Thanks to Terry for giving the day-age interpretation attention.
I continue to maintain that Christians, as I see it, have three
options on Gen 1.
1. YEC - of course, this was the traditional view of the church.
And then the church changed. So, we know that it is possible
for the church to change. Change is a process. IF, the
day-age interpretation is correct, this is what I foresee
happening: YECs will become day-agers. Thus, YECs are my
2. theologism - I consider this callous indifference.
3. day-age - belief that Gen 1 is real history. And perfect
willingness to openly discuss. Of course, that last sentence
is an ideal. We all get a little bit testy when our beliefs
are, well, tested.
>I understand that those who hold to the day-age view have attempted
>to answer these various objections--Jim will, I suspect, respond by
>telling us that he and others have answered them already in previous
Yes, I believe we have talked this through quite thoroughly. But
I am always willing to discuss objections one at a time. I couldn't
pick out your main objection, so I will let that part of the discussion
>Some of us do not find these answers compelling and thus, in
>good conscience for the sake of our understanding of the truth, must
>reject the concordist harmonizing of Genesis 1 in favor of some kind
>of literary view. (As I've indicated before, I espouse the so-called
>"framework hypothesis".) Others do find the answers given to these
>criticisms satisfying and they, in good conscience for the sake of
>their understanding of the truth, advocate the day-age view.
I promptly reject the framework view as a sustainable option. I agree
that it may sound good at first. And, for someone looking for an answer,
maybe it is the most "comfortable" place to be. But don't expect to
win too many arguments!
Theologism claims that Gen 1 is not presenting history. I reject this
notion in the most firm manner.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 28 2002 - 11:53:03 EDT