<< But, much more importantly, I cannot see any great value in this
>reinterpretation of the days of Genesis. For even if you can thereby
>rearrange the fulfillment of the events, the fulfillments entailing as they
>do the making of a rock-solid sky, setting an ocean above it which can pour
>down and flood the earth, having the earth arise out of an ocean, and then
>having the flat earth float on top of the waters (a fact which is seen more
>clearly later in the OT) will never be harmonizable with modern science
>anyway. The fact that the days are out of order geologically is minor
>compared to a solid sky with an ocean above it threatening to flood the
>earth. Or do the geological problems loom much larger to a geologist. :-)
<< Have you ever heard of the north pole? If you use this term you can't be
harmonized with modern science.
Have you ever heard of the setting sun? Jimminy, you must be non-scientific.
Have you ever heard of the rising sun? Obviously you believe that the sun
rises instead of the factual case that the earth rotates.
Have you ever heard of the ice box? You are behind the technological times.
Have you ever heard of the teamsters union? Do you think they drive teams
Certain words become fossilized in a language and have no implication to
the user's beliefs.>>
Certain words do become fossilized. But, the rock-solid sky (raqia'), the
ocean above it (half the tehom), and even the "rising" and "setting" sun were
believed in literally all during the OT period. These words did not become
fossilized until after the Reformation. Luther still believed literally in
We do agree on this:
<<To claim that we must stay with the old falsified views, seems not only
destructive and inhibitive of finding a view that works.>>