Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 03:38:46 EST

  • Next message: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: ID in OH"

    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
    Genesis 2-11.

    You also mentioned

    >To do that one has to do all kinds of interpretive gymnastics to explain
    how land
    >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