Glenn writes:
<<This is really strange Jim. Here you, Mr. Genesis-1-is-allegory-and-a-poem
are suddenly turning into Mr. Gensis-1-is-literal-as-court-testimony like
Dr. Jekyll turned into Mr. Hyde!>>
I assure you I have not sipped any elixer lately! I referred last time to
Russ's great book, and his discussion of the various approaches to Genesis 1.
I'd like to quote him in more detail, as it may clear up this point (BTW, if I
must be a horror creature, how about the Wolfman?)
I agree with Russ:
"The framework or literary interpretation has been favored by many theologians
in one form or another since Augustine. According to this view, the passage
consists of an artistic framework of what happened to bring the world into
being; what actually occurred fills out the framework and did not necessarily
happen in the order given by the text. Henri Bloher described the approach in
this way:
'The literary interpretation takes the form of the week attributed to the work
of creation to be an artistic arrangement, a modest example of
anthropomorphism that is not to be taken literally.'
"Blocher suggested why the author of Genesis used this approach:
'The author's intention is not to supply us with a chronology of origins. It
is possible that the logical order he has chosen coincides broadly with the
actual sequence of the facts of cosmogeny; and provide a theology of the
sabbath. The text is composed as the author meditates on the finished work, so
that we may understand how the creation is related to God and what is its
significance for mankind.' [****YES!***** -- JSB]
"The control belief behind the framework approach includes a rejection of the
literalist's control belief that the correct interpretation must of necessity
be literal and the the text is not difficult to understand. The control belief
for one who holds the framework interpretation says that one must give great
attention to the text. ... [T]he person who follows the framework approach
maintains that details could be there, but they are not expressed literally.
"In favor of the framework interpretation is the structure of the text. [Russ
goes into a more detailed discussion here. See The Impact of Evolutionary
Theory, pp. 177-178]
The above is my view as well.
Glenn writes:
<<Genesis 1:2-5 And God said let there be light and there was light God saw
that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness'.
I left all punctuation out of that verse to mimick the lack of punctuation
in the Hebrew. Do you believe that God said [quote] "Let there be light and
there was light God saw that the light was good and he separated the light
from the darkness"[endquote]
If you do, then you have God speaking funny. That is how you tell what God
said from the commentary.>>
But that is not the distinction you made. Your distinction was between SAYING
and DOING. The former was in the "now," the latter was not...and you justified
this by calling the latter "commentary."
Moses reports BOTH the saying and the doing. Under your view, this must ALL be
"journalism". There is nothing to indicate any time lag at all. Nothing in
the text itself. This is where Hayward's view (and yours) is based on
assumption. If you make the assumption, it can fit. But only until verses
28-31. Suffice to say I didn't find your distinguishing of these verses
convincing.
Glenn writes:
<<You need to study the psuedogenes more. We know they don't have a function
because important control segments of the DNA are missing. Why did God design
a broken gene at the same place in 4 different species. I think your problem
is more with evolution than with the evidence.>>
My view comes from people who are doing the research. We all have to rely on
experts at this point. My experts tell me this is an argument from ignorance
of the function of the psuedogene. It is quite dangerous to make what we don't
know a foundation of one's view. Remember how confident evolutionists were
with "junk DNA" just a few years ago?
Vincit omnia,
Jim