>Let's not lose sight of the point. You made the order of the events in Gen
>a sign of its divine origin, saying to Michael, "THERE IS SIMPLY A STUNNING
>SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE CHRONOLOGY OF GEN 1 AND SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT." You
>wrote to Loren, "I challenge you to show me another creation account that
>gets the sequence of events correct."
I'm with you so far, Paul.
>The fact that Enuma elish has
>essentially the same order of events as Gen 1 has shows that the order of
>events is not a proof of divine origin.
OK. Here I confess to indifference. I tried to read the EE link that
Walt provided. It simply came across as nonsense. And don't tell me for
a moment that there is any comparison between Gen 1 and EE. It may take
me 5 years just to try to figure out what the heck EE is saying!! Jesus
says that I am the way, the truth, and the life. I do not feel that the
way for me at the moment is trying to figure out EE. I'll cast my lot
with Gen 1.
>I find it distasteful to
>abandon the historical-grammatical meanings of Gen 1 in favor of meanings
>that by virtue of their departure from the understanding of the historic
>Church and from modern scholarship as well can only be regarded as cultic.
>Christians have an obligation to bear light, to uphold truth---not create
>imaginary worlds of their own, whether by way of creation science or by
Cultic? No, my friend. Basing your view of Gen 1 on "similarities" with
EE sounds far more dangerous to me. And, after about 1850 (YMMV) you can
put historical-grammatical meanings in the same place you put belief in a
Now, I will say a few additional words. Since about 1860 it seems that the
church hasn't known what the heck to do with Gen 1. YEC is wounded. And
then you have "theologists." And then you have OECs/concordists. Paul,
this is also known as the day-age interpretation. You just lost
Calling the day-age interpretation a cult makes me wonder if you're not
creating your own imaginary world.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 26 2002 - 01:50:52 EDT