Re: Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1

From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 17:10:26 EDT

Next message: Stuart d Kirkley: "Re: Randomness"

Previous message: J Burgeson: "RE: Another thing people can throw rocks at"
Maybe in reply to: Terry M. Gray: "Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1"
Next in thread: MikeSatterlee@cs.com: "Re: Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 07:41 AM 28/05/02 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote in part:

>Theologism claims that Gen 1 is not presenting history. I reject this
>notion in the most firm manner.

I still don't understand what you mean by "theologism", though I assume
that i fall in that category, since i don't agree with the other two at
all. Also, I have repeated several times that one cannot study Gen.1
separated from Gen.1 -11, separated from the five books of Moses, separated
from the OT, separate from the rest of the Bible.

It is okay with me to stop discussing this, though I have not heard the
answers to my objections, which I will not voice again.

Jan de K.

Next message: Stuart d Kirkley: "Re: Randomness"
Previous message: J Burgeson: "RE: Another thing people can throw rocks at"
Maybe in reply to: Terry M. Gray: "Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1"
Next in thread: MikeSatterlee@cs.com: "Re: Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 28 2002 - 17:28:50 EDT