---

The Real Issue
The Creation Date Controversy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto
and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of
Technology. He is president of Reasons To Believe, an organization founded
to develop new tools for demonstrating the factual basis for belief in God
and the Bible. Ross speaks regularly throughout the U.S. and around the
world; has written three books; published numerous articles in professional
and popular publications; and appears frequently on radio and television
programs. He and his wife, Kathy, live in Southern California and have two
sons. Kathy edits the Reasons To Believe newsletter Facts and Faith.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Følgende, er et uddrag, fra en artikkel af Dr Hugh Ross.

A strange phenomenon you may have observed in recent years is the
willingness, even eagerness, of our academic colleagues to affirm recent
creation (creation of the universe, earth, and life in the last few thousand
years) as the Biblical teaching on origins. On this issue they seem to
concur wholeheartedly with a sizable and vocal segment of the evangelical
community, but there's no cause for rejoicing here. The reasons for this
concurrence are diametrically opposite.

Some academics find in young-earth creationism a ready excuse to disregard
"archaic notions" about the authenticity and authority of the Bible as a
revealer of truth concerning God and man. If scientific absurdity shows up
on the very first page, there's no need to give serious attention to
whatever other "myths" may follow. Any attempt to demonstrate that the Bible
teaches a different view, an old-earth view that is scientifically credible
and aligns perfectly with even the latest data, is immediately and often
vehemently dismissed as propagandistic.

Other academics support the six-day story for its poetic beauty. They insist
that scientific fact and religious faith have nothing to do with each other,
that they can and must exist separately, the one as a matter of mind, the
other as a matter of heart or intuition, and never the twain should be asked
to meet. These folks, too, react strongly against any attempt to reconcile
the accepted scientific record with the words of Scripture.

For years a Biblically and scientifically plausible old-earth interpretation
of creation events has met with no less vitriolic opposition in evangelical
circles, though that response is beginning to change. Some pastors and
parishioners have come to recognize the "when" of creation as a peripheral
issue in their relationship to Christ. They can reexamine the arguments used
to support the young-earth position and acknowledge a strong case for an
old-earth interpretation. But there are still many others who uphold the
young-earth position as the front-line defense against modern (and
postmodern) assaults on the Christian faith.

Entrenched Beliefs
Reasons for this emotion-charged entrenchment are discussed in Creation and
Time, a book written by Hugh; we will attempt to summarize them here. The
source of resistance in all groups of young-earth proponents, however, seems
the same: fear. In the anti-Christian academics we see the fear of having to
take the Gospel into careful consideration. That's just too risky for those
terrified by the prospect of peer ridicule and rejection, terrified to face
the losses that might accompany a change to Christian values and morals
through a relationship with Christ.
The fact v. faith separatists harbor some of the same fears, but especially
the fear of "literal" interpretation and application of Biblical truths.
Abuses of "literalness" may trample grace and truth under foot, but so does
the utter lack of it. And yet subjectivity feels much more comfortable - and
it's certainly more a

---

"Erik Dalgas" <erik.dalgas@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:90j2dp$2s1$1@news.inet.tele.dk...

> The Real Issue
> The Creation Date Controversy

[ en lang engelsk tekst ]

Hallo Erik - vi befinder os i Danmark.

Det er altså ikke særlig smart at sende en så lang artikel på
udenvælsk - hvad med at få den oversat, eller læg den på en
hjemmeside og giv så et kort resume her i gruppen sammen med et link
til stedet for den udenvælske artikel ligger.

--
Hilsen
Anders Jorga
- - - - -
"Jeg har besluttet, ikke at ville vide af andet end
Jesus Kristus, og det som korsfæstet" 1. Kor. 2, 2.

---

---

"Mr. D" > >
> > Det er altså ikke særlig smart at sende en så lang artikel på
> > udenvælsk - hvad med at få den oversat, eller læg den på en
> > hjemmeside og giv så et kort resume her i gruppen sammen med et link
> > til stedet for den udenvælske artikel ligger.
>
> Well, then just don´t read it, man - easy as that, see?
>
> Mr. D
Vi kan godt læse det, men vi har en meget langsom, og dyr forbindelse, når
man så synkroniserer får man alt det pjat med. Det er altså uhøfligt!

>
>

---

"Mr. D" <s-griis@post5.tele.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:90m9sn$iuf$1@news.inet.tele.dk...
>
> Anders Jorga <Anders.Jorga@get2net.dk> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:e1oX5.65$%N2.1307@news.get2net.dk...
> > "Erik Dalgas" <erik.dalgas@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:90j2dp$2s1$1@news.inet.tele.dk...
> >
> > Det er altså ikke særlig smart at sende en så lang artikel på
> > udenvælsk - hvad med at få den oversat, eller læg den på en
> > hjemmeside og giv så et kort resume her i gruppen sammen med et link
> > til stedet for den udenvælske artikel ligger.
>
> Well, then just don´t read it, man - easy as that, see?
>
> Mr. D
>
let som hvad ???

Jeg mener ikke det er korekt engelsk at oversætte dansk direkte til engelsk
Jeg mener at " well, don´t read it " ville være bedre engelsk. og så ordet "
man "
kommer fra en neger i amerika, altså ikke engelsk.

Erik

---

Erik Larsen <erik-larsen@get2net.dk> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:RCvY5.153$GC5.3904@news.get2net.dk...
>
> "Mr. D" <s-griis@post5.tele.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:90m9sn$iuf$1@news.inet.tele.dk...
> >
> > Well, then just don´t read it, man - easy as that, see?
>
> Jeg mener ikke det er korekt engelsk at oversætte dansk direkte til
engelsk
> Jeg mener at " well, don´t read it " ville være bedre engelsk. og så
ordet "
> man " kommer fra en neger i amerika, altså ikke engelsk.

Kunne min sætning reddes, dersom der blot var tale om en kommafejl, og
ikke en total misforståelse af det engelske sprog, eller kan det ikke
lade sig gøre. Hvordan ville det være, om kommaet flyttes hen, hvor jeg
egentlig havde tænkt, det skulle være, så som dette?
"Well then, just don´t read it, man"
Er det nok til en forskel? Din indsigelse mod brugen af "man" kan jeg
godt følge

Mr. D