Lance wrote: > I'm probably not a 'creationist' ala 6 day > young earth creationism. Such would entail > both bad science and bad exegesis (IMO). > Where, David, do you place yourself on this > 'spectrum'?
I'm a 6 day old earth creationist, but I agree with you that what is 'is' regarding creation. :-) My background, of course, is science. Can you tell me from a theological background why you would consider the 6 day young earth creation model to entail bad exegesis? The only theologian I have had direct experience with in this was John Whitcomb when one of my professors challenged his understanding of science in a classroom at the university. Whitcomb is a 6 day young earth creationist. He may not have understood science very well, but he seemed to be convinced that a proper exegesis of the Scriptures argues for 6 literal days. He convinced me anyway, even though my professor tried his best to make him look like a fool regarding his understanding of scientific laws. I admired how the man admitted he was not a scientist and could not answer some of the objections, but he stuck to his field of theology and argued that he represented accurately what was revealed in Scripture. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
