>>I may as well first say that I checked your "A Theory for Creationists"
>>I give you credit for having the courage to tackle such a big issue. (Not
>>that I agree with you).
>>Your biblical interpretation severely suffers from lack of Hebrew
>>however. The Bible says that God made Adam, or "the adam" from the dust of
>>the ground. "Ha'adam" is the Hebrew transliteration. That's all it says.
>So, how many years of Hebrew study have you had? Dust must be interpreted
>more broadly than just dirt. Dust of the ground consists of about 95%
>silicon dioxide, montmorillonite [(Na,Ca)0,3(Al,Mg)2Si4O10(OH)2Ín(H2O) ],
>illite [ (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)] ], and other inorganic
>minerals. If we were really made of dust as we use the word, we would be
First, I will again credit you for your courage. A lot of people lurk.
When you post, you run the risk of an immediate counter-argument.
I like the opportunity to grow. I get the feeling that a lot of people
fearfully cling to past ways of thinking.
Anyway, your post touched on a number of relevant topics, which I also
you for. I think that I'll just address your first one, and we'll see what
I recommend http://www.crosswalk.com for quick, profitable Hebrew study.
Go under Bible search, then Interlinear Bible (as I recall, you may be
prompted to install special fonts for the Hebrew, which is easy).
Um, I'm not sure where you are going with your scientific formula :-).
That's not in the Hebrew :-). I'll let you respond, but I hope that you
are not trying to change the type of text that the Bible represents. That
will get us nowhere fast :-(.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 14 2002 - 10:58:00 EDT