Re: Genesis 1 on ocean and atmosphere

From: Peter Ruest <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 10:20:13 EST

Michael,

I get the impression that you haven't understood my position. I don't know
whether you read only superficially what I wrote, whether you read at all
my other relevant posts and PSCF articles, whether you just don't care to
consider seriously a view differing from your own, or what's the problem. In
your answer below, you are just reaffirming your views, hardly interacting at
all with what I wrote, apart from the few points where you agree. Under such
conditions, I doubt whether it would be worth while trying to reformulate in
detail what I think, and showing why your statements below are beside the point
or red herrings.

Maybe sometime later I'll write something about the problems of accommodationism
- for those on the list who are interested. At least, I can assure you that I
agree with your last sentence. If that surprises you, maybe you should take some
time to think about it. Maybe it could even make you read carefully what I wrote
about the question of interpreting the bible in general, and Genesis in
particular.

I hope you don't find my language too abrasive.

Peter

Michael Roberts wrote on 20 Feb 2006:
> I am sorry Peter if you find my language abrasive. I will defend what I say
> as one cannot link Gen 1 to events in the earth's past and Concordism has
> failed before. Remember it was one of the two dominant views from 1800 to
> 1860 along with the Gap Theory.
>
> I agree with three of your descriptions but "retrodictive prophecy" is
> unhelpful and means nothing.
>
> raqia could be translated expanse but that does define what it means . The
> use of raqia in the OT does not allow us to put a modern meaning on it.
>
> Your quote from Tom Wright. He was speaking about NT times and is spot on.
> What he said is not applicable to the OT. The OT cosmology is similar to all
> ANE cosmogonies from 1500 to 500BC and I am not sure whether the cosmogony
> could point to a date or a place of writing, but then we may well have the
> final editing after centuries from the first draft. Possibly the numbers
> used eg the 6 day structure may point to Babylon, but I am not competent to
> judge.
>
> We do best to see Gen 1 as a paean to God the creator and not try to make it
> conformable to science.
>
> Michael

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
Received on Wed Feb 22 10:22:59 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 22 2006 - 10:23:00 EST