Re: Mediterranean flood

mortongr@flash.net
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 22:01:05 +0000

At 10:25 AM 10/01/1999 -0400, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>This is a very remarkable statement, Glenn. First you say Genesis 1
>teaches evolution. Next you point out that it doesn't teach the correct
>chronolgy of evolution.
>
>I think it's fair to say that Genesis teaches about origins in a way that
>allows -- even encourages -- evolutionary interpretation[see below]. But I
>think it's a mistake to claim it teaches evolution as it is currently
>understood by the scientific community.

I didn't say 'as it it currently understood by the scientific community'.
I would alway say that it teaches it as I understand and interpret Genesis
1. The days of proclamation which is what I believe Genesis 1 is, are
events prior to the big bang and as such occurred before time. God actually
created nothing--he spoke but didn't create. All the comments about 'and it
was so' are an editors statement not the statment of God. Thus for two
reasons Genesis 1 is not telling us the correct chronology. First there
was no time and second if Genesis 1 is viewed as the planning stage of the
universe, then the plans can be made in any order with no regard for the
order of fulfillment.

(And I know you didn't say that,
>but I want to rule out any possibility that you will be misinterpreted) By
>this I am not intending to claim that it teaches evolution as it will
>someday be understood by the scientific community.

It does not teach an order of evolution. IT is not concordistic in that
regard.

That's not its intent.
>Its intent is to teach about God's activity in creation in a way that can
>be understood by all generations. Of necessity, that means it will not
>agree in all details with the current scientific views of any era.
>
>[A few passages in Gen 1 that imply evolution (nay even abiogenesis)]
>
>Gen 1:11,12 (Let the earth sprout vegetation,...and the earth brought forth
>vegetation...)

Absolutely this is why I think Genesis actually teaches evolution. IT WAS
THE LAND that did the creating not God directly! God ordered the land to do
the job but the land actually did it. Similarly with the water bringing
forth fish. God didn't create the fish--the water did.

And I think it is very significant that nowhere can one find a statement
that says 'animals give rise to animals after their kind.' where animals is
both subject and object of the sentence. Anti-evolutionists have grossly
misread the 'after their kind' passages.
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution