Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:00:51 -0000
>So here is a counter-challenge, one which you owe it to yourself to
>attempt: Locate a dozen or two creation stories from ancient cultures
>around the world. Then allow yourself to do a similar level of
>word-redefinition in those stories as you do in the Genesis 1 account, in
>an honest effort to make those stories concord with scientific chronology.
>How many of them can you make work? Certainly not all of them, but how
>many? I'd be curious to know the answer to that exercise.
How sad is this? Or how grave an error? It is far more constructive
for me to support Gen 1 than trash heathen creation accounts. Loren,
nothing comes close to Gen 1. I have been told that Enuma Elish is
easily the closest. It was a complete, utter joke.
>I count approximately 11 Hebrew words which must be redefined (from the
>author's original intent) in order to make the Genesis 1 chronology match
>the scientific chronology in a typical concordist scenario. (In the NIV,
>for example: light,
Loren, are you aware that Biblical Hebrew has about 3,000 words (assuming
that Hugh Ross' reference is correct, and about 8,500 if you insert vowels)?
And modern English has millions.
I have made it very clear in the past that I will not "take on multiple
fights" at the same time. Let's look at your words.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
Woo hoo! How easy a question this is!!!! Verse 1:2 states "darkness was
over the surface of the deep." I am not, in any way, shape, or form
asking for a redefinition of the word light. From the context, light
is now where the darkness was - over the surface of the deep!!!!
>So here is a counter-challenge
So here is a counter-counter challenge. Will you concede that the
day-age interpretation requires no redefinition of light? For, if you
will not agree to this, I see no point in addressing your next 10 words.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 15:02:36 EDT