Re: Schaefer's Book

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 11:38:30 EDT

Hallo! Socrates here! This discussion makes me laugh as you are all
compromisers, churchians and cryptoatheists. I know many of you from Tweb
and don't distinguish between the atheistic compromising Morton and Kuboes,
neither of whom have an earned doctorate to their names and do immense
damage to the Gospel of the wrath of God.

The only true historic interpretation of Genesis is a literal one as my
alter ego Jonathan Sarfati described in his wonderful book Refuting
Compromise. There is no difference between Roberts and Murphy on one hand
and Morton Reust and Fischer on the other. There are all one step away from
atheism. Think about that.

Socrates helped by Jorge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Rusbult" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:08 AM
Subject: RE: Schaefer's Book

> Meredith Kline considers his framework view to be concordist:
> My view of Gen. 1 is precisely the same as my view of Gen. 2-3
> (and of Gen. 4-50 and all the rest of the Bible's historical
> narratives). It is essentially concordist, absolutely opposed to
> interpretations of Gen. 1 as myth or saga or existential allegory. My
> position is not that Gen. 1 as a whole is figurative; it is rather
> that the chronological framework of the creation narrative is
> figurative but the persons and episodes mentioned there are
> historical in a concordist sense. My view of Gen. 1 differs only in
> the degree of figurativeness from Collins' own "mildly concordist"
> view.
> What has happened, I surmise, is that [Jack] Collins has fallen
> in with an inconsistency in the (unofficial) ASA usage of the term
> "concordist." In the treatment of Gen. 1, concordism has come to be
> identified in an exclusive way with acceptance of a chronologically
> sequential order of the narrative (whatever the length of the
> "days"). While taking the duration aspect of the chronology
> figuratively is classified as concordist, interpreting the narrative
> order of Gen. 1 figuratively (by taking it as not chronologically
> sequential) is quite arbitrarily equated with taking the account as a
> whole as figurative and hence gets classified as non-concordist.
> Craig
Received on Tue Aug 17 12:34:12 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 17 2004 - 12:34:13 EDT