...If the earth is flat, then I am wrong to say it is round. But I don't accept your premise.
You misrepresent me. I don't reject Genesis 1, I just interpret it in a different way from you.
The question is, what does it mean according to historical and linguistic principles? If the linguistic principles indicate a six 24 hour day creation, then a reinterpretation is a de facto rejection of the text.
Well, I don't want to get into mud slinging, but this is factually true, at least if I replace "incompetent" by "unqualified". For example, the recently deceased "Dr. Henry Morris, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research and the “father” of the modern creationist movement" (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp), was a hydraulic engineer, with no qualifications in theology - although according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris he did have a "minor" in geology, so he was not completely scientifically illiterate.My mention of the Big Bang was explicitly dependent on "according to those same physicists". But if I am forced to choose, I would prefer to trust those physicists, many of whom are also believers, than the people who are mostly incompetent in theology and biblical languages as well as in sciences who promote so-called "creation science".Peter, that characterization of creationists is not like the normal you.
...
I will not think the less of you if you reject Genesis 1 and are honest about it. It is part of life to disagree with others. But I find this reinterpretation of the text not supported by linguistic principles to be intellectual dishonesty and it is that intellectual dishonesty that I despise. ...
... You claim that "day", when acted on by a number can mean something other than the equivalent of a 24 hour day? The onus in on you to demonstrate other examples where that occurs, ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.