<p>Dick -</p><p>1) I don't know what point your trying to make in relation to my comments. What camel? What lack of positivity? We agree that Genesis & evolution are compatible, although in different ways, & thus stand over against Wells.</p><p>2) It is simply false to suggest that all those who don't read early Genesis as historical narrative have come to that position because they were seeking an escape route. Are you unable to see how someone could come to the honest (albeit in your view mistaken) conclusion that texts are better understood in other ways?</p><p>3) It is ludicrous to suggest that biblical scholars like Westermann, von Rad, or (as Ted noted) Hyers have not "bothered to cast a glance at the history of the Ancient Near East in connection with the creation accounts."</p><p>Shalom,</p><p>George</p><p>> > > Hi George, you wrote: > > > > 3) > It is rather odd for > people who think </p><p>that ideas abou!
t creation are central to their Christian > faith to not want to take the time to look into evolutionary theory & > the work of theologians who have dealt with it in a positive way. > > > > Okay, the camel’s nose got under the tent so it was > invited to dinner. I’d hardly call that “positive.” > I would submit that the Genesis chapters have been thoroughly misunderstood by > both camps, by those who tried to take it literally and by those who sought > escape routes. If either camp had bothered to cast a glance at the > history of the ancient Near East in conjunction with the creation account then > that could have had some positive results. Who bothered? > > > > > > Dick Fischer > > Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association > > Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and > History > > www.genesisproclaimed.org > > > > > > </p><p />
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 30 11:27:22 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 30 2007 - 11:27:22 EST