> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Perrett [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:37 AM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
> Subject: RE: Adam as head + two creation accounts
> Adrian wrote: Aren't you being inconsistent, when here, you insist on
> reading every word
> literally, and yet reject the literal interpretation of days in Gen 1?
> Also note that not all fruits have seed in them.
> Don P: You're right. But consider this. How do plants that
> have no seed
> pollinate? Do you not consider this a seed? Is your seed to
> your wife not a
> seed? I guess God meant something else when it comes to your children.
> Perhaps the woman has to sit on a fruit, with seeds, for a
> while. Literal,
> is ok, but understand that in language there are differences.
> Fag in America
> is a homosexual, but in England it is a cigarette. Seed may
> not be what we
> consider it today because of connotations. This is the error
> of many. When
> one says that the Bible should be taken literal, this also
> means in context
> and considering language and culture. But, do not dismiss
> everything as
> culture and language either. Too many, not necessarily you,
> go one way or
> the other, while God wants us to go down the middle. Funny,
> it's almost like
> politics. Some are right and some are left, but the wise one
> can see through
> the mess and ends up even.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. The interpretation of seed was a side
note. I wanted to point out what appears to be an inconsistency on Mike's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 13:42:41 EDT