Re: Gen 1:1 and Concordism

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:17:22 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: How to discuss evolution with friends. WAs RE: YEC and loss of faith:"

    Paul wrote:

    >Assuming Gen 1 is written from the point of view of a person on earth, Gen
    >1:1-5 specifies that there was no differentiation between Day and Night, no
    >Light alternating with Darkness, that could be discerned by a person on earth
    >until Day 1. So, in Gen 1:2, when an ocean covers the earth, dated c. 3.5 to
    >4.0 billion years ago, it was totally dark on the earth. This is c.
    >500,000,000 years after sunlight appears. From what I have read, by that time
    >(after the earth cooled enough to have an ocean) the earth was no longer in
    >total darkness. However, astrophysics-geology is not my field and I would
    >like to be corrected if I am wrong about that. If there is reason to believe
    >that the earth was still shrouded in total darkness when the first ocean
    >appeared on earth, I will concede that the concordist interpretation fits the
    >facts of natural science up to v. 5.

    >So, do you have some documentation to sustain your position? Or, Howard or
    >some other person in the respective field, can you (I had to say it)
    >enlighten us?

    ASAer John Wiester knows this stuff. Could somebody ask him to contribute
    on this point?

    >Hebrew does not say birds fly _in_ the firmament, but _in front of_ the
    >firmament. What is _in_ (in the sense of within the confines of) the
    >firmament is the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:17); but the waters are _above_
    >the firmament (same prepositional phrase with the same object) as in Ezek
    >1:25 to describe the location of a voice above a firmament, and that voice is
    >clearly from a person on a throne which is literally above, over, on top of
    >the firmament, not in it in any sense. The biblical description of a solid
    >firmament with an ocean above it and the sun, moon and stars under it is
    >exactly the cosmology of the ancient Babylonians, albeit they sometimes have
    >more than one solid firmament.

    If the Hebrews thought the firmament was solid while we know it is not, or
    if they thought the earth was flat while we know it to be round, or if they
    thought the sun rises in the East and sets in the West while we know the
    earth revolves on its axis creating the illusion, or any thing else they
    thought out of scientific ignorance, does that give us license to say the
    Genesis narrative is factually incorrect, or historically flawed?

    We know far more about the sun, earth, moon, stars, firmament, and
    everything else, than they did. I don't think that changes anything. If
    they thought the moon was made out of cream cheese it would only impact the
    credibility of Scripture negatively if it was so stated. A "solid
    firmament" or a "flat earth," or a "cream-cheese moon," if so stated, would
    be wrong. But a firmament they thought was solid where we know it to be
    otherwise should make no difference, in my estimation. That said though, I
    really can't believe they were that stupid.

    >DF: We heartily agree on the "Mesopotamian background" of the Genesis
    > account. Do we agree on the Mesopotamian background of the physical
    > events, i.e.: Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, the Genesis flood, and the
    > tower of Babel?
    >PS: Yes

    Ahh, I like agreement, don't you?

      I don't think I mentioned this before. A popular name found in lists of
    the buried in the cemeteries excavated in southern Mesopotamia was
    "Adamu." I would presume there was an original Adamu who must have been
    famous enough that following generations were named after him, much as
    "Paul" is popular today for the same reason. The second name on a list of
    Assyrian kings also was "Adamu." A medallion was found with the name
    "Adamu" on it, and he was described as "the son of God."

    The first name the Accadians used for their father-god in heaven was ilu,
    later corrupted to "Anu" under pressure of the Sumerian father-god in
    heaven the Sumerians called "An." When Accadian evolved into Hebrew, I
    believe, the "u" suffix was dropped such that ilu became El (Hebrew for
    God), and Adamu became Adam who was described by Luke as "the son of God."

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 00:12:35 EST