Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Creation Message-ID: Date: 9 Nov 90 04:59:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University Mathematics Department Lines: 26 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) asks a question about the Genesis creation account, and our moderator responds: >[ .... Generally those who do >not accept a 7-day creation regard the creation stories as quite >frankly myths, however myths that have been used to convey important >theological messages. ...] I hope you don't mean to imply that these are the only two alternatives. There are a growing number of Christians who believe that the Genesis account is a serious account of what happened, but that the word "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. In fact, I was once given a copy of an article from a conference on Biblical inerrancy, which showed that this was a valid exegesis of the Hebrew text. (I haven't had time to dig it up, but if there's interest I can try to track down the reference.) Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh [I took Gorr to be asking about interpreters who rejected the accuracy of the account entirely. For a discussion of whether the Gen. account, even after modification of "day", is scientifically tenable, I refer you to talk.origins. I'd be happy to hear discussions on the Hebrew exegesis here. I'm sceptical, but I don't claim knowledge of Hebrew. --clh]