“Death Sandwich” would be a great name for a liturgical rock band.

“The structuring of life and death in Genesis appears to be something that hasn’t been noticed before,” researcher Gordon Rugg, a senior lecturer in Computing and Mathematics at Keele University in the United Kingdom, wrote in a Feb. 21 blog post…

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/genesis-death-sandwich-bible-130222.htm

Is this a serious article? Apparently, somebody is late to the party. LOL

I agree that the Bible appeals to more than simple logic, but these boffins seem capable of everything but. I could go into all the very simple arguments (if there was death before sin, etc.) but you can find those elsewhere. When atheists can easily point out the inconsistency, one which the smartest Christians fail to see, we have a problem.

John is right to see something wrong with women’s roles in the modern setup, but without an understanding of the literary and Covenantal structures of the Bible, he’s not going to know where to put the prophetesses in the liturgical scheme of things.

As far as I know, the KCC doesn’t take a stand on this issue. They wisely don’t want to let their ministry be hampered by controversy. They would have people condemning them for calling John Dickson in to tell women to go preach in Church.

By faith, we can see not only that God created the world, but in what order and over what time-frame he did it. Without a firm foundation, based in life-and-death physical reality, one’s theology is a house of cards. Jesus’ living body is the solid ground because Adam was also raised out of the solid ground.

With respect,
Mike

The law and the prophets bear witness to the risen Jesus Christ—but not necessarily in the way your logic functions.

Jesus living resurrection body is the solid ground; he does not stand on a ‘house of cards’ formed by the right Scriptural methodology.

The revelation of Christ risen, and his Word that God created the creation, stands firm. And the glorious difference of male female, too.

And whatever science can teach us, good and well. In your eagerness to convince others of creation (and out-prove evolution), you tie Christ’s resurrection to your Scripture-reading system. His Risen presence is far more confronting than your methodology of Gen 1 and 2. Be it right, almost right, slightly incorrect, or partially your own scientific eisegesis.

In my opinion, the Katoonmba women’s convention may feel more secure in their Scripture reasoning, without the troubling John. But I think they will be the poorer.