--------------B9D66F1FD1DD9FDACA024B60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Vernon,
you wrote to Paul
>
> 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.
Was not Moses well aquatinted with the scientific world view; being an Egyptian
prince? In particular, is it not safe to presume he was aware of the enuma elish
(Semetic creation myth) of ancient Babylon. The latter parallels - day for day -
the chronology of the creation events of Genesis with the important difference
being its polytheistic and limited gods struggling against Chaos with the need of
assistance from mortals. Germane to this thread is that the enuma elish has the
same objects created in the same order over six days with the gods even resting on
the seventh! And, it predates Genesis!
The revelatory Truth of Genesis is monotheism and omnipotence - in stark and
amazing contrast to the Babylonian epic. God communicated the truths of creation in
a language Moses could understand: Semetic not modern science.
It is my opinion, that taking Genesis "literally" (i.e. in a wooden sense as many
do) does not do justice to the truth it does reveal. and is only causing confusion
and misapplication of Christian faith.
>
> I think you will agree that for many people science has become a god.
> They seem to believe that answers to all man's problems can be found
> outside the Scriptures. Unfortunately for them evidence is now to hand
> that Genesis 1:1 is supernaturally designed! - with interesting
> implications for the future course of the creation-evolution debate. As
> an example, consider the sequence of creativity given in Genesis 1. 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'? Something has to give! -
> and, logically, it can't be Genesis 1! Perhaps TEs should expend some
> effort in devising a line of descent which circumvents this anomaly.
Honestly, I have been practicing science professionally for over 16 years and I
have not met anyone who would claim science to be a "god" (however, I did meet an
undergraduate while at Wesleyan, CT. who rejected her Judaism to embrace a
metaphysics based on quantum mechanics as her "religion"). I think you mean that
many people subscribe to a metaphysical naturalistic philosophy which implies or
states atheism; but this is a philosophy not a science.
Are you aware that Genesis 1:1 can (some say ought!) to read: "When God set about
to create heaven and earth - the world being formless waste, with darkness over the
seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water- God said ...." ( Speiser;
Genesis, The Anchor BIble series). This translation IS interesting for it does not
imply creation ex-nihilo (spelling?) but pre-existing matter - again in accord with
the enuma elish! Speiser acknowledges the import (not to mention the impact!) of
his translation but offers that creation ex-nihilo IS taught in the Bible; just
not here in Genesis 1:1. Taking this translation to be accurate, what does the
(numerological?) evidence for supernatural design it is supposed to contain then
support? If you are referring to numerology as "evidence", then would not -
momentarily ignoring the dubious nature of such a "field" - we than have
"evidence" to support the possibility of pre-existing matter? Would it not be
better to, as Speiser admonishes, "Let the text speak for itself" in the language
it was intended to do so; that of ancient Mesopotamia.
Correlatively, how do you handle the Genesis (and Babylonian!) narrative
attributing the Sun as being created on the fourth day and maintain a wooden
interpretation of the term "day"? If like most YEC thinkers, you believe the Earth
hung in space, spun with a period of "24 solar hours", and was illuminated by
Divine light for the first three days, then this is extra- (i.e. un-) biblical and
fully unsupported by any evidence (imaginable or real!). This is where I first had
to loosen up on my own wooden interpretation of Genesis as a young man trying to
understand God's revelation. This alone irrevocably refutes a 24 hr solar day which
implies at least that the word day is subject to interpretive analysis.
Any attempts to read into the Genesis account modern notions is foolhardy,
unnecessary and damaging to scripture.
Sincerely
George
--------------B9D66F1FD1DD9FDACA024B60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Vernon,
you wrote to Paul
Was not Moses well aquatinted with the scientific world view; being an Egyptian prince? In particular, is it not safe to presume he was aware of the enuma elish (Semetic creation myth) of ancient Babylon. The latter parallels - day for day - the chronology of the creation events of Genesis with the important difference being its polytheistic and limited gods struggling against Chaos with the need of assistance from mortals. Germane to this thread is that the enuma elish has the same objects created in the same order over six days with the gods even resting on the seventh! And, it predates Genesis!
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.
The revelatory Truth of Genesis is monotheism and omnipotence - in stark and amazing contrast to the Babylonian epic. God communicated the truths of creation in a language Moses could understand: Semetic not modern science.
It is my opinion, that taking Genesis "literally" (i.e. in a wooden
sense as many do) does not do justice to the truth it does reveal. and
is only causing confusion and misapplication of Christian faith.
I think you will agree that for many people science has become a god.
They seem to believe that answers to all man's problems can be found
outside the Scriptures. Unfortunately for them evidence is now to hand
that Genesis 1:1 is supernaturally designed! - with interesting
implications for the future course of the creation-evolution debate. As
an example, consider the sequence of creativity given in Genesis 1. 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'? Something has to give! -
and, logically, it can't be Genesis 1! Perhaps TEs should expend some
effort in devising a line of descent which circumvents this anomaly.
Honestly, I have been practicing science professionally for over
16 years and I have not met anyone who would claim science to be a "god"
(however, I did meet an undergraduate while at Wesleyan, CT. who rejected
her Judaism to embrace a metaphysics based on quantum mechanics as her
"religion"). I think you mean that many people subscribe to a metaphysical
naturalistic philosophy which implies or states atheism; but this
is a philosophy not a science.
Are you aware that Genesis 1:1 can (some say ought!) to read: "When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being formless waste, with darkness over the seas and only an awesome wind sweeping over the water- God said ...." ( Speiser; Genesis, The Anchor BIble series). This translation IS interesting for it does not imply creation ex-nihilo (spelling?) but pre-existing matter - again in accord with the enuma elish! Speiser acknowledges the import (not to mention the impact!) of his translation but offers that creation ex-nihilo IS taught in the Bible; just not here in Genesis 1:1. Taking this translation to be accurate, what does the (numerological?) evidence for supernatural design it is supposed to contain then support? If you are referring to numerology as "evidence", then would not - momentarily ignoring the dubious nature of such a "field" - we than have "evidence" to support the possibility of pre-existing matter? Would it not be better to, as Speiser admonishes, "Let the text speak for itself" in the language it was intended to do so; that of ancient Mesopotamia.
Correlatively, how do you handle the Genesis (and Babylonian!) narrative attributing the Sun as being created on the fourth day and maintain a wooden interpretation of the term "day"? If like most YEC thinkers, you believe the Earth hung in space, spun with a period of "24 solar hours", and was illuminated by Divine light for the first three days, then this is extra- (i.e. un-) biblical and fully unsupported by any evidence (imaginable or real!). This is where I first had to loosen up on my own wooden interpretation of Genesis as a young man trying to understand God's revelation. This alone irrevocably refutes a 24 hr solar day which implies at least that the word day is subject to interpretive analysis.
Any attempts to read into the Genesis account modern notions is foolhardy, unnecessary and damaging to scripture.
Sincerely
George
--------------B9D66F1FD1DD9FDACA024B60--
--------------F26C8E27E170DD5A2A14B3A2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------F26C8E27E170DD5A2A14B3A2--