Cheryl Schatz

Don,

That is, Gen 1-11 (pre-history) might be written “as to appearances” in some ways. This might also happen elsewhere in the Bible, but might be more prevalent in the pre-history. This is what is fuzzy for me and do not want to be dinked for it.

There is no such thing as “pre-history” since creation is the start of history. Your words here make no sense at all. Also your word usage “dinked” is inflammatory.

I see no reason to continue this discussion. When you call history “pre-history” as if it doesn’t exist and you attribute an attack mode on my behalf, it is apparent that there is no purpose to our discussion. I can not get a handle on what you believe or do not believe and it appears that you are not willing to walk in my steps to help me and the rest of us understand what you believe and why you believe as you do, then all this discussion can do is cause hard feelings.

I must say that I am disappointed and very surprised. I have always seen you as being articulate and calm and never easily ruffled. Even during the difficult times on CARM, you did not attack the comps. I don’t know what happened to that sweet, calm and unruffled Don who never took anything as an attack against him personally. But here for some reason you are taking everything personally and responding as if I have no ability to understand your high level of thinking.

On the sign of Jonah, the accounts differ. The Pharisees in Mark (apparently) have not heard about the sign of Jonah, while those in Matt have. For me the solution is that Mark truncated. But this makes treating the Bible like Euclid precarious, but I think that it should NOT be treated in that way.

I have already given you the biblical explanation of why there was no sign and yet it was a sign. You have not even tried to engage my biblical explanation. It appears to me that your mind is made up that there are missing things in the scripture that we must add to, to make it make sense.

I think it would be better to set this one aside for now because you are obviously getting upset and my patience is being tested by continually being accused of “dinking” you. The fact is that I still do not understand what you believe and apparently you do not understand either because you appear to be somewhat “fuzzy” on the details. We will leave it at that.

If anyone else has two cents to put into this discussion, please go ahead. The fact of creation regarding what Adam saw that kept him free from deception is a very important point that we can use when we discuss Genesis with complementarians.