Re: Gen 1:1 and Concordism

Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 23:25:13 EST

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Definition of "Species""

    Dick wrote,

    << 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
    >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
    >(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
    >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? >>

    John's book advocates a day-age concordism; so, he makes an iffy authority
    for a question like this. But, until we can find a less biased voice, I will
    send this problem on to John and report back.

    <<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.>>

    Ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity. All pre-scientific peoples,
    some of whom were clearly quite bright, believed the sky was solid, why
    should the Hebrews be any different? But, the more important issue here is
    that you cannot separate their beliefs from their writings. The meanings of
    words are integrally tied to the historical-cultural concepts held by the
    writer and his first readers.

    That Gen 1:6-9 is not talking about a modern concept is evident in that the
    firmament which is called Heaven(s) is used to divide the primaeval sea into
    two parts, one part of which, ostensibly half, goes above the firmament. The
    sun, moon and stars, however, go below the firmament, below the sea above the
    firmament. Yet this sea comes down in part during the Flood. This concept of
    a firmament above the sun, moon and stars with a sea even further above which
    can come down to earth as rain is clearly an ancient concept that cannot be
    assimilated into modern cosmology.
    That the firmament must be defined as solid follows from the fact that all
    pre-scientific peoples believed it was solid, that this was the scientific
    view of the day, that the firmament in Ezek 1 (which is the only biblical
    passage that defines the nature of a firmament) is understood to be solid by
    all commentators, that the Church historically understood it to be solid, and
    that there is no evidence of any kind that the word refers to something
    non-solid. There is no Akkadian cognate to the Hebrew word for firmament, but
    the firmament in Gen was named shamayim, which is directly cognate to the
    Akkadian shama'u; and the shama'u is specifically described in Akkadian
    documents as being made of stone.

    <<>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?>>

    Perhaps your greatest achievement was being (as far as I can tell) the first
    Evangelical to identify the Flood of Noah with the Mesopotamian flood of c.
    2900 B.C. Carol Hill has since reiterated this position, and I obviously



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 23:25:30 EST