Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth
Wed, 19 May 1999 04:41:46 EDT


You said,

<< You have written substantial papers on this topic, and I am impressed.
However, with respect, I can't agree with your statement: "... the basic
scientific picture in which this revelation (Genesis 1) is embedded is
the science of the times." In my view the creation narrative is a simple
statement of revealed truth. Further, however the ancients understood
this truth can hardly be of any concern to us today, for through
empirical observation and deduction we now have, by God's grace, a
fuller view of reality. In respect of how we come to be here, why should
it be supposed that God would speak truth only to the contemporaries of
the Patriarchs? So, I don't believe I am being inconsistent in accepting
the narrative as literal truth.

[snip] Is it now reasonable to argue that our Creator got it wrong when he
'birds on day 5 'and 'land animals on day 6'?>>

You say you accept the narrative as literal truth, and you think God is
revealing that birds were created on day 5 and land animals on day 6. That
is consistent. But, do you accept the teaching that God made a solid sky on
day 2 and placed an ocean above it, an ocean which is above the sun, moon and
furthest stars? That is taught just as clearly in the account as is the
creation of birds on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth. If you do,
then I grant that you are not being inconsistent when you ask TE's to agree
to the order of events presented in Gen 1.

Incidentally, I said I was a TE. Actually I am open to both a TE and a PC

Paul S.