Re: Standing miracle?

From: Gary Collins <>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 06:33:33 EDT

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:20:01 -0400, asa-digest wrote:

>Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:30:05 +0100
>From: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
>Subject: Re: Standing miracle?
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8D.E9FF66F0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I don't believe I've missed the points made in your earlier post; it =
>simply appeared reasonable to me that we should first take a step or two =
>back in order that we might begin our debate from an agreed position. =
>Instead, you offer me the mantra "Even if everything you say above is =
>true, & even if it proves that the Bible is absolutely true...". George, =
>this is hardly good enough; my claim is extraordinary and surely =
>deserving of an informed and considered response, for its implications - =
>if true - are tremendous, as I'm sure you would agree.
>You chose to enter the fray with the words "Once more into the breach." =
>- - and I greatly appreciate that. So again I ask, _in your view_, does =
>Genesis 1:1, in the original Hebrew, warrant the accolade 'standing =
>miracle', or not? - and if not, why not?

I think what George would like to know is, once you determined
for yourself the miraculous nature of this verse, how were you
able to deduce from this finding that YEC is correct?
You should be able to explain your reasoning here quite
independently of whether or not others agree with your claims
for the miraculous nature.
If this is not what George meant, I am sure he can correct me,
but in any case I would like to know the answer to that.
In the light of Genesis 2:5 especially, it seems difficult to
maintain that the author of Genesis intended that the
six days of Chapter 1 should by taken literally.

Received on Mon Jun 28 06:54:16 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 06:54:17 EDT