Jim,
This debate has been raging pretty much unchanged at least since the
rise of modern geology in the 1800's. The arguments are well-worn and
there is hardly anything new in the discussion. Even material similar
to Dick Fisher's work has been advanced by others many years ago. The
reasons for not achieving consensus are many and complex and related
to many "meta" things.
For example, you and many others believe that Genesis 1 accurately
reflects modern scientific descriptions especially in terms of
chronology. Others of us don't. Why we don't see eye to eye is not so
clear. Those of us who don't accept this congruence have explained
this in various articles. Why you don't see it and we do is a mystery
to me (obviously you feel the same way about your/our perspective).
One position that is one of three prominent viewpoints in my church
circles (conservative Presbyterianism in English speaking countries)
is what is called the "framework view". (The other views are 24 hour
days and day-age--a link to the discussion in the Presbyterian Church
of America is at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PCA-Report2000.html .) I
will give you some links to some on-line articles and point you to
some other writings that you might get access to. This view takes a
literary view of Genesis 1 based on internal arguments (usually its
advocates take a more historical/chronological approach to the rest
of Genesis. Professor Meredith G. Kline, Professor of Old Testament
at Gordon-Conwell Seminary and Westminster Seminary in California has
been one of the most scholarly advocates of this view.
Please check it out. Here are the references:
Articles by Meredith G. Kline:
(1958)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html
(1996)
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science
Articles by Kline's "student" Lee Irons explaining Kline's views:
(2000)
http://www.upper-register.com/framework/framework_interpretation.html
Lee Irons' web site with several articles explaining this viewpoint:
http://www.upper-register.com/framework.html
Books referred to in the previous articles
H. Blocher, In the Beginning (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984)
C. E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986)
N. H. Ridderbos, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural
Science? (Grand Rapids, 1957)
TG
>I'd like to make a few observations
>
>A) I've been on the list for more than two months. It is much
> more intense now.
>B) Discussion/Debate/Heated discussion/heated debate regularly
> revolves around Gen 1.
>C) I get the feeling that some people desperately cling to old
> ideas.
>D) This is called living in the past.
>E) If you don't change, life will pass you by.
>F) God always will find people to advance the truth.
>G) Will the ASA be those people?
>H) Devastating evidence has been brought forth that Gen 1 is
> real history. A very recent post talked about odds of 1 in
> 40 million that it wasn't. I calculate the odds as more like
> 1 in 5 quintillion.
>I) Even some people who back Gen 1 as real history are wrong in
> some places. Peter Ruest doesn't approach the issue fully
> correctly. Neither does Dick Fischer. But, I guess both of
> them are "too big" to see their own shortcomings. If given
> the opportunity, I fully intend to begin pointing these
> shortcomings out.
>
>Jim
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 12:48:53 EDT