RE: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things previously)

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 07:02:29 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Faith (was Re: resurrection etc)"

    Hi Walter. I've only read the the first few words of your post. But you're
    now my best e-mail friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Jim

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Hicks []
    Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 4:55 PM
    To: Jim Eisele
    Subject: Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things

    Hi Jim,

    So that you will not feel 100% alone, I have always thought of Genesis
    One as amazingly close to what current science has to say. I don't
    consider it to be a science textbook, but the general structure is
    something that strikes me as something quite unexpected from a culture
    thousands of years old. I may be wrong but I think that other cultures
    were far removed from anything like this and had rather bizarre outlooks
    by modern standards. In fact, as recently as the fifties (when I was in
    college), The big bang was ridiculed as something that was adopted only
    by non atheists who believed in "a beginning" to the universe. When the
    background radiation was discovered, Jastro(?) noted that when
    astronomers climbed to the top of mountain of discovery, they found it
    inhabited by philosophers who had been there for thousands of years. (or
    something like that).

    I have always taken Genesis One to indicate some degree of "insider
    knowledge". They often jump my bones for that attitude.

    I may not be correct, but at least I am company.


    Jim Eisele wrote:
    > Hi Paul. In Gen 1:1 and concordism (was Apology) you wrote
    > >Preach God as a Father caring enough to speak to his little children in
    > terms of their pre-understanding.
    > Thanks for that remark. It fits beautifully.
    > I wanted to at least respond to that much. We may disagree about Genesis
    > One, but I have no argument with that.
    > As far as your comments about Genesis One, I haven't had time to fully
    > review them yet.
    > One quick thought, though.
    > You wrote
    > >Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth." is taken by most
    > >today as either an introductory title or summary covering the entire
    > creation
    > >story down to 2:4
    > Most, perhaps, but not all. And have scholars ever been wrong before? I
    > haven't studied all the work of all the scholars. But could "God created
    > the heavens and the earth" simply mean that God created the heavens and
    > earth? I don't want to disrespect scholarship, I just want to debate that
    > notion.
    > Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm starting to realize that we
    > more in common than I thought. -Jim

    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 12:01:31 EST