RE: Glenn's comment

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 19:51:20 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "RE: Glenn's 3rd comment"

    Glenn wrote, after summarizing two of the multitude of mankind's creation

    "I think it is very important that you answer the question of the
    truthfulness of the creation stories above--are they to be treated on par
    with the Biblical account or are they fairy tales, or are they real
    of what happened, or are they God's revelation to man?"

    5. They are ancient myths.

    It happens that the Genesis stories were the ones understood by the people
    2000 or so years ago from whom we got the scriptures. The people mentioned
    in those scriptures necessarily dealt with the stories their audience (and
    they) were familiar with. As we Christians take the events of the cross
    seriously enough to base our lives upon it -- we are necessarily going to
    have to accept those stories as part of the stuff people of that day were
    familiar with.

    I really sympathize with your concern to find solid verifiable evidence of
    at least some of the events mentioned in Genesis 1-11. As you, I'd be
    delighted. I just don't have to have that kind of evidence; it does not
    seem very important to me.

    You asked for an example of a "conservative writer" who accepts an ancient
    earth. I suspect that your definition of "conservative writer" is one who
    asserts a young earth, so obviously I cannot do that. I'd consider Ramm a
    conservative, but I guess you would not. It's a matter of definition.

    Burgy (Why is it EVERYTIME I post to you, you respond almost immediately? <
    G >)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 19:51:51 EST