The Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis
Jimmy Akin has a pretty good post on problems with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.
Interesting reading. I'd always assumed that the day-age theory was more or less plausible, based on conversations I'd had with my classmates at Grove City, but I never was very sure - it's hard to reconcile with even a very primitive understanding of science, and somewhere along the way I'd forgotten this.
This post is apparently part of a series - you can read more about the gap interpretation and the reveletory day interpretation, which likewise pose their own problems. I'm interested in reading more about the framework interpretation, which I remember being presented with before, although I never learned much about it.
(Oh, and while I'm at it, maybe this is a good time to announce the formation of the Vote for Jimmy club. If you want to be a member, all you have to do is vote for Jimmy.)
Interesting reading. I'd always assumed that the day-age theory was more or less plausible, based on conversations I'd had with my classmates at Grove City, but I never was very sure - it's hard to reconcile with even a very primitive understanding of science, and somewhere along the way I'd forgotten this.
This post is apparently part of a series - you can read more about the gap interpretation and the reveletory day interpretation, which likewise pose their own problems. I'm interested in reading more about the framework interpretation, which I remember being presented with before, although I never learned much about it.
(Oh, and while I'm at it, maybe this is a good time to announce the formation of the Vote for Jimmy club. If you want to be a member, all you have to do is vote for Jimmy.)
posted by matt at
12:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home