Re: [asa] water above the solid dome in Genesis

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 23:02:06 EDT

Phil,
I don't doubt that Futato is an excellent scholar. However, the best of
us humans tend to be led by our commitments despite our best efforts to
analyze objectively. Rightly or wrongly, I sense an emotional
underpinning to his argument. It is far more obvious in the current
translations of Genesis 1, presumably done by some of the best scholars
available.

Over the years, I have been forced step by grudging step from a YEC
position. It may be that, as a consequence, I imagine problems where
there are none. But, as one who has taught logic dozens of times, I find
Futato's argument dubious. I have to leave it there.
Dave

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:16:26 -0400 philtill@aol.com writes:
Dave,

I don't think you thought through your last post very carefully.

Regarding Futato's note 8, you must have confused the perspective of the
narrative with its setting. The setting is Mesopotamian, of course (we
can't really believe that Futato didn't know that), but the perspective
must be somewhere westward of Mesopotamia (e.g., the Levant) since the
text says so, itself. Further, the Pentatech itself claims to have been
written (or perhaps merely redacted?) by Moses while the Hebrews were in
the southern part of the Levant, and so if you take the Bible story of
the exodus literally then the perspective of the redactor at least must
have been outside Mesopotamia. Regardless, this is not central to
Futato's exegesis of Gen.2:5-7, so why camp out on this?

Regarding Futato's note 13, the irrigation of people hadn't started yet
because that's what Genesis 2:5 specifically says: "there was not a man
to till the ground." As to natural watering, the text also specifically
says there was none of that, either, when it says: "no plant of the
field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the
earth." The lack of rain is stated as explanatory for the absence of
plants. That's the Bible saying it, not Futato's note 13. So I'm not
sure you really followed Futato's argument at all and therefore I can't
think of any way to respond -- your statement about note 13 seems
unintelligible. Am I misunderstanding you?

Futato is a world-class Hebrew scholar and not likely one to make a
strained interpretation of any text. I've brought arguments from YEC's
and OEC's to him for his critique and he usually says that they are
strained and have a funny feel and he wouldn't use any of their material
in his classroom. He's no concordist. He believes the OT reflects an
ANE worldview. If you want to refute him you'd need to find another
Hebrew scholar of his caliber. It would be foolish for either one of us
to think we can tell as strained interpretation better than he can. I
certainly won't take the word of a scientist (such as you or me) over
that of an expert in his field.

thanks,
Phil

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 13 23:05:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 23:05:31 EDT