Re: Glenn wrote:

Ron Chitwood (
Tue, 26 May 1998 15:19:43 -0500

>>>Obviously this is entirely ridiculous so the proper translation is
land' not 'whole earth'.<<<<

OK, so its the 'whole land'. What difference does that make?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood

> From: Glenn R. Morton <>
> To: Ron Chitwood <>;
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 8:13 PM
> At 04:41 PM 5/22/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >Glenn>>>>I disagree. I am placing trust in the greek and hebrew
> >of the
> >words<<<<
> >
> >Glen - Look at Genesis 8:9 KJV "But the dove found no rest for the sole
> >her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark. for the waters were
> >the face of the WHOLE EARTH....." the NIV reads "...all the surface of
> >earth..." Now how can you say the reference in II Peter could refer to
> >anything less than that? That, by the way, is also in Strong's
> >Concordance. "Whole" is 3605, "earth" is 776 in the Hebrew lexicon.
> >
> First off, are you really suggesting that the dove flew around the entire
> planet earth and thus knew that it couldn't find a place to land? How
> would such a flight take a dove. Lets see. Doves fly at around 35-40
> and the earth has a 25,000 mile circumference (all approximate numbers).
> would take a bird about a month to encircle the planet in one direction.
> But even then he couldn't KNOW that there was no land perpendicular to
> former flight path and would then need to fly off in other directions.
> Obviously this is entirely ridiculous so the proper translation is 'whole
> land' not 'whole earth'.
> >When Jesus was referring to the prophets whose blood had been shed '
> >...from the beginning of the world...' (Luke 11:50) one has no trouble
> >understanding what Jesus meant. HE was not defining narrow boundaries,
> >HE? The context dictates the meaning, and applies just as well to the
> >reference in II Peter. The context, based on other areas of the Bible,
> >dictates the meaning. Peter meant "the whole world", nothing less.
> >
> The word translated as 'beginning' is 2602. katabole, kat-ab-ol-ay'; from
> G2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; fig. conception:--conceive,
> This may very well be a Calvinistic statement that the martyrs were
> into the fabric of the universe.
> >GM>>>>And as to men being wrong, what happened to the theologians who
> >determined
> >> from the Scripture that the sun revolved around the earth?<<<
> >
> >Do not disagree, but the leading thinkers of the time were also making
> >pronouncements that the geocentric theory was correct. In fact, because
> >that, theologians came around to trying Galileo. the point I am making,
> >which your comment actually is irrelevant, is that man generically has
> >wrong so many times in the past. What is to keep him from making
> >pronouncements now that might be wrong at some future time.
> >is coming increasingly under attack by its own academia.
> This simply isn't true. Macroevolutin is well regarded by almost all
> academics. Can you cite a single, non-christian academic that says that
> evolution did not occur? Denton is a Christian, Behe is a Christian.
> There are so many
> >other historical examples of error. Nebraska Man, Piltdown man, the
> >recapitulation theory, Neanderthal man, to name just a few. I
> >that these examples were later found to be fraudulent by other
> >but at the time they were considered the last, most up-to-date word on
> >subject. As I am sure you are aware, Nebraska Man was used by Clarence
> >Darrow to browbeat WJ Bryan in the Scopes Trial. It was later
> >to be a tooth of an extinct pig.
> I am aware of these errors. But let me ask you: who was it that proved
> what the error was? It wasn't young-earth Christians who were studying
> pig tooth, it wasn't the young-earthers who performed the fluorine test
> the jaw and skull of Piltdown. And in the case of Piltdown, there was
> controversy even from the first. Weidenreich publically and Gorjanovic
> stated that they thought it was a fraud.
> "Weidenreich, in fact, knew Piltdown was a fraud; he was one of the few
> paleoanthropologists aware of it and willing to say so
> (Gorjanovic-Kramberger, as we noted in Chapter 5, suspected the same but
> would only publish his misgivings in Croatian)."~Milford Wolpoff and
> Rachael Caspari, Race and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster,
> 1997), p. 203
> "Weidenreich simply expressed his disbelief that the pieces used in the
> Piltdown reconstruction were from a single specimen, or even a single
> species. He (quite correctly) asserted, from his study of the anatomy,
> that the skull was that of a modern human and the jaw was of an
> he didn't know what to make of the canine and did not seem willing to
> entertain the possibility that it was simply manufactured to look as it
> did, as part of a fraud. But he was virtually alone in his opinion that
> the fragments didn't go together, and more than a decade later his
> conclusions were not yet accepted.
> 'I am only wondering why, if a human vault, a simian mandible, and an
> anonymous 'canine' were combined into a new form, the other animal bones
> and teeth found in the same spot were not added to the ...
> do not believe in miracles...the sooner the erased from the
> list of human fossils, the better for science."~Franz Weidenreich, "The
> Skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study of a primitive
> hominid skull," Palaeontologia Sinica, new Series D, Number 10 (wole
> No. 127), p. 220, cited by Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and
> Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 204
> Neanderthal was not a fraud and is with us today. There are various
> of his humanity but Neanderthal is very real.
> glenn
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information