Re: statement on creationism?

glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:44:17 +0000

At 12:51 PM 11/30/99 -0700, dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>Glenn, I think I understand where they are coming from. But a respect for
>the _ipsissima verba_ has forced me from interpreting either Genesis 1 or
>2 as a schedule of _modus operandi_ of God's creative activity. Since 1
>has the human pair created simultaneously after plants, birds and beasts,
>and 2 has Adam formed and given life before plants, birds, beasts and
>Eve, the order and process of neither chapter can be ascribed to the
>historical sequence. Consequently, I hole that the chapters record
>accurately two revelations that communicated to ancient Israel and to us,
>provided we do not impose on them modern chronological assumptions.

I take a slightly different tack. Genesis 1--nothing was actualized--it was
the pre-planning of the universe. The statements, 'and it was so' were the
editor/Moses comments. Genesis 2 is chronologically 10-14 myr after the
preplanning which was prior to the origin of the universe. The reason for
this is exactly what you say, there is NO way to make Genesis 1 fit modern
chronology. No way whatsoever.

>
>I know that the Hebrew verbs do not manifest the complexity of
>Indo-European languages, so that a Semitic imperfect may sometimes be
>translated as a pluperfect. This is used by day-age interpreters to bail
>out the fourth day, and by many to fit Genesis 1 to 2:18f. But this
>approach violates the integrity of the narrative sequence. I cannot claim
>that v. 19 should read: ". . . God had [earlier] formed every beast . . .
>and [now] brought them to Adam . . ." unless v. 20 can read that "Adam
>had given names . . ." before the creatures passed before him.

I don't think God had created anything in Genesis 1. He was merely
outlining what would be there. In this way he can plan the universe in one
order and create it in another! This also gets one out of the 2 creation
accounts problem that I never liked yet it maintains a certain level of
historicity.
>
>So long as YEC's and OEC's impose their chronological assumptions on the
>scriptures, I see no way to bring them to recognize the possibility that
>a hominid pair were transformed into human beings.

You would be amazed at the number of YECs I have converted. Most of this
is done privately via e-mail. They trust me in a way they won't trust
someone who doesn't believe in a historical bible. I am a harder person for
them to dismiss as a 'liberal'.

The fact is that I
>have encountered no empirical technique that allows the differentiation
>of emergent properties because of increased brain complexity from a
>miraculous transformation. Certainly a soul does not leave anatomical
>traces, and MacKay viewed it as purely organizational, with resurrection
>simply the reassembly of personal memory. I may not want to agree, but I
>haven't found an absolute disproof. Sometimes it's a pain to be human.

You are correct that a soul doesn't leave a mark--except for evidence for
language. The first skull that shows a Broca's area (an area associated
with speech) is KNM-ER 1470 which dates to around 1.8 million years ago. A
being with language must be us!
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution