From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 20:23:43 EDT
>Actually I am agreement with the historical and modern consensual
>interpretation of the Flood. And my approach to Genesis is not so very far
>away from Calvin's, so not so creative as it may seem. Also, as I replied
>Gordon, it is rather close to Jesus in principle.
>Since the commitment to the assumption that if God speaks he must get his
>science and history right (he cannot accommodate his revelation to "the
>notions which then prevailed" to use one of Calvin's phrases) is the basis
>for YECism, concordism, and even your atheism, that assumption is the root
>problem. I see no necessary biblical or logical basis for this assumption.
>is just human reason, man telling God on an apriori basis. what he can and
>cannot say when inspiring Scripture, and then---whether YEC, concordist, or
>atheist---creating imaginary worlds to uphold the assumption.
>I invite you and all the YECs and concordists to surrender your autonomous
>reason to the living Word.
Again, I don't challenge your scholarship. I have found it
right on target. I probably wasn't specific enough in my
post. Part of that is that your reasoning on Genesis seems
so odd to me that I have a difficult time stating your
You want to say God provided inaccurate information to
the Hebrews because they couldn't handle accurate information.
I really can't justify such a position. As for reason,
I find it keeps me from error.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 16 2003 - 20:24:20 EDT