>Glenn knows, of course, that this interpretation(championed primarily by Alan
>Hayward) requires one very sketchy presupposition: that the passages on the
>outworking of the fiats are parenthetical statements by the writer. We of
>course have no textual evidence for this.
>
Sure we do, Jim. Unless you think God said,"Let there be light and there was
light" as opposed to "Let there be light." And there was light." (Note
carefully the quotation marks.)
An even sillier reading of the text would be
God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from
water. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from
the water above it. And it was so. "
If you feel the above is a good reading of the Scripture then your point would
be ok. But that is a strange reading and by this we know where the
parentheticals are.
I found Russ Maatman's' book very good.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm