Re: Genesis One that Fits

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 11:50:53 EST

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits"

    At 10:04 AM 14/02/02 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:
    >Hello, everyone. I just sent my membership in for the ASA. My name is Jim
    >Eisele. I live in Rockville, MD. I've been fascinated by a lot of what
    >I've read on the ASA website.
    >So far, numerous attempts have been made to reconcile Genesis One with
    >science. Many are impressive. But something is missing.
    >Day 3 overlaps into day 6. And so does day 5. I guess that you could argue
    >day 2 does also.
    >What I've read seems very unwilling to accept this reality. I'm not sure
    >exactly when fruit trees began, because this information is avoided. But
    >Genesis 1:29 indicates that fruit trees are for human food. So pretending
    >they are some other type of primitive trees is an effort to reconcile
    >without reconciling. Real fruit trees come after reptiles.
    >Likewise, birds (day 5) come after reptiles. Some try to say the text
    >refers to insects. At best, that is an unnecessary stretch. I couldn't
    >help but laugh at a God who would mention insects but not birds. (Even if I
    >didn't laugh out loud, He would know that I was laughing on the inside).
    >Look, the text indicates fruit trees on day 3, birds on day 5, and reptiles
    >(including the unpleasant reality of the serpent) on day 6.
    >Does the "day of Adam" come before the "day of Seth?" Of course it does.
    >Do they overlap? Of course they do. Does day 3 belong before day 5 which
    >belongs before day 6? Of course. Is each day a grouping? Of course. Do
    >they overlap? Of course. Does God care too much about the ordering of day
    >6? Apparently not. Otherwise, why would Gen 1:24 carry a different order
    >than Gen 1:25?
    >Is Genesis One a prophetic foretelling of future scientific knowledge? I've
    >been stunned by the evidence. I feel much more secure on the Yes side of
    >that than I would feel on the other side.
    >However, I am uncomfortable mashing the Bible with science. Let the Bible
    >be the Bible.

    Welcome to our discussions, which have never been very unified especially
    not on this issue. My personal feeling? I have never been impressed by
    any effort that tries to fit science in the biblical story and the other
    way around.

    The first 11 chapters are not a scientific account of what
    happened. Israelites would have not known how to deal with the modern and
    even pre-modern theories of the beginnings, even when they were expressed
    in their language. So God gave a poem which they could understand, as a
    poem. Personally, I doubt very much, for example, that even the first
    readers, and hearers of the story did not realize, that the story as told
    intended to give God glory for what He did. But the Hebrews had to know
    and understand that God was in charge.

    Much more could be said.

    Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 11:44:52 EST