Re: Genesis and Predictions
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:23:35 -0500 (EST)
At 03:36 AM 11/13/98 -0800, Adam Crowl wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:07:01 -0500 (EST)
>>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: Genesis and Predictions
>>To: Adam Crowl <qraal@hotmail.com>
>>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>
>In reply to my fumings as "qraal" Moorad wrote...
>>
>>I believe that the day we know all about the physical universe, then we
>will
>>realize that the Genesis account is consistent with our knowledge of
>how
>>everything came into being. However, the Genesis account is not
>sufficient
>>to lead to that knowledge.
>>
>>Moorad
>
>I agree to a certain extent, but such knowledge lies a long way off. A
>real question I have with most "reconstructions" of Genesis 1/2 is the
>persistent failure to recognise the cosmology that the writers are
>coming from. Take God's first act - the creation of light and the
>separation of day from night. To us this makes no sense, that there can
>be a day without the Sun, but imagine the naive viewpoint of c. 1500 BC.
>To them there is no obvious link between Light and the Sun because they
>see a bright blue sky through which the Sun moves, and contrariwise the
>night and the Moon. To this view the bright blue sky is the habitat of
>the Sun just as much as the water is the home of fishes - a landscape
>for an inhabitant. In this world view the Sun, Moon and Stars are still
>living creatures, even if they are not gods - just as the great
>sea-beasts rule the sea, the "great lights" rule their respective skies.
>
>Does this translate at all into modern materialist cosmology? No. I very
>much doubt that stars are living beings and likewise the Sun. We know
>the Moon is just cooling mantle slag blown off the Earth, and not the
>ruler of the Night. C.S.Lewis had speculated on angelic counterparts to
>the celestial hosts, but whether he wa serious or not is irrelevant -
>Newton killed the celestials when "soul" was no longer necessary to
>"push" the heavenlies around the sky.
>
>Or so it seems. Perhaps Genesis is code, but the noise level is pretty
>high.
>
>Adam
Dear Adam,
Sometimes it is best to find what is the least we can get out of Genesis 1/2
rather than what is the most we can extricate from it. The least is that
there is a Creator and that we are all creatures. Of course, this least
amount of knowledge is much more than most people possess.
Take care,
Moorad