>Indeed, it was Jesus who
>taught that divinely inspired Scripture can and does include
>concessions to hardened hearts,
Loren, I think you have summed up Paul Seely's position nicely.
And, I thank you for contributing to the discussion. I liked
the "flavor" of your post. I read it as "Let's not forget these
guys were writing thousands of years ago." Certainly. Absolutely.
Positively. And, without a question.
Sadly, your post was simply too long for me to respond to more than
a fraction of it. For my part at "peace" I will "give you" that the
Bible was written in the language of the times. It seems that your
biggest concern is with the firmament.
Not a bad place to start, Loren. The two areas that I feel least
strong about are the "firmament" and the days themselves. But,
everything else fits in so very well that I continue to wait on
God for further understanding of these areas. I suspect part of the
reason these areas aren't clearer yet is because of our resistance.
The NASB and NIV use expanse, not firmament. So, you are already
treading on thin ice.
I'll dare to go a step further. Anti-concordists play the "scholarship
blitz" game. "If I throw out enough cultural info, surely that will
show the Bible is historically inaccurate." Which is why I always
take their best argument(s) one at a time.
Heck, YECs have dozens and dozens of scholastic sounding arguments
for their position. When you see "begin to see the trees, so to speak,
guess what happens?" Retreating in shame.
So, Loren, perhaps you would like to throw out your second strongest
criticism. There is a real historical event which corresponds with
separating the waters above from the waters below.
I suppose that it eventually will come down to faith. Did our Father
intend for Gen 1 to be historically accurate?
You seem to be big on ANE, Loren. I challenge you to show me another
creation account that gets the sequence of events correct.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 24 2002 - 15:26:29 EDT