Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 22:20:16 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    In a message dated 2/14/02 5:44:17 PM Mountain Standard Time, writes:

    > Howard van Till wrote:
    > >Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the Genesis 1 narrative has essentially NOTHING
    > >to do with the scientific particulars of the universe's formational history
    > >and its chronology. Perhaps Moses (or a later editorial committee) was
    > >engaging a menu of fundamental and important theological questions relevant
    > >??to that time and that place.
    > Howard, you give up easily. What are the consequences if you are wrong?
    > I would suggest that you strongly prove Genesis one doesn't = science before
    > jumping to other conclusions. Remember, we have to defend the faith to
    > non-believers. -Jim

    Yes, we have to defend *the faith* to non-believers. Lest we forget in these
    discussions, the faith is in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. It is not
    in some supposed scientific accuracy of Genesis. Efforts to make the Bible
    "line up" with science have at least 2 bad effects:

    1) When things don't "line up" (as with "creation science" or the things you
    have pointed out with Day 4), people are led to doubt the veracity of the
    Bible. Any explicit or implicit message from Christians that things must
    "line up" in order for Christianity to be true puts an unnecessary stumbling
    block in the way of those who don't see such an alignment.

    2) If we focus on questions that are clearly outside the purpose of Genesis
    (like the scientific details and chronology of creation), we will give short
    shrift to the actual message God is trying to convey (about his status as
    creator, etc.).

    Jim, you're jumping in pretty aggressively on ground many of us have given
    years of prayerful thought and study to. It's good to see a young person
    interested in these things and in the ASA, but before you shoot from the hip
    too much more, I think it would behoove you to read a book or two that
    delineates the important issues in a mature Christian manner. Read "The
    Fourth Day." Or George Murphy's "Toward a Christian View of a Scientific
    World." Or Charles Hummel's "The Galileo Connection." Or Robert Fisher's
    "God Did It, But How?" Or Richard Bube's "Putting It All Together." Any of
    these will at least give the basic arguments why a Christian should not try
    to force the Bible to be a science textbook. Reading a well-written book
    really is a better path to understanding than these e-mail exchanges.

    Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
    "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
     attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 22:20:26 EST