At 10:19 AM 11/20/98 -0700, John W Burgeson wrote:
>"From the above I can draw the conclusion that God did NOT create the
>heavens and the earth in the beginning as the non-factual (or factually
>erroneous) Bible says?"
>That conclusion CAN be drawn, of course, but only by assuming that the
>account is not truthful.
>If one assumes the account is both truthful and non-factual, i.e. truth
>in the form of a literary device, one must conclude
>1. God created
>2. God cares for humanity
>and no doubt more than that.
>What you are doing, Glenn, is assuming non-factual equates to
>What others of us are doing is not assuming that.
No, what I am doing is pointing that Genesis 1:1 can not be factually true,
if God didn't create the heavens and the earth. If God didn't create the
heaens and the earth, then God's relationship to the universe is NOT
creator to created. But IF he created it all, then his relationship with
the universe is one of creator to created. But if He created, then Genesis
1:1 is factually true.
What I am trying unsuccessfully to point out that Genesis 1:1 MUST be
factually true if it is a description of the relationship of God with the
universe. And it can't be a description of the relationship if it isn't
factually true. This to me proves that at least the first verse in the
Genesis 1-11 passage is true--factually true. So why do we reject the
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information