In response to my request for specific instances where Genesis One does not
match science, George Murphy writes
> then there's the fact
that there's the 2d Genesis account, which tells the story of creation in a
quite different way.
That may not be a specific criticism of Genesis One, but it's a whole lot
closer than the other posts that have been placed. So, I guess, I thank you
for that George. At least we can have a discussion. I can more or less
agree with you about that being a 2d Genesis account. To me, it is telling
a completely different story than Genesis One. I know that Genesis 2:4 uses
a different Hebrew word for God - much more personal than Gen 1:1-2:3. And
in Genesis 5:1 we see another instance of a "break" - "This is the book of
the generations of Adam."
My "fight" is Genesis One. I have not seen a fully adequate explanation for
it anywhere. And when people criticize my posts without specifics, I become
suspicious, not persuaded.
In a nutshell, I think Genesis One is "creation of the world." Genesis Two
and on is much more personal - dealing with Adam, Eve and other real people.
I see no conflict, just stories about different things. Personally, I think
Dick Fischer (easy to find on ASA) has done extremely impressive work on
You also mentioned
>To do that one has to do all kinds of interpretive gymnastics to explain
>plants could have been created before the sun,
I ask you, do you think Moses knew that light came from the sun? If so,
Moses has mentioned the sun long before day 4 - "in the beginning."
Thanks for your comments, Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 08:37:16 EST