On the other hand, a view that 'understates the distinctness of the creation of man and women' is anthropologically deficient. Precision in the word 'kind' is no exclusive preserve of one particular branch of scientist or scholars. It would be kind if people were kinder to each other. We should just as likely then call upon ethicists as upon geologists for their views of what 'kind' (or for that matter, what evolution) means?
Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
David
This is a false polarisation and a mis-reading of Genesis. I t tries to make Genesis describe God's mode of creation and not that he was the Creator. It allows no accommodation to the thought of the day , assumes that there is precision to the word "kind", overstates the distinctness of the creation of man and woman. No wonder some think men have fewer ribs than women!
Michael
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 11:23:57 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 10 2006 - 11:23:58 EDT