Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

A mathematical comment on the common 6 + 1 literary devices . When you use
maths to the base 60 !/1, !/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 are integers giving
60,30,20,15,12, 10 and this could give the 7 day week etc.
If this is so then it means that "Moses/J/P " borrowed from non-judaistic
Babylonian culture. Oh deary me.

Longing to hear what false assumptions geologists have!! Except that we are
all heathen

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:00:30 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
> >To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> >Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 9:18 AM
> >Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle
> >
>
> Sorry for the delay, I've been unwell. OK, I'll have just one more
> attempt.
>
>
> >
> >Gary, you speak as one who approaches these verses with _no
> >presuppositions_.
>
> No, I'm perfectly aware that I, too, have presuppositions.
> The difference between us seems to be that I am prepared
> to modify mine, whilst you are not.
>
> I suggest that, faced with a portion of text - from
> >whatever source, a _literal_ acceptance of the words is the norm.
>
> Not so. Well, it depends what you mean. The words in isolation may
> have to be 'taken literally' in some linguistic sense, but that is
> certainly not the case with the interpretation of the text as a whole.
> Take Virgil's Aenead or Homer's Odyssey, for example.
>
> Those who
> >wish to read another meaning into them must surely provide a convincing
> >reason for so doing.
>
> A good reason has been provided - Genesis 2:5, an argument which is
> internal to the text itself, and which you continue to ignore.
>
> I simply point to the character of the Creator - as
> >revealed by the intricate structure of Genesis 1:1 -
>
> This says nothing about the genre of the text.
>
>
> and suggest that you
> >have no authority for taking such liberties.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You continue:
> >> >
> >
> >I don't have ready access to the writings of Blocher - nor would I regard
> >them as authoritative, anyway,
>
> Authoritative is not a word I would use here either. But his reasoning
> is sound.
>
> because (a) he would have been unaware of the
> >additional data that are now before us,
>
> I haven't seen any additional data that pertain to the genre of the text.
>
> and (b) as a TE, I assume, he would
> >be anxious to _interpret_ these awkward verses.
>
> He is not a scientist, he is a theologian. He does not argue from the
> basis of science, but from the basis of the Scriptures themselves.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >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:..."
>
> And you have forgotten Genesis 2:5, which indicates that the author
> did NOT intend his readers to take the days literally. And you will have
> already seen Gordon's response.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> No, the word MEANS a literal day, as used within a figurative framework.
> A framework of 6+1, and especially of 6 days + 1 day, was (apparently) a
> framework which was often employed in literature of that time. (Young,
> himself a literalist, apparently makes this point.) The author of Genesis
> built his narrative around a commonly employed framework, and did not
> necessarily mean to convey to his readers that the framework was literal.
>
> >> Why? The only argument you have given essentially boils down to:
> >> 'Because I can't imagine it to be otherwise.'
> >
> >No, not really. I believe that my views are based upon the sound
application
> >of reason.
> >
> What reason? You haven't given a reason why you think the argument from
> Genesis 2:5 is not valid. You haven't given a valid reason why we
shouldn't
> consider the literary genre of the source material into account. And I
could
> probably go on...
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes, I accept that figurative, poetic and other linguistic devices are
> >> >occasionally used - but for most of the time I believe biblical truths
> >are
> >> >conveyed more directly.
>
> Why?
>
> Gary, I can assure you that I'm not blinkered;
> >> >indeed, I am very much aware of the issues exposed by the standing
> >miracle.
> >>
> >> Again I ask: Why should the finding of patterns in one verse have
> >> any effect on the literary genre of any subsequent verses?
> >
> >Because I believe that the character of the Creator - now revealed in the
> >structure of the Bible's first verse - strongly points to the whole Book
> >being a body of revealed truth.
>
> This is a non-sequitur. I, too, believe that the whole Book is a body of
> revealed truth. You are mistakenly assuming that revealed truth has to
> be equated with literal history in the Western 21st Century sense.
> It doesn't. I believe the Psalms, Proverbs and other Wisdom writings
> also give us revealed truth. Don't you?
>
> >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.
>
> The only things we can know directly are those things that directly
impinge
> on our senses, and even then we don't know the things in and of
themselves,
> but only the interpretation given to them by our brains. However, that
> doesn't mean that we can't be reasonably certain of other things. Quantum
> physics can't be 'proved.' However, on the basis of quantum physics we
> have things like lasers, tunnel diodes, etc. This same quantum physics
> gives us our basis for understanding radioactivity, and this understanding
> has pretty conclusively shown that the Earth is a great deal older than
the
> 6000 years that a literal understanding of the Scriptures would suggest.
> And that's not ONLY by radioactive dating. There's also a very powerful
> argument concerning the distribution of naturally occurring radioactive
> isotopes. There are others on this list who are far more knowledgeable
> about such things than I am, but I suspect they're already tired of trying
> to reason...
>
> >/Gary
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jul 19 15:43:13 2004