Gen 1:3 - Light (was Re: The firmament -- a solid barrier

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 15:02:36 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "(no subject)"

    to concordism)
    Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:00:51 -0000
    Precedence: bulk

    Loren writes

    >So here is a counter-challenge, one which you owe it to yourself to
    >attempt: Locate a dozen or two creation stories from ancient cultures
    >around the world. Then allow yourself to do a similar level of
    >word-redefinition in those stories as you do in the Genesis 1 account, in
    >an honest effort to make those stories concord with scientific chronology.
    >How many of them can you make work? Certainly not all of them, but how
    >many? I'd be curious to know the answer to that exercise.

    How sad is this? Or how grave an error? It is far more constructive
    for me to support Gen 1 than trash heathen creation accounts. Loren,
    nothing comes close to Gen 1. I have been told that Enuma Elish is
    easily the closest. It was a complete, utter joke.

    >I count approximately 11 Hebrew words which must be redefined (from the
    >author's original intent) in order to make the Genesis 1 chronology match
    >the scientific chronology in a typical concordist scenario. (In the NIV,
    >for example: light,

    Loren, are you aware that Biblical Hebrew has about 3,000 words (assuming
    that Hugh Ross' reference is correct, and about 8,500 if you insert vowels)?
    And modern English has millions.

    I have made it very clear in the past that I will not "take on multiple
    fights" at the same time. Let's look at your words.

    Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

    Woo hoo! How easy a question this is!!!! Verse 1:2 states "darkness was
    over the surface of the deep." I am not, in any way, shape, or form
    asking for a redefinition of the word light. From the context, light
    is now where the darkness was - over the surface of the deep!!!!

    >So here is a counter-challenge

    So here is a counter-counter challenge. Will you concede that the
    day-age interpretation requires no redefinition of light? For, if you
    will not agree to this, I see no point in addressing your next 10 words.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 15:02:36 EDT