From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Challenge to harmonize two creation accounts in Genesis.
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:11:40 GMT

kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) writes:
: 
: Corey's summary isn't exactly what Genesis says, but it is the
: main summary that most creationists teach that it says.
: 
: The translators of the NIV set about to accomplish their task
: of making the account readible by telling you what they think
: the scripture means by what it said, in words less confusing
: and words that don't give rise to recognized difficulties.
: In other words, the NIV had an agenda of making the accounts
: compatible.  [ for a thorough critic of the NIV from this
: perspective see "The NIV Reconsidered" by the translators
: of the NKJV (no hidden motive on their part either! :-) ).

That opens up a whole new can of worms.  Not only do you have
to argue about what the verses say, you have to argue about
what the translations say.  Without a background in the ancient
languages/cultures that produced the oldest manuscripts, it is
difficult to say which is the best.  And then of course, you
have to study the languages/cultures/POLITICS of the translators.

: >  This seems to take care of the contradiction.  I am not completely
: >  comfortable with this answer, but, because the 2nd creation account
: >  is so vaugely worded, one can conclude just about anything from it.
:       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: If it is *vaugely worded* then you CAN'T CONCLUDE ANYTHING !!!!
: CREATIONISM cannot be concluded from it.  It can't easily be
: rebutted by it either.

That's exactly what I mean.  The second story is used as only additional
information on the first story.  The first story is more specific, so it
is assumed to be true.  The second story is really worthless for asserting
or contradicting the order-of-events in the first story.

: >  I strongly agree that "Scientific" Creationism is pretty silly,
: >  but the above Bible contradiction is not the real reason to reject
: >  "Scientific" Creationism.  The real reason is that there is no
: >  empirical evidence to support it.  All the "evidence" I've seen so
: >  far has been contrived.  Another valid reason is that these
: >  "Scientific" creationists do not really do science.  They appear
: >  to be unable to examine evidence without bias.

: I agree, but they don't do good theology either.  It is
: just as destructive to their position for their particular
: interpretations of the Bible to be be shown in error.  In
: fact, I believe even more so.  You cannot engage a creationist
: in a theological debate. The Bible says it, I believe it, that
: settles it, mentality.  But when you ask even the most
: obvious questions, like which *version* are we to use as
: the authoritive source and why, the shallowness of the positon
: is quickly shown.  They distort what the Bible says so that it
: will conform to what they want to believe -morally, socially, etc,
: and try to bend science, history, and everything else in the
: same manner.  
: 
: mark

I agree with most of what you say.  Some Creationists are as bad as you
described above.  Some are not so bad, you can engage them in theological
debate.  Unfortunately, it is fairly difficult to determine what is "good"
theology and what is "bad" theology.  People have been trying to do this
for centuries.  They still do not agree with each other.  I think it is
much easier to determine what is "good" science and what is "bad" science.  

--
Dale Skiba