Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bethany Sollereder" <bsollereder@gmail.com>
To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Cc: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Steve Martin"
<steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

>I am all for what Giberson says, at least, with these three thesis.
> Rejecting historical concordism in the Genesis account would lead to
> #1.

No. To say that Genesis 2 & 3 make theological statements about the first
humans is not concordism in any reasonable sense of the word.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 10:09:46 2008