Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth
Wed, 19 May 1999 05:13:19 EDT

Hi Kurt,

You said

<< I have a few thoughts and some questions:

You Said:
"What I do question is your assumption that Gen 1 is intended to teach us
God created the world, rather than, to put it basically, WHO created the
Then Gen. 1:1 would suffice. Why then did God giver us the rest of the
To Confuses us? Or to straighten out the story as the only eye-wittness
to creation. >>

There is reason to believe that one of the main reasons for the rest of the
narrative was to teach a theology in opposition to the theology of the times.
That required further explication than just Gen 1:1. I will explain that
more fully when I comment on Enuna elish later. There is also a purpose to
reveal proper relationships of man to God and to creation. There may well be
other purposes.

<<Genesis is a historical record from GOD the Creator-- the only trustworthy
source on Creation! >>

How can you prove that the order of events, the history, in Gen 1 is not just
a literary device used by God? Augustine thought that this was the case, and
I believe Origen did too.

Then the Bible means nothing to us today-- or at least we can't not trust
it. How do you know that you are right?>>

Since I am saying the Bible, though accommodated to the science of the times,
is a revelation from God with regard to theology, ethics, relationships, the
Bible does mean something to us today. You can trust it for the purposes for
which it was given.

<<P.S. Please expand on the Heb. "raquaya">>

My paper on raqia' that I mentioned in my last post expands about as much as
I am able. Did you read that paper? If you have questions after reading it,
I will try to answer them more fully.

Paul S., a servant of the Lord