RE: Genesis & sacramental texts

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 22:56:30 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Black Sea Flood"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of george murphy
    >Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:01 AM
    >bivalve wrote:
    >> The Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to the "light of nature"
    >> (as well as many arguments from Scripture) to support the contention
    >> that transubstantiation is incorrect. This use of physical evidence
    >> to support a less literalistic interpretation seems like a good
    >> parallel for the appeal to physical evidence in interpreting Genesis
    >> 1. My only attempt so far at applying this reasoning had an already
    >> unreceptive audience, so I cannot tell if it is likely to sway others.
    > This is an interesting analogy. I had not thought of this before
    >but there is some similarity between transsubstantiation and "apparent
    >age" arguments for YEC. In fact it might be possible to cast the latter
    >in Aristotelian form by saying that the substance of creation is ~6000
    >years old but that its accidents give the appearance of billions of years
    >of age.

    George, isn't this just a gussied up version of the appearance of age
    argument? What is the difference between that and what Henry Morris says?


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 15:01:28 EDT