--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
"rlbaty50" wrote, in part:
>> 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:
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.
> 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.
> 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.