Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!denelcor!lmc
From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Funerals Instead
Message-ID: <692@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 02:00:38 EST
Article-I.D.: denelcor.692
Posted: Sun Mar 24 02:00:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 00:38:06 EST
References: <819@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorado
Lines: 40

> Paul DuBois:
> Evolutionists require me to be open-minded
> enough to look at Genesis non-literally, but if I suggest that there is
> even a possibility that I might do that sometime, then all of a sudden
> I am criticized for failure to adhere to strict literalism.

> Ken Arndt:
> Therefore, to take a LITERAL (your favorite word)
> interpertation of the bible does NOT mean you have to believe God made the
> world in seven literal days.  Can you hi-tech nerds follow that???

For the most part, I don't believe it is the high-tech nerds who are
requiring 168 hour creations from anyone. Some fundamental christians
groups require belief in it as part of their dogma; other christian groups
define their way out of the bind between the fairly clear wording and the
scientific evidence of a longer creation time in any of a number of ways,
from Ken's semantic
interpretation of the words in the English text (there is even more room
in the surviving Hebrew texts) to the keeping of an "open mind" in the
face of possible errors from the original texts, which are not available
for study today. The other out, of course is that creation did take 168
hours and that God created the evidence of a longer time span as he went
along.

Scientists have no need to explain the words of Genesis; its not their
problem. Ward (the referent in Paul's quote) would probably be overjoyed
if Paul did exercise an open mind over the literalness of the Bible, but
until that happens he would prefer some kind of "stand" to be taken against
which he can debate; other than that, I doubt he feels a need to force
anyone to interpret the Bible in any particular way.

These arguments about Genesis should be in net.religion, unless someone
really feels they need them to bolster their stand on creationist issues.
I think most of the creationists believe their arguments do not require
Genesis. Lets keep the discussion there, where faith is not a requirement.

Lyle McElhaney
-- 
Lyle McElhaney
{hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc