Re: Seely's Views 2

Glenn Morton wrote:

> GRM: What I see is that you have set Gen 1-11 off as useless. Would we not
> be better to simply start a denomination ripping that section out of the
> Bible because it is so unreliable and historically so false?
>

All the respondents so far appear to agree that Gen 1:1 is true.
Yet to reach beyond that single sentence , I wonder what any of us could
possibly write to generations in excess of 4000 years from now that could be
considered scientifically sound. I expect we would do just as poorly at the
job,
yet would we be any more wrong for believing Gen 1:1?

I suppose the best thing to say is nothing (like the Quakers), but it is
difficult
to communicate that sense of awe to others. At some point, even Quakers have

to say something no matter how hopeless it may be. It would also difficult
to
express important truths about ourselves and humanity in general without
some sort of storyline. I see these as the most important contribution of
Gen
1-11.

There might be something in your question about which creation myths they
chose. There are also times when we are right for the wrong reasons in
science.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Fri Aug 20 23:47:34 2004