Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:41:29 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

Hi Vernon,

>Hi, Gary,
>
>You'll find I've trimmed things down a bit, with my responses following your
>latest comments.

I'll follow your lead...

>
>> >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.
>
>Well, mine are based on hard fact - so I have little room for maneouvre.

Not really. The patterns you have found may well be hard fact,
but the leap from there to concluding a literal interpretation
seems mere assumption. That's what I'm questioning, and that's
what I meant when I said something like, the only reasoning I
have seen appears to be 'because I can't imagine it to be otherwise'.

>
>
>> A good reason has been provided - Genesis 2:5, an argument which is
>> internal to the text itself, and which you continue to ignore.
>
>Forgive me, but I am unable to understand the point you wish to make here.
>Doesn't the verse simply mean that the hydrologic cycle had yet to be
>established?

Think about it. The reason given for the absence of plants is a lack of
rainfall. This implies normal natural processes of growth and
development, and indicates a considerable length of time. If plants
had only come into existence on Tuesday, it makes no sense at all to
turn round the following Friday and give this as the reason for the
absence of plants (locally or globally, it makes no difference to the
argument). Kline conculdes, and I concur, that the author did not
intend the days to be taken literally. I submit that the author was
merely using the illustration of a week as a framework within which
to describe God's creative activity.

>
>> > 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.
>
>But is it reasonable to suppose that such a Creator would delude us with
>empty words?

Vernon, the words are far from empty. Do I take it from this that
you would describe the Psalms and Wisdom writings (e.g.) as
'empty'?

>
>> > I don't have ready access to the writings of Blocher - nor would I
>regard
>> > them as authoritative, anyway,
>
>> 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.
>
>But, are you here claiming that he was completely neutral re the
>creation/evolution matter?

By his own admission, his starting point is the Scriptures, and his
aim is to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, comparing Scripture
with Scripture, before taking any scientific information into account.
This is the approach he demonstrated in his book, and so I see no reason
not to take his word for this.

>
>> >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.
>

As for taking days literally, consider the words of Jesus Himself:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the
Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(Matthew 12:40)

Now that certainly looks as if it is to be taken literally, and there is nothing
in the text to indicate otherwise. It is only when we come to examine the
events themselves that we find they cannot be so, for our Lord was crucified
on Friday, buried just before sunset - the Sabbath - and by early Sunday
morning, He had already risen! This means that He was buried for (at most)
1 day, two nights and 2 parts of days.

So things are not always what they might seem. I submit that the same may
be true of the days of Genesis. On a superficial reading they appear to be
literal, but a closer inspection shows that this is not in fact the case.

>
>> 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?
>
>My definition of 'revelation' refers to truths that we are incapable of
>discovering for ourselves. In other words, it represents _God-given_
>information. And while I've no doubt that the Psalms, Proverbs and other
>Wisdom writings - as mediated by the Holy Spirit - are important, they don't
>provide direct access to what actually happened way back - for that is the
>literal purpose of, for example, the Creation and Flood narratives.

That is your assumption. Others assume that their purpose is to teach us
about God and how He relates to man, which He can do without using
literal historical records (which He may consider unimportant).
If you think that the Flood killed everyone except the 8 on the ark,
please explain how the Nephilim and/or their descendants came to
be living both before and after the Flood.

Psalms, etc, reveal to us much about the character of God, which we can
only know if they are given to us by God Himself, and so would fall
into the class of 'revelation' as defined above. In fact, this is exactly the
point about Genesis. Dates, lengths of time, etc, we can find out for
ourselves (by inspection of nature). It is God's relationship to creation
and specifically to mankind, that we could not find out for ourselves;
this forms the revealed truth element of the Genesis account.

>
>> > 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...
>
>Yes, Gary, you are probably right.

What, are you conceding that the Earth is very old after all?

>
regards,
/Gary
Received on Fri Jul 23 06:15:46 2004