Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 19:15:05 EDT

Of course this is possible, presuming that the best interpretation of
scripture allows this position. But this too is reading into the text.
We may also be inclined to quickly dismiss as well simply because a
tension with held conviction is more easily and quickly dispatched in
this way.

Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA] wrote:

> I'm not sure the phrase "let the waters bring forth..." is really
> describing a process, as much was we would like to believe it does for
> the sake of concordism. Instead, I think it might mean, "let the
> waters display...". A possibly similar phrase is found in the NT in
> Matt.13:52 where Jesus says, "Therefore every scribe who has become a
> disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who
> brings out of his treasure things new and old." The idea in "bringing
> out" or "bringing forth" might be to display its richness rather than
> a process of creation. Thus, God causes the waters to have lots of
> life that it can "bring forth" and display to God's glory. I think
> the idea of a drawn-out process is a modern idea that we are too quick
> to read into the text.
> Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Armstrong <>
> To: ASA <>
> Sent: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 2:16 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] A few literal problems in Genesis
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar
> <>
> for your browser.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 11 19:15:50 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 11 2008 - 19:15:50 EDT