Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 11:27:44 EDT

But Merv, that means the bible is not literally true and then I must give up
my faith in Jesus:). :) or :( :(

The same applies to the breath of life.

Concordism on Genesis is totally inadequate Adam Sedgwick pointed out in
1833.

Until we see that the Bible was accommodated to the thought of the day so
the original hearers could understand instead of in terms of modern science
we shall never understand it. and create great problems for everyone.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

>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.
>
>

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 11:58:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 11 2008 - 11:58:18 EDT