Re: objectivity is not dead

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 03 Jul 1997 20:51:58 -0500

At 09:13 AM 7/3/97 -0500, Paul Arveson wrote:
>Personally, I am not
>convinced that a concordist approach is completely satisfactory with
>respect to Genesis 1 (which deals with everything, not just
>paleoanthropology), but my criterion for truth is the same as Glenn's.

I want to thank Paul for the very kind words. This will shock some people
but I probably have to agree with Paul about Genesis 1. While I am most
assuredly an incorrigible concordist when it comes to Genesis 2 on, my
treatment of Genesis 1 probably can be considered concordist in the
classical meaning of that term. Believing that Genesis 1 took place PRIOR to
the origin of the universe somewhere prior to 12 billion years ago or so, my
view does not try to concord the events on the days to normal geologic
history. I gave up on that when I gave up on being a YEC.

However, by considering Genesis 1 to be God's six proclamations which
outlined the physical nature of the future universe, Genesis 1 can become
true in a fashion that it can't be in most typical concordistic attempts at
harmonization. It is true, but it refers prior to the Big Bang. Everything
there is the plans and God saw that the plans for the universe is good. The
places were Genesis 1 says "And it was so" is an editorial comment by Moses
to his readers that yes, this all took place.

By this, I make Genesis 1 true, but pre-historic (or a term only physicists
who have read John Wheeler's part of the book Gravitation will understand),
pre-geometric. Genesis 1 really happened, and does concord to real events
just real events prior to the creation of the universe.


Foundation, Fall and Flood