>Hi Paul,
>
>I have a very bad hand which is acting up right now. This forces me to
>type one handed. My response will be short.
>
>
>
>>I wanted to keep the "Christ and Creation"
>>idea on track and respond to your side
>>argument (rabbit trail :-)) in a separate
>>post. You may have to take issue with the
>>whole of scripture and not with me. I
>>argue nothing in this regard and choose to
>>let scripture speak for and interpret
>>itself rather than harmonize it with man's
>>reason.
>>
>>It is important to let scripture speak to
>>us with regard to origins rather than us
>>"reading into" scripture and interpreting
>>something that does not exist. Hence my
>>relial on "translation" rather than
>>"interpretation" to respond to your post.
>>
>>I've noted that you quote the NIV version. You probably know that in
>>developing the NIV, the translators worked towards two goals... 1. An
>>ecumenical (international) critical text based on Kittel's Biblia
>>Hebraica,and... 2. A principle popularized in the 60's called Dynamic
>Equivalence
>>
>
>I quote NIV because it is on my computer and I don't have to re-type
> it.
>I don't like to have to re-type. But an examination of King James
> shows
>that my main point is still valid.
>
>>
>>>Genesis 1:11 (NIV) Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:
>>>seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in
>> it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
>>
>
>Genesis 1:11 kj And God said,'Let the earth bring forth grass..."
>
>God commanded the earth to do something
>
>>The NAS translates Genesis 1:11"Let the earth sprout vegetation...."
>
>
>All of these verses say that God commanded the Earth to do something.
> God
>did not do it directly. I am not depending, as you contend below, on
> the
>translation of the word translated "produce" in the NIV. By commanding
>the earth to bring forth vegetation, I would presume that the earth
> obeyed
>and brought forth vegetation. But earth was the immediate cause of
>vegetation.
>
>>which
>>affirms a creative non-TE model very well.
>
>No. It affirms that God used a secondary agent to actually create the
>vegetation.
>
>>Here is the downfall of your reliance on the NIV "produce". The Hebrew
>>word used in 1:24 is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD altogether!...
> "yatsa"!
>>
>>"Yatsa" is used in a great variety of applications, both literally and
>>figuratively, direct and proximate (as in direction or relationship of
>>position) and implies "to go out" and "bring forth, out and up". Verse
> 25
>>invalidates your assertion that the land produced animals when taken
> in
>>the original textual context of v. 24.
>
>
>No this does not invalidate my claim. the earth was the immediate,
> active
>agent which actually brought forth the animals. When I tell one of the
>guys working for me to make me an oil prospect, I am not active-he is
> the
>active, creative agent.
>
>>Your interpretation of the usage of "produce" appears to be
> contradicted
>>by original Hebrew scripture.
>>
>>Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed (Greek "yasar"
>>to form, mold, or fashion) every beast...and every bird..."
>>(God is the subject, not the land)
>>
>
>I believe that Gen. 2 is a different event at a radically different
> time
>from Gen. 1. This criticism would be valid when aimed at a view which
>holds that Gen 1 and 2 are two descriptions of the same event. But
> this
>argument is equivalent to merely saying that I should agree with your
>interp. Maybe I should, but I don't. :-)
>
>
>>>Finally and most importantly, nowhere does the Bible say animals
>>>reproduce >after their own kind! Look at verse 24 above. Land is
> the
>>>subject of the>sentence, not animals.
>>
>>Then in verse 25 we see God as the subject. (?)
>
>I will obviously grant you this case. I have to. But you must grant
> me
>the last 3 cases if we are to be honest with each other.
>
>>
>>>The land produces, according to their kind,
>>>animals! Animals do not produce animals according to their kind.
>>
>
>
>>Hmmm, Lev:19:19: says "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let
>>thy cattle gender with a diverse kind"
>>
>If mankind must be ordered to keep this from happening, then this is
>absolute proof that it is quite possible for animals to mix with
> diverse
>kinds. It would be foolish of me to order your friends to keep you
> from
>flying by flapping your arms.
>
>[snip]
>
>>Since this is not so plainly seen, you have to fight the battle on two
>>fronts, the scientific acceptability of TE and the obvious
> contradictions
>>to it in the Bible.
>>
>You are correct here. People don't like my views. but no other view of
>the Bible accounts for the observational data of science. If God
> created
>the world, why do Christians, who worship God, greet each new
> scientific
>discovery as if it would disprove God and the Bible and thus, must be
>explained away?
>
>Your friend in Christ
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation,Fall and Flood
>http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm