Loren writes
>Regarding "light" in verse 1:3: It could be argued that that the original
>author's definition of the term is not that different from modern
>corcordism's redefinition. But go back one verse to 1:2, "the deep." On
>this term, there is an abundance of archeological evidence (and evidence
>in other Old Testament texts) as to what the original author meant.
> I'm not saying that you can't redefine these terms somewhat in order to
>make them fit modern science. Of course you can. What I'm saying is that
>I don't think this is a good hermeneutical strategy.
I'll leave Peter and Mike to your responses to them. For one reason,
you have made my case from my last post. Why bother discussing your
"Hebrew word redefinitions" #2-11 if you can't even own up to the fact
that you were wrong about #1?
>It could be argued that that the original author's definition of the term
It sounds like you agree with me.
>is not that different from modern corcordism's redefinition.
Doublespeak! Loren, you've been reading way too much Enuma Elish!
>But go back one verse to 1:2, "the deep." On
>this term, there is an abundance of archeological evidence (and evidence
>in other Old Testament texts) as to what the original author meant.
And that is? Boy, winning an argument is easy if you don't have to
provide a lick of backup!
>I'm not saying that you can't redefine these terms somewhat in order to
>make them fit modern science. Of course you can. What I'm saying is that
>I don't think this is a good hermeneutical strategy.
Nonsense! I said light was light.
Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 29 2002 - 23:47:32 EDT