> At 03:08 PM 12/18/99 -0700, dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> >But there is a problem with the days of Genesis 1, if we approach them
> >from what I understand Glenn's view to involve. If the week presents
> >God's declaration of purpose, and chapter 2 the sequence of creation,
> >then the days have to somehow refer to divine time. But how can there be
> >time of any sort with the I AM, who, as Creator is outside of space and
> >time? I see this as a reductio ad absurdum of the notion.
>
> A couple of corrections. I don't claim as Bert does that God is speaking
> to us of time. Nor do I claim, like Bert, that there is an 'absolute' time.
******
This is Bert speaking. I do not refer to any concept of "abosolute". I do not
what is meant by this concept. Perhaps you could carefully define "absolute"
as it has no meaning in my lexicon.
********
>
> I believe that the days in Genesis 1 are the best way mankind has to speak
> of the unspeakable--that which occurred PRIOR to time. How do we describe
> what God did and the sequence in which he did it prior to time? Obviously
> we must use some imagery that is familiar to us. Does that make the days
> imaginary? No, they represent real events in the pre-temporal universe--of
> course they are a poor description of such time.
>
> Second correction, Chapter 2 is NOT the sequence of creation it is only of
> the creation of Man! The details of the creation of the other animals
> simply isn't given in Scripture--only the planning of them outlined in
> Genesis 1.
>
> *It would be best if you didn't conflate two different views as if they are
> one--mine and Bert's.
******
I am confused as to what this is all about. Clear me up.
Bert
********
> I can assure you that the two views are quite
> separate! And it is a bit frustrating to have the views of others ascribed
> to me!
>
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution