RE: Seely's Views 2

>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jan de Koning
>Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:39 PM
>
>
>All the respondents so far appear to agree that Gen 1:1 is true.
>
>What do you consider to be "truth"? Why is Ge.1-11 in the Bible?
Certainly not to tell us history. Since we are in the
>middle of moving I don't have the necessary time to say more than that,
but I am 100% sure that God did not speak to
>people living 6000 years ago in scientific language, nor just to tell
us how He made His world.

GRM: This is the type of misrepresentational claptrap and nonsense which
Peter and I have been complaining about. Listen carefully Jan: NO ONE
SAID GOD COMMUNICATED IN SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE!!!!! Did you hear that?
Please stop saying misrepresentational nonsense. To communicate in
scientific language God would have to talk about the big bang, the
formation of stars, interstellar dust, molecular processes, magnetic
fields, and general relativity, none of which appears in the record.
What we are asking for is (listen carefully Jan) NOT SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
BUT HISTORICAL INFORMATION. Historical information can be communicated
without and scientific language. Do you get the difference? I hate to
sound so condescending but you seem to invite it by not listening to
what we are saying. Please listen Jan. It is entirely frustrating to
have such misrepresentations (which begin to appear intentional) if one
continues to say it even when it has been refuted.

> Also, I am convinced that He spoke in a language they understood,
about concepts they understood.

And according to those who don't think the story is true, God spun them
a yarn worthy of the best fishing story ever told! Sure they understood
it, just like I understand how big that fish was, but neither story is
worth taking seriously.
Received on Sat Aug 21 15:30:10 2004