Re: God acting in creation #4+++

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Dec 19 2001 - 08:17:56 EST

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Coercion & Persuasion (Was Re: God acting in creation #4+++"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > george murphy wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> 1) As I noted earlier, the "rivers section" of Gen.2 indicates that
    >> that account refers to our present world (in which at least 2 of
    >> those rivers are identifiable). This doesn't require that it be
    >> historical narrative but whatever it is it's about our earth.
    >
    > I disagree. That does not prove that it is our Earth, nor does it
    > prove that it not historical. If it is historical, it could not be our
    > Earth.
    >
    >> 2) Was that first universe not one of increasing entropy? If Adam
    >> or Eve put a bucket of hot water next to one of cold water did they
    >> not come to a common temperature? For that matter, the chemical
    >> reactions their lives required couldn't have operated without the 2d
    >> law.
    >
    > Pish! That sounds like a physicist who likes to define what God can or
    > cannot create. Why not a universe without the physical laws that you
    > have come to know and love? If you want to force fit a single universe
    > theory, then you are pretty much required to consider much of Genesis
    > 2 & 3 to be a myth or legend. I prefer to take the Bible at face
    > value.
    >
    >> 3) You assume that the 2 creation accounts must be reconcilable as
    >> historical accounts but there is no need to make this assumption.
    >> Questions about what God could do are irrelevant. The Bible deals
    >> with the one world God has created, not Dreamtimes, parallel worlds,
    >> &c.
    >
    > If I take the Bible at face value, I see a world (in Genesis 2 & 3)
    > where men came before animals and beasts could speak. Where does the
    > Bible say that God created only one world and that the story of Adam
    > and Eve is some sort of a fable? Jesus seemed to think that Genesis 2
    > and 3 was "historical"

            Given your reply to Dave, I'm not sure whether you're interested
    primarily in "fun" or apologetics. If the 1st then your idea is perhaps
    worthy of a 1/2 hour Twilight Zone episode. If the latter then I'd
    alter Dave's evaluation to "preposterouser and preposterouser." An
    alternate universe with rivers named Tigris & Euphrates & a land named
    Assyria? It sounds as if you've watched the ending of "Planet of the
    Apes" too many times. (I hope at least it was the original one: Last
    summer's remake was wretched.)

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 19 2001 - 08:16:34 EST