[asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 08:49:32 EDT

In the last few days I've pondered a few points about Genesis 1 and 2 that I
don't recall reading about in other discussions (although I'm sure they must
have been somewhere).
First, I was pondering the statement that the animals and Adam were created
"out of the dust of the ground". I realize that some have inferred that
this statement could include evolution, as the earth itself is what produces
the variety of creatures. I think this is a tenuous conclusion when taken
as a "concordist" interpretation, but it does make for an interesting
rhetorical argument. However, if this is taken as a potentially
straightforward description of evolution producing man from the ground (from
common, existing structures), then for consistency what would the creation
of Eve be taken to mean scientifically, as being from Adam's rib? In other
words, for those who take the one statement as a scientific inference of
Adam's evolution, how can they apply consistent interpretation when it comes
to Eve's creation as a scientific event?
Second, the sun and moon were made to "divide the day from the night", with
the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night. If this
was so (according to a "literal" interpretation), then why do we see the
moon come out in the daytime and disappear at night sometimes? It seems
that if this verse were to be taken literally, the moon has ceased
functioning according to its created purpose, which was to rule over the
Also, since God divided the light from the darkness in Gen 1:4, why did it
need to be divided again in verse 14 by the sun and moon? How do the sun
and moon divide the light from darkness, since both of them cast light on
the earth (the moon for at least most of the month)? The only thing I can
think is that dividing the light from darkness in verse 14 means to divide
the day from night (sun=day, moon=night), which goes back to my previous
paragraph about why are the moon and the sun sometimes out during the day --
that is, if all this is to be taken in a strictly "literal" 20th century
cosmology. For me, this all contributes toward showing why a framework or
some other interpretation is more plausible.
Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 11 08:50:43 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 11 2008 - 08:50:43 EDT