Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Gordon, please find my responses appended.

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Regarding the "days" of Genesis 1: perhaps you have forgotten Exodus
> > 20:8-11, where we read the words of God (also the Author of Genesis
1:1):
> >
> > "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour,
and
> > do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in
> > it thou shalt not do any work,...For in six days the Lord made heaven
and
> > earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:..."
> >
> > The Hebrew word 'yom' - meaning 'day' - is used throughout. Do you
really
> > suppose that God (Author of Genesis 1:1), in choosing to use this word,
> > would have intended it to mean one thing here, and another thing
there? -
> > and without qualification? Hardly the stuff of _revelation_, surely.
>
> Vernon,
>
> The sabbath was to be a memorial of God's rest from creating (Exodus
> 20:11) and of the Exodus (Deut. 5:15). Commemoration does not require
> exact repetition. We can have earthly symbols of heavenly realities as
> with the earthly temple that was a shadow of the heavenly one (Heb. 8:5).
>
> Exodus 20 tells us that the days in a week of the Jewish calendar
> symbolize the days of Genesis 1 and 2:1-3. The days of the Jewish calendar
> begin and end at sunset. If the days of Genesis 1 are to be exactly the
> same as the days of the Jewish calendar, then they must also begin and end
> at sunset, and the first one must begin at sunset on Saturday evening. Can
> there be a sunset before anything is created? Furthermore the measurement
> of solar days is recorded as having begun on the fourth day. Once we know
> that the Genesis days can't all be sunset-to-sunset days, then the passage
> from Exodus 20 doesn't tell us exactly what they were.

It is clear from the Creation narrative that, "...beginning with the first
day and continuing thereafter, there was established a cyclical succession
of days and nights - periods of light and periods of darkness." (I quote
from p55 of 'The Genesis Record' by Henry Morris). He continues, "Such a
cyclical light-dark arrangement clearly means that the earth was now
rotating on its axis and that there was a source of light on one side of the
earth corresponding to the sun, even though the sun was not yet made
(Genesis 1:16). It is equally clear that the length of such days could only
have been that of a normal solar day." From what we now deduce concerning
the character of the Author of Genesis 1:1 I believe this explanation
satisfies the demands imposed by a literal reading of Exodus 20:8-11.

Let us briefly turn now to consider the sabbath - the 'day of rest'
initiated by God according to the words of Genesis 2:1-3. This, at a stroke,
appears to dispose of the idea that _evolution_ was God's chosen method of
creating - for how can what is perceived as a _continuing process_ be
reconciled with the clear words "... he (God) rested on the seventh day from
all his work which he had made."? Really, Gordon, the special pleading
required to account for this and the other anomalies to which I have drawn
attention (viz the 'out of sequence' matter of the birds and land animals,
and the making of Eve) convinces me that the conformist position is
completely untenable.

>
> > Gary, I believe that _real_ science is limited to what has been
_observed_
> > by humans. So real science can tell us nothing positive about origins:
it
> > can tell us only that we know nothing. I hope you would accept that your
> > philosophy is largely based upon a series of hopeful assumptions. I
believe
> > my logic to be stronger; we should accept God's revelation.
> >
>
> Would you empty all prisons of those who have been convicted on purely
> circumstantial evidence since that doesn't satisfy your definition of real
> science?

I gather that you are seeking to draw a parallel between the spectacular
achievents of forensic science in, for example, drawing important
conclusions as to the spatial and temporal coincidences of alleged assailant
and victim. But these usually involve a reconstruction of events from the
_recent_ past and are based on well-established, reliable and
generally-accepted methods. On the other hand, scientific methods of
reconstructing _earth history_ are encumbered by many essential and
unprovable assumptions - and are challenged by a significant number of
competent scientists. I therefore believe your extrapolation is unwarranted.

Shalom,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Sun Jul 18 11:03:09 2004