--------------A79FE94AF822B8525FD38912
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Glenn;
Regarding your views on Gen. 1, you wrote to George M.:
> Agreed. If one wants to harmonize Genesis with science, something must be
> rearranged. You rearrange the historicity; YECs rearrange science; I
> rearrange and separate Genesis 1 from Genesis 2. And then it makes sense.
> I never did understand or buy that 2 creation accounts view. Obviously the
> two accounts are contradictory. If they refer to two different things, then
> all is harmonious.
>
(snip)
>
> I view genesis 1 as the best account or attempt at explaining what
> occurred PRIOR to the formation of the universe. It is historical in the
> sense that it did happen. It is non-historical in the sense that it
> happened before time with time equalling history. What I am interested in
> is a true account of earth history, not a fictional account whether in
> whole or in part, as you suggest.
>
In light of the Enuma Elish, and Paul's (not of Tarsus ? :-) ) reminder of the
erroneous Babylonian cosmology that is contained in the text of Genesis as
historical yet wonderfully inaccurate by modern standards, isn't all concordanist's
attempts at interpretation, including evolutionary ones, shown to be in vain?
Taking Genesis to be accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically - how be it
understandable to Moses - goes a long way (all the way in my mind!) at dismissing all
attempts at concordism; be they young Earth, old Earth or evolutionary. This more
rational "edited Enuma Elish" (rational in that the Enuma Elish exists and predates
Genesis!) view also preserves the historical tone of the account you are arguing for
but - most importantly to the dialogue between science and religion - allows for
"poetic" - I prefer "allegorical" or "literary" - truth. (uh oh, don't do it
George..... , I can't' resist: the "EEE" theory!!!!)
Many who are aghast at this edited Enuma Elish view can be comforted in that Genesis
purports two major theological ideas notably absent in Enuma Elish: 1) monotheism and
2) God's omnipotentcy. It is God's omnipotentcy that is displayed by His overcoming
chaos with a simple Word (the kingly authority Paul S. refers to in another post);
i.e. his fiats affected the creation without the (apparently losing) struggle the gods
were having in enuma elish. However, while the former theological truth of Genesis is
not under contention by your view, the latter is. For, if as you state Genesis 1 is a
preface to creation in "formulating the plan" and not affecting the creation by the
spoken Word of God, then this detracts from Genesis 1 50% of its inspiration value.
In Christ's Hold;
George A.
--------------A79FE94AF822B8525FD38912
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Glenn;
Regarding your views on Gen. 1, you wrote to George M.:
Agreed. If one wants to harmonize Genesis with science, something must be(snip)
rearranged. You rearrange the historicity; YECs rearrange science; I
rearrange and separate Genesis 1 from Genesis 2. And then it makes sense.
I never did understand or buy that 2 creation accounts view. Obviously the
two accounts are contradictory. If they refer to two different things, then
all is harmonious.
In light of the Enuma Elish, and Paul's (not of Tarsus ? :-) ) reminder of the erroneous Babylonian cosmology that is contained in the text of Genesis as historical yet wonderfully inaccurate by modern standards, isn't all concordanist's attempts at interpretation, including evolutionary ones, shown to be in vain?
I view genesis 1 as the best account or attempt at explaining what
occurred PRIOR to the formation of the universe. It is historical in the
sense that it did happen. It is non-historical in the sense that it
happened before time with time equalling history. What I am interested in
is a true account of earth history, not a fictional account whether in
whole or in part, as you suggest.
Taking Genesis to be accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically - how be it understandable to Moses - goes a long way (all the way in my mind!) at dismissing all attempts at concordism; be they young Earth, old Earth or evolutionary. This more rational "edited Enuma Elish" (rational in that the Enuma Elish exists and predates Genesis!) view also preserves the historical tone of the account you are arguing for but - most importantly to the dialogue between science and religion - allows for "poetic" - I prefer "allegorical" or "literary" - truth. (uh oh, don't do it George..... , I can't' resist: the "EEE" theory!!!!)
Many who are aghast at this edited Enuma Elish view can be comforted in that Genesis purports two major theological ideas notably absent in Enuma Elish: 1) monotheism and 2) God's omnipotentcy. It is God's omnipotentcy that is displayed by His overcoming chaos with a simple Word (the kingly authority Paul S. refers to in another post); i.e. his fiats affected the creation without the (apparently losing) struggle the gods were having in enuma elish. However, while the former theological truth of Genesis is not under contention by your view, the latter is. For, if as you state Genesis 1 is a preface to creation in "formulating the plan" and not affecting the creation by the spoken Word of God, then this detracts from Genesis 1 50% of its inspiration value.
In Christ's Hold;
George A. --------------A79FE94AF822B8525FD38912-- --------------44B49D16A95D85217E26352C 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;Department of Applied Sciences adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;USA version:2.1 email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu title:Graduate Student fn:George A. Andrews Jr. end:vcard --------------44B49D16A95D85217E26352C--