Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Jay Wile inducted into Creation Science Hall of Fame!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Some may recall how it is that the Creation Science Hall of Fame mentions and tries to downplay the controversies between young-earth creation-science
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "rlbaty50" wrote, in part:

      > http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5366#more-5366
      >
      >> I think Genesis is best read as historical
      >> narrative, with the days of creation being
      >> 24-hour days.
      >>
      >> However, I am readily willing to admit that
      >> this is not the only reasonable (or orthodox)
      >> way to read the creation account.
      >>
      >> Those who try to say otherwise can only do so
      >> if they ignore vast amounts of orthodox theology
      >> as well as significant portions of church history.
      >>
      >>> Jay Wile

      Some may recall how it is that the Creation Science Hall of Fame mentions and tries to downplay the controversies between young-earth creation-science promoters.

      One of the recent, well-publicized controversies involved Jay Wile and Ken Ham and a certain Home School Conference.

      Jay's account can be found at:

      http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4647

      and

      http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

      There, he writes, in part:

      > I first made it clear that I do believe that the
      > days in Genesis 1 were 24-hour days. However, I
      > recognize (as theologians have since the earliest
      > times in Christendom) that the case is far from
      > ironclad. As a result, while I believe that they
      > are 24-hour days, I am not about to claim that
      > anyone who disagrees with me on that point has a
      > poor view of Scripture.

      and

      > My point, however, is that the text is simply not
      > ironclad on this, and you don't need evolution or
      > "millions of years" to see that. Augustine, Clement
      > of Alexandria, Origen, and many other great Christian
      > theologians did not need evolution or "millions of
      > years" to force them to interpret the days as
      > something other than 24-hour days. They just needed
      > the text.

      and

      > Ken Ham is simply dead wrong when he claims that
      > Dr. Enns doesn't have a Biblical view of the
      > inspiration of Scripture.
      >
      > Dr. Enns doesn't have Ken Ham's view of the
      > inspiration of Scripture. However, he clearly has
      > a Biblical view – one that just happens to be
      > different from that of Ken Ham.

      Interesting!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.