Vernon wrote:
<< In respect of myself, as a YEC, I believe I am justified in reading the
whole of the biblical data in a straightforward manner - at the same
time, rejecting the scientific 'evidence' based on 'interpretation' and
'opinion'. For others, the reverse will obtain>>
By and large, it is true that YEC's accept a straightforward interpretation
of Gen 1-11 and that OEC's are more prone to reinterpret these chapters based
on scientific findings. However, this is not entirely the case. YEC's, to my
knowledge, always reject the solidity of the firmament on the basis of modern
science. Like the "local" Flood interpretation, no one did that until modern
times. Interpreting the firmament as atmosphere (or space) is just as much a
rationalizing "interpretation" as are the rationalizing interpretations of
the OEC's. Similarly, the sea above the firmament (above the sun, moon and
stars) is almost never accepted by YEC's in a straightforward way. It too is
rationalized away on the basis of modern science. And, like the solidity of
the firmament this too was the historic interpretation of the Church.
But, are these descriptions of the sky with the sea above it a revelation
from God or an accommodation to the science of the times? [Don't forget that
inspiration does not rule out accommodation (Matt 19:8)] The description of
the universe in Gen 1 exactly matches the description given in the science of
the times. If, nonetheless, you do not accept the idea that Gen 1 is an
accommodation to the science of the times, do you literally accept God's
making a solid sky as told in Gen 1:7? Ezek 1:22 shows that a firmament is
solid. (Most commentaries on Ezek 1:22 say or clearly infer this including
Keil and Delitzsch. Of 32 commentaries on Ezek 1, I did not see even one that
doubted the solidity of the firmament in that passage; so, seeing a solid
firmament in Ezek 1:22 is the straight forward interpretation of that verse.)
Rev 4:6 associates the solid firmament in Ezekiel with the firmament in Gen
1. The firmament in Ezek which looked like "ice" was understood in ancient
times (cf. the LXX) to be a reference to its being made of "crystal." It is
associated with "four living creatures" (Ezek 1:5 ff.) which are merged with
wheels that are "full of eyes" (Ezek 1:18). The firmament in Gen 1 has a
"sea" (tehom) above it, the one in Ezek a "throne". Revelation 4:6 pulls
these two firmaments together saying, "and before the throne, as it were a
_sea_ of glass like _crystal_; and in the midst of the throne, and round
about the throne, four living creatures full of eyes before and behind." Rev
4:6 thus proves that the raqia' in Genesis 1 is to be identified with the
solid raqia' in Ezek 1; and more than one commentator has noticed this
connection.
So, IF you will say that you accept the statements in Gen 1 that the sky is
solid and has a sea above it, I can accept that you are "reading the _whole_
of the biblical data in a straightforward manner." But, if not; (and I have
yet to hear you say clearly that you do believe the Bible is correct and that
you believe the sky is solid with a sea above it ), then you are
rationalizing away the Bible just as much as any OEC; and you are doing it on
the basis of "interpretations of modern science." Purity of heart is of the
essence in Christianity. I see duplicity in your approach. I am not seeking
to judge you; but, you must face up to the fact that you are doing the very
same thing you are looking askance at others for doing.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 23:33:55 EST