Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth

Moorad Alexanian (
Wed, 19 May 1999 08:52:39 -0400

The subject of this discussion ought to be "Accepting Genesis 1 as truth." I
am not sure how we can ever know how much science is there in that truth.
After all science is a human understanding of the physical universe and we
may not be able to discern God's knowledge of how He brought things into
being from our study of nature. If you accept Genesis 1 as truth, then ipso
facto the fundamental question of origins is not a scientific question.


-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth

>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
>day 2 and placed an ocean above it, an ocean which is above the sun, moon
>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
>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.