Jim wrote,
<< Hi again, Paul. I'll try to take your ideas one at time.
In Gen 1:1 and concordism (was Apology) your write
>>1. Between verses 1 and 2 are the years between the Big Bang at say 10
billion years ago (to be conservative) and the stage when the earth had
cooled to the place where it could have an ocean as in Gen 1:2, which is (to
be generous) 4 billion years ago. So, this interpretation is saying there is
a gap of some 6 billion years between verses 1 and 2. It is saying there
was at least 1 and 1/2 times more years of creative activity between verses
1 and 2 than went on between verses 2 through 31. This is contrary to the
prima facie import of the text.>>
>Paul, I've never seen time limits imposed in the Bible. I think that we
modern westerners really struggle with time&numbering issues. I've been
there. And it has caused "temporary faith crises." On Thu 2/14/02 8:35pm
(Re: Genesis One that Fits)Bob Miller noted
>We are a logical sequential people, but that does not mean the that
>the ancient Hebrew society was. Read the rest of the OT...
>Paul, I don't know about you, but I'm humbled by that.
>The gospels skip from Jesus' birth to 12 yrs old to his ministry. The
>Creation of the Universe is an event like none other.
>>In addition, this necessitates understanding v. 2
as a stage in the earth's evolution, thus "the earth became etc." In the
opinion of experts in Hebrew grammar like the evangelical scholar, Bruce
Waltke, this is grammatically "improbable.">>
Matthew 1:1 states that Jesus Christ is the son of David. On the surface of
things, in modern western language, that is wrong. Gen 1:1 doesn't tell us
when the heavens and earth were created. Is it fair to expect a date on v
2?>>>
On the basis of Ex 20:11 and even if Gen 1 has a framework, the days of Gen 1
are sequential. And, the days seem to be discussing the creation of heavens
(Day 2) and earth (Day 3) and the sun, moon and stars (Day 4). If there was
a big gap between v. 1 and 2, no one seems to have realized it before modern
times.
In spite of the fact that it begins a genealogy, "son of David" is a title.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 04:37:53 EST