Pilgrim,<br>Yes, you are right. I did nothing but rant. I "replied" to you when I was intending merely to address the issue in general and thought that was the context of this discussion. I assumed that you and others here were aware of the rather heated controversy that has been raging in many denominations as some seek to make the 24/6 position into a shibboleth for serving as officers in the church. It this light, I also therefore, misunderstood: <br><br>1) "As Reformed Christians we have a special stake in the creation/evolution debate. With our high view of Scripture we are pre-committed to the integrity of the word of God in all areas of life. Unfortunately, much of Reformed theology writes off six-day creation as naive fundamentalism or gross bibliolatry. Though most Reformed scholars would decry evolutionism, they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility. This is a tragic surrender of orthodoxy to the reigning cultural mythology of our day: chance-oriented, naturalistic evolutionism." Dr. Gentry [From the article you suggested.]<br><br>2) "The suppositions of modern science are probably the #1 factor, IMHO, that have influenced some to cast off accepting the 24/6 day creation, out of fear of looking foolish before the world. Thus they grasp at these other views to try and find some semblance of continuity between the Bible and science."<br>"The bottom line for me is that with everything else considered, when I read the Genesis account, it SCREAMS 24/6 day creation; the Spirit of the text is clearly that of a literal historical narrative and all these other views are poor attempts to circumvent the obvious." 06/16/03 11:27 AM Pilgrim<br><br>3) "For centuries, the six days of Creation in Genesis were understood by nearly all Church Fathers and Biblical Hebrew scholars to be ordinary 24-hour days. However, due to the widespread acceptance of evolution over the last 130 years (even in the church), attempts have been made to interpret the days of Creation in a way consistent with the evolutionary time scale. Even many who accept fiat creation (Creation out of nothing through the power of God's Word) feel compelled to somehow incorporate the evolutionary time scale, if not the evolutionary process itself, into the Genesis account of Creation. Thus, some creationists have attempted to stretch the seven "days" of the Creation week into several billion years!" 06/16/03 06:23 PM Wes<br><br>4) "I couldn't agree with you more. As I said on one of these psots, when I aske my pastor about Covenant Seminary he said Bryan Chapell believes that because the original texts cannot be interpreted conclusively that it was actually 24 hours, that he believes the men at the seminary have the right to take either interpretation. My first thought when I heard that some don't believe in a 24 hour day in regards to creation, I said to my pastor that it sounded very much like that thinking just gives more credence to evolution." 06/17/03 05:25 AM Linda<br><br>5) "All reputable Hebrew scholars will tell you that there is absolutely no ambiguity at all with Genesis as to what Moses is trying to convey. He is saying that God historically created in 6 ordinary, 24 hour days. I personally would like to hear what from the language and text of Genesis compels Chapell to believe there is no clarity here. I mean, this ain't brain surgery." 06/17/03 05:34 AM Fred<br><br>These seemed to me to suggest (in concert with the current controversy) that the only reason anyone would reject the 24/6 position is because they 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness'. Again, though, I apparently misunderstood all of this. I used Dr. Kline (or those holding his view, actually) as an example to try to illustrate that there are believers who are competent scholars whose motives seem to be to correctly understand the Bible, rather than to further evolutionism, as is so commonly asserted. Given the context of the issue, in general, I did not have to go out of my way to mention Dr. Kline. He is a good example of the point I was making. Defending him personally, was not really why I used his name, though I would not be ashamed to do so (I must say that I don't know what mentioning John Frame was supposed to convey to me. Should I have used him as an example to illustrate my point?). With regard to the way the issue is being played out--excluding those on this thread, of course--I do believe that I am duty bound to my Lord to defend the honor of my neighbor; much more that of my brothers and sisters. Anyway, I am sorry I said anything at all. But much more so that you thought I was attacking you.<br>David<br>
