Cheryl Schatz

Don,

My questions remain unanswered, I at least attempted to answer yours, altho you might not agree with my answers or even think they are answers.

What questions on the creation of Adam or the animals did I not answer? You are the one who has not answered my questions. It seems that you are trying hard to skirt the questions than even try to answer what you believe. You gave me what Genesis 2 appears to say, but you did not say what you believe. I do not yet know if you believe the animals created after Adam were real animals or were “poetry” animals or “hymn” animals which would mean that it is not a historic event (or historical animals). The fact that you fail to answer my questions seems to me that you do not want me to know the answers as it wouldn’t be to your benefit. What else can I think?

It is because my questions remain unanswered (even in an attempt) that I feel disrespected as this indicates to me you see this as a non-peer relationship.

I do not disrespect you. In fact I agree that this is a non-peer relationship because I am not even in the ballpark with your education or your intellectual capacity. But just because I am not as smart as you are doesn’t mean that what I have to say or the questions I ask are not to be considered. And it also doesn’t mean that I disrespect you. I just want my questions to be answered.

Many understand that it is rude to tear down a straw man by trying to refute something that an opponent does not believe. I believe that it is best to completely understand what the other person believes so that I can either agree with it or give my objections to it. I cannot understand what you believe because you are not giving me enough information to understand your view. If you actually believed that the account was a historical event it should not be too hard to say so. Must I assume that you believe that Genesis 1-3 is mostly non-historical? What else can I assume since you will not tell me?

But if you do not know about the possibility of truncation then it is a (seeming) contradiction for Jesus to say “No sign” in one gospel and “No sign except Jonah” in another. (Mat 12, 16; Mark 8; Luk 11).

Jesus said that “no sign” would be given because no sign would be given unless they believed. The sign of Jonah is the resurrection and Jesus did not appear to anyone who was not a believer. Therefore “no sign” was given to the unbeliever. Yet a sign “the sign of Jonah” was given but it was “no sign” to the Pharisee leaders. There is absolutely no contradiction at all and one doesn’t need a truncation to explain the matter.

Don, you have been on my blog for a long time and I have always treated you with respect even when I haven’t agreed with you in everything. I have appreciated your help in a lot of things on this blog. For you to be offended by my questions seems very out of character for you. I haven’t seen you offended even when comps were coming at you on the slick discussion boards. It seems to me that somehow I have pulled on your security blanket. If this is the case perhaps it would be better for the discussion to end because I will not stop asking for enough information so that I can understand. Perhaps someone else can give me the answers to my questions and you and I can stop discussing this issue so that you are no longer offended. Fair enough?