Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: Howard J. Van Till (
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 20:45:18 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Why methodological naturalism?"

    >From: "Jim Eisele" <>

    > In response to claims that the Bible comes strikingly close to matching
    > science, Howard van Till writes
    >>Having studied these things for nearly half a century, I don't think I'm
    > making hasty judgments.
    > Howard, that's a smoke screen, and you know it. Please tell me where
    > science doesn't = Genesis One. Show me the light! -Jim

    Sorry, Jim, sweet talk will get you nowhere. I'm not going to do your work
    for you and write a short version of what I have already invested years of
    effort to write. My answer to your question is in the following:

    1. Howard J. Van Till, THE FOURTH DAY: What the Bible and the Heavens are
    Telling us about the Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). Subject
    matter: the nature and relationship of biblically-informed portrayals and
    empirically-informed scientific descriptions of the universe's formational
    history, with applications to the contemporary creation-evolution debate.
    (copies available from or

    2. PORTRAITS OF CREATION: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the
    World's Formation, by Howard J. Van Till, Robert E. Snow, John H. Stek and
    Davis A. Young (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). This work was the product of
    a year-long collaborative study at the Calvin Center for Christian
    Scholarship. (available at or

    Howard Van Till

    (By the way, I quit smoking over 30 years ago :)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 20:58:49 EST