Re: Precambrian geology (2)
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:27:48 EDT
<< Since there was only one interpretation of the fourth day until 1500 AD or
> later, it is historically justified to speak of the "clouded atmosphere
> clearing up" interpretation as a "reinterpretation". Further those who
> to this interpretation usually imply or even state that they are trying to
> harmonize Genesis with modern science; so calling this interpretation
> "concordistic" is also justified. I am not suggesting that the historical
> interpretation of the fourth day is sacred; but, I do suggest that the
> historical interpretation fits the historical and grammatical context of
> 1, while the concordistic interpretation is imposed upon the text. If,
> Ray Zimmer, someone likes the latter interpretation for subjective reasons
> and says they realize it has little or no objective foundation, I have no
> problem with it.
>> Perhaps historically correct but this seems to carry a message with it
from those who would place a burdon on those who see the interpretation
different and accuse the OEC of re-writting the scriptures to accomodate
evolution when in fact this is not a reasonable assertion. I would also
have a problem with not seeing the original interpretation as
"concordistic" according to the prevailing world-view of nature, i.e.,
the earth is flat, bounded, the sun travels in the sky, etc etc. Some
see the Hebrew as being indefinite enough to allow a great manner views
based only on the scant number of words in Genesis and that we must look
to the physical record to fill in the blanks. And why not, we fill in
details of Biblical historical events as to time places events.
Bert Massie >>
I basically agree with the YEC's that the concordistic interpretations of the
OEC's do not accept the Scriptures in a straight forward way and distort the
Bible; but, if it is any consolation, it is evident to me that the YEC's do
the same thing. As you say the original Scriptures reflect a flat and
bounded earth, the sun literally moves, the sky is rock-solid, there is an
ocean above the sky, and Noah's flood is not described as global. So, in
spite of their illusion, they are rewriting Scripture too.
I'd prefer leaving both the biblical and scientific data in tact,
undistorted; and take an approach similar to the one outlined by Van Til in
the fifth chapter of his book, The Fourth Day.
Incidentally, it is entirely possible that the creation of the sun, moon and
stars is left until the fourth day to make a theological point: these
heavenly bodies were not present at the beginning, are not gods, are not
sources of wisdom, are not the creators but only the bearers of light, exist
only because of the word of God and are completely and very easily subject to
His authority. The contrast is with Mesopotamian and Egyptian theology.
If the order of the events in Gen 1 is due to a literary framework or is
purposely polemical or both, an underlying concord with the scientific facts
would be neither intended nor necessary, and probably not possible.