Being new to this forum, I would like to take a moment to pose a few honest
and rhetorical questions.
First let me say that the debate over YE and OE seems to be a core issue
among most of us. We can continue to argue the points which support one view
or the other, but I'm not sure if this helps. If we stand on scientific
ground and try to convince someone that OE is reality we will not gain
anything. Most people have already formulated a decision in their own mind.
While some may be open to new views and approaches, many would see their
view as being correct. This is a result of our own self importance in life.
Not necessarily a narrow mind. To begin to understand any view, we must step
back from our own and try to see it as it happened.
Is this not the way of science?
Do we not try to backward engineer the process?
First take the issue of the writing of Genesis 1:
The writer was "inspired by God", as they say. In what way was he inspired?
Was this a verbal communication with God? or was this a visual insight
(vision/dream) given to the writer by God? I lean toward the visions. If
visions were the process by which God presented the creation, how would the
concept of "day" be presented? Would this be a vision of the sun rising and
falling? Could it have been a series of 6 separate sets of pictures/visions?
If so, then how would the writer know how long each set was? Perhaps the
writer used the term, "day", as a simple way to explain each separate period
or set. If one of us were to be given a set a visions with no specific time
frame given for either set, how would we explain this to someone without a
common frame of reference or a lack of education? While the writer was most
probably a person with a good understanding of nature and socio-political
issues, the readers(common Hebrew) was not. The question we should ask
ourselves is not how long each "day" was but rather, is the sequence of
creation supported by what we have seen and discovered through our use of
scientific research? If so, then the Bible and science should not be in
conflict? The length of creation is unimportant. The only issue of
importance should be whether our science is correct and whether the Bible
supports our science. What do we hold to be more correct? Science? Theology?
This is what causes such issues. We seem to be bent on making a distinction
between one or the other. If God created us and our understanding of our
universe(God's creation) is increased by scientific knowledge, which is
granted by God just as are all things, should they not compliment each
other?
A little help please.
Would like some other views.
Don P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 13 2002 - 20:36:23 EST