(Ron) On the use of "begat"

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

> > 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.

>


BRIDEAN
What I would say is that even if "day" in Genesis can be interpreted as "millions of
years"
or whatever, the order in which things were created contradicts current scientific
understanding.

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