RE: [asa] Creation "waters"

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed Sep 17 2008 - 12:19:23 EDT

George,

 

I know you have been enamored with this idea that you've termed "M-Genesis",
and it's an interesting proposal, but maybe I've missed it - where does a
blue accretion disk fit in Genesis 1? Could you explain it in detail, why a
literal view of Genesis is helped by your proposal?

 

v. 2 The earth was without form and void. That's fine, a formless earth
could refer to a time before the solar system and planets were formed,
looking from God's vantage point.

v. 3 God said let there be light. That doesn't say anything about blue
light.

v. 4 God divided light from darkness. What's that?

v. 6 firmament in the midst of the waters. The so-called "waters" could
represent that "blue thingy" seen in the sky at the creation of the solar
system on the 2nd day, still from God's vantage point, but if so what is the
firmament? And what is it dividing, considering other scriptures on the
firmament seem to refer to something from an earth vantage point that have
to do with sky or the mythical dome holding up the upper ocean. And if we
are going to hold God and this text to a "literal" interpretation, why
didn't God say "blue light" instead of "water"? Didn't he know the
difference?

v. 9 waters gather into one place, the dry land appears, which was called
earth. Is this where you would suggest that the planet was formed, after
the initial creation of the solar system?

v. 11 let the earth bring forth grass. Pretty large jump in sequence, to
the time when life had formed and plant life began to appear on earth,
including seed-bearing plants which came much later.

v. 14 lights in the firmament. Where do these fit with an M-Genesis theory?
All the above I assume is referring to the creation of earth and solar
system. Where does the creation of the universe and other galaxies fit, if
at all?

v. 20 creatures appear on earth. Yet biology tells us that many sea
creatures appeared before flowering, seed-bearing plants appeared (some
biologist please correct me if I'm wrong about this). If the scriptural
sequence differs from the biological sequence of events in some non-literal
fashion, does this affect your zeal for finding a concordist explanation for
the astronomical events?

v. 24 land creatures come forth. Again someone correct me if I'm wrong, but
didn't land creatures appear before flying ones, according to the standard
biological timeline?

 

I'll leave it at that, and not ask about what was the seventh day from a
purely scientific/concordist interpretation, or why you think Genesis 2 has
a different sequence (which omits the "celestial" creation). I'm not asking
for a lengthy discourse, but just an explanation of why you think M-Genesis
contributes to our knowledge of either science or theology through a literal
concordism in the above verses.

 

Also, does anyone know why blue accretion disks appear blue? Does it have
anything to do with the nature of the light generated being changed as it
travels through a billion miles, or is it affected by our observational
instruments? If so, what does this say about God as an observer of the
creation of this solar system?

 

Also, what does the blue skies of Saturn have to do with the blue accretion
disks of distant galaxies? Which one is supposed to fit into Genesis 1, and
how, as per my questions above?

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but I confess to being a bit skeptical over
how this concept provides any value to establishing the "truth" of Genesis
1, according to God's intended meaning for us.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jon Tandy

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:06 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Creation "waters"

 

I am still quite enamored with the idea of a literal view of the "waters" of
Gen. 1. Here is some new evidence supporting such an idea.

 

Here is a pretty image of a star forming region only 40 trillion miles down
the road from here.

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080916.html

 

It demonstrates the likelihood that our Sun could have been bathed in
copious amounts of light. This would have produced a very blue color
emanating from the Sun's accretion disk such that one might describe it as
"waters".

 

This is seen not only in our sky but off-world, also. For instance, here is
the result of starlight (Sun) illuminating the dense northern hemisphere of
Saturn (during a period when its sky was clear).

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/17feb_bluesaturn.htm

 

It is quite plausible that an observer - one taken back in time to be the
designated witness -- would have described what was observable in a fashion
that we find in Genesis.

 

Coope

 

 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 17 12:19:40 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 17 2008 - 12:19:41 EDT