Re: [asa] RATE revisited

And there are tons of OEC commentaries that deal with grammar, etc. -- e.g.
Blocher's "In the Beginning," C. John Collins' commentary on Gen. 1-4,
Walton's NIV Application Commentary, David Snoke's recent book. Not to
mention broader genre studies like Conrad Hyers' "The Meaning of Creation."
It's all been done very well, many times.

The overall exchange in PSCF seemed very well done. If anything, I thought
the reply to the Rate team's response was more restrained than it needed to
be.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

> That's a fair point, Don. It's not the grammatical usage that is the issue
> but the implications of it. That's what needs to be addressed. More
> generally, YEC is at core an issue of biblical interpretation, not a
> scientific debate and I was just trying to say that we've focused solely
> on
> the scientific aspects of RATE rather than the biblical interpretation.
> But
> in a way, that may be the way it should be since the primary claim of RATE
> is to have "discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the
> Bible says about the young earth."
>
> Randy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] RATE revisited
>
>
> > Randy:
> > I would be wary about getting involved with that. One problem lies in
> > the disparity between that and the rest of the RATE research.
> > My comments are based on Chapter 10 of "Thousands .. Not Billions" by
> Don
> > deYoung, reporting research by Steven Boyd.
> > The material can hardly be described as theological. Rather, it is very
> > limited. It involves a formal use of a statistical method to show that
> the
> > grammatical aspect of the word usage in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is typical of
> > narrative passages rather than poetic passages. But nobody has
> questioned
> > that. Indeed, the use of the waw-consecutive construction is enough to
> > show that. Boyd then makes a huge non sequitur in claiming that the
> > narrative passage has to be historical. Thus Boyd's research is actually
> > irrelevant to the RATE research with radioisotopes.
> > Don
> >
> > Randy Isaac wrote:
> >> Most of you will have received your March 2008 issue of PSCF by now.
> >> International recipients may take a little longer. The exchange of
> >> letters with the RATE team was unfortunately constrained by space.
> >> Therefore, we created a webpage to provide more indepth analysis. If
> >> you're interested, the website is here. We hope to add material as
> >> appropriate.
> >>
> >> In particular, I'd be interested in adding theological material. So
> far,
> >> we focused only on the science. Yet someone should address the RATE
> teams
> >> biblical interpretation. Their chapter on that topic contributed a
> >> detailed statistical analysis of verb-form usage to show that Genesis 1
> >> had to be interpreted as a historical narrative and therefore literal.
> If
> >> any of you know good material to address that, please let me know.
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 20:24:05 2008