Re: The YEC's have won

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'asa'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: The YEC's have won

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:28 PM\
>
>>
>> > Having long advocated that the only way one can stay within
>> the data
>> > of modern science and at the same time preserve any shred of
>> > historicity to Genesis, one must move Adam way way back in time. I
>> > prefer further than H. erectus, but few dare tread where I do.
>>
>> A revealing statement. Does this mean that we don't need to preserve
>> historicity but only "a shred" of it? How much is "a shred"?
>>
>> FWIW, I think a lot of us who don't think we should take the route of
>> historical concordism would still say that early Genesis
>> contains at least
>> "a shred" of historical data. But maybe our shreds aren't big enough.
>>
>> Happy Easter . Christos aneste!
>
> Happy Easter, Christ is Risen
>
> You and I differ quite significantly on how we define historicity and
> have debated it many times. History is what actually happened not a
> meta-story about metaphysics. At least that is how I define it.

As my daughter (now 34 & expecting our 2d ghrandchild at any moment) used to
say at the age of 3 when an expplanation wasn't going fast enough for her,
"I know dat."

I think that there were some group of humans that were "the first" & that 2
of the rivers of Gen.2 are ones I can locate on the map. My point in noting
that is not that that's a great deal of historical info but that it's at
least as much of a "shred" as conjectures that our ancestors a few million
years ago _might have_ done some things that correspond roughly to the
accounts in Genesis.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Mar 26 23:08:38 2005