Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 6 Literal Days?
Message-ID: <739@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 14:29:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.739
Posted: Thu Oct 24 14:29:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 06:35:14 EDT
References: <627@dicomed.UUCP> <45@noscvax.UUCP> <732@whuxl.UUCP> <402@cylixd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 44

> In article <732@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
> >
> >A Reply to a Fundamentalist Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >[it is] obvious that neither life, the earth, the sun or the stars were really
> >created in seven days as we know them...
> 
> 
> Although most modern Fundamentalists (some would say that's an oxymoron :-))
> believe that the creation took place over 6 literal 24-hour days, it is
> interesting to note the comments of Dr. C. I. Scofield. For those of
> you who aren't familiar with this gentleman, Dr. Scofield is the author
> of the Scofield Reference Bible, and is the closest thing Fundamentalists
> have to a "patron saint." His Bible/commentary is in use in most
> Fundamentalist churches and seminaries today as a basis for exposition
> and doctrine.
> 
> Dr. Scofield, commenting on the first chapter of Genesis, offers several
> BIBLICAL proofs that the days mentioned in Genesis NEED NOT be literal!
> One proof that comes to mind is where he cites Genesis 2:4, which says,
> "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were
> created, in THE DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
> The Bible then proceeds to describe the creation of the plants and herbs
> in further detail, and then the creation of man... all in THE DAY! Dr.
> Scofield also cites several other passages where a day cannot mean 24
> hours. 
> 
> All this proves nothing about the truth or falsehood of the literal 6-day
> creation theory (unless you're into ad hominem circumstantial fallacies);
> but it does show that Fundamentalists need not insist on a literal 
> 144-hour creation in order to be fundamental in the traditional sense
> of the word.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dave Kirby    ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)
 
All this proves is yet another contradiction in the Bible
if it is  *taken literally*.  My "New Oxford Annotated Bible" points
out that the discrepecancy between the Genesis 1 and the Genesis 2
accounts of creation are evidence that the two accounts come from
different traditions and authors. This is  merely another way in which
those two accounts *taken literally* blatantly contradict each other.
  
 tim sevener whuxn!orb