----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Geology stuff (was Re: Noahic Covenant)
> Hi Darryl,
> I think we all need to treat the Bible as real history until shown
I am willing to treat it as history but the problem is that much of it is a
history I do not understand. An excellent example of that is the story of
someone who called out the bears to eat the children (that's an awful
paraphrase but I heard the story in church perhaps 30 years ago, perhaps
even 35). Now on the face of it that sounds awful but then the preacher
explained that at that time "children" in Hebrew could refer to boys in
their late teens (and perhaps even early or mid 20's?). As I remember it
had something to do with them not yet being married and being accepted into
the social group as capable of bearing responsibility or something like
that. Anyway he said (and again I paraphrase) "So you see what was really
happening was a bunch of thugs were harassing the old prophet and he finally
got tired of it and fearing for his life called for a miracle and got one".
Gosh I hope I got that at least somewhere near right. The point is that I
am willing to accept the stories of the Bible as being true, once you know
the truth, but knowing that requires knowing lots of stuff I don't know and
don't figure I'll ever learn to the point of saying I know what it all means
so a bunch of it I just skip over rather than argue about. Besides if I
did get one argument settled there would just be another pop up because I
would find something else I didn't understand.
Here's another short list (aimed at the forehead of YEC
> leadership, however you would like to define that).
> 1. Where, on your websites, can I find the top 1-2 arguments for a
> young earth?
I'll try to find something on that one for you. I keep a list of some of
the better sites and their argumeents. But it may be a few days unless I
get lucky and stumble on it right away.
> 4. Here's a stab, for now, at your geology questions (back to Darryl).
> Deposits at Ur, Kish, Shuruppak, Uruk, and Lagash all around the same
> period (with, basically, no deposits at other time periods).
> Qualifier - Parrot interpreted the Lagash deposit as packing for
> the foundation of a temple
> Note: Nineveh (to the north) didn't have deposits dating to a
> similar time period
I'll keep this and any other information you may have and when I get some
time look it up. I guess I am sort of getting interested in this afterall
but I just can't take the time to do the research now. But I appreciate you
bringing this forth.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 01:11:38 EDT