result, your interpretation of what you do accept is inevitably skewed, and
>valueless.
Vernon, you should be careful with what you are saying. The sentences
above condemn you as well in that you are apparently not quite enough
knowledgeable about the literature studying the first 11or 12 chapters of
Genesis. I have referred in the past to a study-report commissioned by the
Chr. Reformed Church and published in their 1991 Acts of Synod about these
chapters. I could also refer to a book written (in Dutch) by my uncle J.
de Koning in 1940 about the El-Amarna tablets and the Old Testament. Also,
I mentioned before on this forum that the fact that a word in Gen. 1: 21
translated differently than in Gen. 2:7 in many translations should also
put up some warning signs.
So, I suggest that you study Genesis in the original language before making
unsustainable claims about Scripture. I do not want to be involved again
in this discussion, but it is a bit annoying that every half year or so
this discussion has to be re-discussed. Many commentaries have been
written about Genesis in the last 200 years (and even before that) , even
from before the discussions surrounding evolution, which point out a
different way of reading Gen. than you prefer.
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 27 2003 - 10:37:28 EST