Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 10:03:32 EDT

I can't speak to your first question as its a problem only for the concordists.
 But your second and third regarding sun & moon dividing night & day, make an
excellent example of something that the original writer would also have been
perfectly well aware of, and therefore we can conclude that he was deliberately
unconcerned about that which preoccupies modern cosmologists.

--Merv

Quoting Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>:

> 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
> night.
>
> 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 10:04:44 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 11 2008 - 10:04:44 EDT