John Hamilton 1/16
You've go it backwards, 'Darwinists' (actually geologists, geophysicists,
etc.) reject biblical 'evidence' because of the real physical evidence
showing the 200 million year time frame.
BAKER 1/18
No you have it backwards. Their interpretation of the geological evidence
has led them to their conclusions, just as your incorrect interpretations
has led you to wrong conclusions. Look, all you have to do Hamilton, whether
you believe in the stories or not, is to prove to me that the stories about
the giants of the OT were human. If you can do that then I will agree with
you that the stories about them are mythological. If you cannot do that then
don't quibble over interpretation.
TILL
This is another one of those rare occasions when I am going to reply briefly
to one of Baker's postings. If he will consult Jewish pseudepigrapha,
especially 1 Enoch and Jubilees, he will see very clear, expanded accounts
of the brief allusion in Genesis 6:1-4 to the "sons of God" who married
human women and populated the world with "giants." It is obvious to anyone
whose mind is not rusted shut that the authors of these works thought that
such marriages had happened and that these offspring were giants who reached
at times the height of 450 feet. I suppose Baker will also claim that
Jewish pseudepigrapha and 1 Enoch are "questionable" and "unreliable"
sources, but if he wants an answer to his question about who are what these
giants were, the answer is simple. It was mythology, Baker; it was
mythology. No fossils have been found of human giants, because they didn't
exist. It was all a myth. Threads of that myth are woven in and out of the
biblical text.
BAKER 1/16
I have examined both works many times, which were written in more recent
times into the C.E. era. I would have to research the dates, but I believe
it was in the first century C.E. or later. In any event, the theology about
the giants had already been established in Jewish and Christian literature,
so whether or not these works are questionable depends on your view as to
whether the translations were correct. Till you have said "it was mythology"
many times in the past few months, but that's all you have said. Since no
bones of human giants have ever been found then there seems to be two
opinions, yours and mine. Yours is that the stories are mythological, but
mine is that the giants were real. The question still remains to be solved
is this, were the translations correct? You have admitted hundreds of times
that the bible is full of mistranslations, so why can't you accept the
possibility that the text regarding the giants was mistranslated as well? I
really would like your honest opinion.
Ronal Baker <bakerr@cdsnet.net> Author of *Biblical Dinosaurs*
--------------------------------------------------------------
The world's first Rapid Evolutionist. Rapid evolution is true
and the Bible proves it!
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.