Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 14:16:08 EDT

Just to perhaps speak the obvious, but with respect to your first
"ponder", the Genesis 1:20-21 passages, including, "...Let the waters
bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..." are
additionally interesting. They are interesting in their very presence,
given the seemingly sufficient "out of the dust of the ground" passage.
It is of course also interesting because of its possible descriptive
accommodation of an evolutionary process. Neither passage of course
proves anything relating to evolution, but they do seem to me to make
clear room for such a progressive creative process, even to a very
literal interpreter of Scripture unless they are just to be ignored.
They are there in plain view for every reader, and their very presence
sure seems to me to make it hard to explain them away. Despite the
"kinds" sophistry, they seem to me to clearly describe some sort of
developmental process, and it is no stretch at all in my view for that
process to be one and the same as an evolutionary process, at the very
least making room for that aspect of concordism.

I'm not a concordist per se, but I do still think it remarkable that the
wisdom of the day (as a minimal description of the inspiration for the
Genesis narrative) did as well as it does against the knowledge of
today. It is sort of sad to me that literalists insist on cherry picking
of these passages, ignoring these two developmental descriptions in
light of what the very Creation speaks to us today. These passages have
been meaningful to me in that light.

Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]

Jon Tandy wrote:

> 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 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 14:16:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 11 2008 - 14:16:48 EDT