(Ron) On the use of "begat"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

---Brian Dean <bridean@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

> BRIDEAN

> I am forwarding this to the list because this statement IS 

> related to Bible errancy.

> 

> >BRYCE

> >The figure bandied about is October in 4004 BC.  That's adding up the

> >generations set forth in the Bible, plus a seven day week for

> >creation.  Are you denying that a day in Genesis 1 was the same as a

> >day in the rest of the Bible?  If not, what is the point of all your

> >quibbling?  If so, show me ANYTHING in the Bible that would justify

> >this interpretation.

> 

> RON

>   You already know my argument concerning the "day" described in 

> Genesis. Instead of just saying you got that figure by "adding up the

> generations set forth in the Bible", which is an unsupported

assertion, 

> Something you like to complain about others doing, why don't you 

> demonstrate it from the facts. Don't just tell me to read the book!

But 

> just a hint, "begat" doesn't always imply direct descent. Anyway

I'll be 

> interested in seeing your calculations!


BRYCE
     This was part of an off-list discussion that I've been having
with Ron.  I don't know why he insists on using Brian as an
intermediary, since I know Ron's address and he knows mine.  Anyways,
the short version of my response was that, since he didn't believe the
strict interpretation of begat anyways, there was no point in
repeating the calculations performed by so many others.  I still would
like to know whether Ron believes in a literal 24 hour day for the
Genesis story.  
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: (Ron) On the use of "begat"
• Next message: (Ron) On the use of "begat"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]