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