Re: Genesis One and Concordism

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 07:54:24 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things previously)"

    Hi again, Paul. I'll try to take your ideas one at time.

    In Gen 1:1 and concordism (was Apology) your write

    >>1. Between verses 1 and 2 are the years between the Big Bang at say 10
    billion years ago (to be conservative) and the stage when the earth had
    cooled to the place where it could have an ocean as in Gen 1:2, which is (to
    be generous) 4 billion years ago. So, this interpretation is saying there is
    a gap of some 6 billion years between verses 1 and 2. It is saying there
    was at least 1 and 1/2 times more years of creative activity between verses
    and 2 than went on between verses 2 through 31. This is contrary to the
    facie import of the text.>>

    Paul, I've never seen time limits imposed in the Bible. I think that we
    modern westerners really struggle with time&numbering issues. I've been
    there. And it has caused "temporary faith crises." On Thu 2/14/02 8:35pm
    (Re: Genesis One that Fits)Bob Miller noted

    >We are a logical sequential people, but that does not mean the that
    >the ancient Hebrew society was. Read the rest of the OT...

    Paul, I don't know about you, but I'm humbled by that.

    The gospels skip from Jesus' birth to 12 yrs old to his ministry. The
    Creation of the Universe is an event like none other.

    >>In addition, this necessitates understanding v. 2
    as a stage in the earth's evolution, thus "the earth became etc." In the
    opinion of experts in Hebrew grammar like the evangelical scholar, Bruce
    Waltke, this is grammatically "improbable.">>

    Matthew 1:1 states that Jesus Christ is the son of David. On the surface of
    things, in modern western language, that is wrong. Gen 1:1 doesn't tell us
    when the heavens and earth were created. Is it fair to expect a date on v

    In your concluding sentence, you wrote
    >Preach God as a Father caring enough to speak to his little children in
    terms of their pre-understanding. I still think that there is an awful lot
    to that.

    Thanks for the opportunity to have a discussion. -Jim

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 12:53:12 EST