--- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote (To George):
>And if you don't like my views, develop a competing set which would allow an
>alternative reading of the Bible which would give the Bible historical
>truth like Dick is trying to do. The fact that you won't try is evidence
>that you don't believe the Bible can be observationally true. Thus, my
>statement yesterday that you want it to be observationally false stands. If
>you didn't want it that way, you would work to change the situation. That
>is what people do when they don't like the status quo--they try to change
>it.
I think this is faulty reasoning, Glenn. There are more things for Christians
to do than try to develop interpretations of Genesis that match scientific
knowledge. One has to prioritize. I appreciate your and Dick's efforts, but I
couldn't live on a steady diet of your and Dick's efforts alone. George has
valuable insights, and I would rather see him continue to develop and flesh out
his insights than spend a lot of time developing a scientifically respectable
reinterpretation of Gen 1-11.
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 20 07:37:19 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 20 2006 - 07:37:20 EDT