Concordism )
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:20:15 -0500
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Eisele [mailto:jeisele@starpower.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:06 PM
> To: panterragroup@mindspring.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: The truth will prevail (was Re: The Fourth Day falsifies
> Concordism )
>
>
> Stephen writes
>
> >Why don't you tell us how YOU interpret Genesis 1 to be scientifically
> >accurate...
>
> Well, Stephen, I'm not a book writer. In the past I've referred
> folks to the folks who have done the "hard work." But, I love a
> discussion/debate as much as the next guy. So, here goes
>
> A) There are real scientific events which chronologically match
> up with the creation "days." The odds of the Genesis writer
> guessing this accurately are extremely slim to none.
I understand that is what you have been saying all along. But that all you
have been saying. That is why I asked the question in the first place. I was
just wanting you to elaborate on it instead of just repeating it. All you
have been saying is that "there are..." Well, what are they? I'm not
debating you, I just wanted to know how you interpret it. What events do
you place in each day and how would you order them. I find the "over-lapping
day" quite novel. We can think of the 4th day's beginning starting before or
on day 1, that is clever. Is this the 1-4, 2-5, 3-6 literary construct?
> B) We all know God had something to do with Genesis One. If He
> had said humans came before fish, that would close the book
> on this discussion.
> C) YEC is a scientific disaster. For that to be right, God would
> have to be incredibly "deceptive." I prefer to look for alternate
> interpretations.
>
> >What about angiosperms?
>
> Webster's seems to define them as plants with seeds, so I'll assume
> that you are referring to Gen 1:12 "The earth brought forth vegetation,
> plants yielding seed..."
>
> FWIW, it makes the most sense to me to think of the creation days as
> overlapping. Just as "your day" overlaps "your parent's day." Or,
> a day marks the beginning, or "dawning" of a new phase of creation.
> (I don't know if that answers your question).
This is kind of a nuvo-concordism.
> >Is it on the same lines as Hugh Ross' Reason's to Believe
> >scenario?
>
> Hugh has his strengths and weaknesses. A quote on the inside cover
> of The Genesis Question (1998), mentions that the book doesn't
> provide a complete answer. I wasn't terribly impressed. We have
> enough information now to do a better job.
He did have a problem with angiosperms, so he includes gymnosperms as a type
of seed bearing plant. In Ross' other books he makes a similar claim that
you do in "A" that the Gen 1 account is exactly the right order and that
Moses must have been divinely inspired to get it right. He wrote, "The odds
that Moses could have guessed the correct order of events, even if he were
given the events, are 1 chance in 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or 1 chance in
roughly 40 million. In addition, Moses scored three for three in describing
the initial conditions. Of course, most amazing of all is the accuracy of
his depiction of each creative event. Clearly, Moses must have been inspired
by God to write as he did." Is he now retracting that claim? Just
wondering.
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
=========================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 02:10:03 EDT