Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: PHSEELY@aol.com <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth
>Vernon,
>
>You said,
>
><< You have written substantial papers on this topic, and I am impressed.
> However, with respect, I can't agree with your statement: "... the basic
> scientific picture in which this revelation (Genesis 1) is embedded is
> the science of the times." In my view the creation narrative is a simple
> statement of revealed truth. Further, however the ancients understood
> this truth can hardly be of any concern to us today, for through
> empirical observation and deduction we now have, by God's grace, a
> fuller view of reality. In respect of how we come to be here, why should
> it be supposed that God would speak truth only to the contemporaries of
> the Patriarchs? So, I don't believe I am being inconsistent in accepting
> the narrative as literal truth.
>
>[snip] Is it now reasonable to argue that our Creator got it wrong when he
>stated
>'birds on day 5 'and 'land animals on day 6'?>>
>
>
>You say you accept the narrative as literal truth, and you think God is
>revealing that birds were created on day 5 and land animals on day 6. That
>is consistent. But, do you accept the teaching that God made a solid sky
on
>day 2 and placed an ocean above it, an ocean which is above the sun, moon
and
>furthest stars? That is taught just as clearly in the account as is the
>creation of birds on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth. If you
do,
>then I grant that you are not being inconsistent when you ask TE's to agree
>to the order of events presented in Gen 1.
>
>Incidentally, I said I was a TE. Actually I am open to both a TE and a PC
>position.
>
>Paul S.