<< AN INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS ONE
I've decided to take a shot at this one, so you folks need to get the
stake ready along with the rope, wood and matches because I'm about to
reveal my pet theory concerning the first chapter of Genesis. In second
Peter 3:8, we find the following in the RSV version: "But do not ignore this
fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a
thousand years is as one day." This is a way of saying that God is the
creator and ruler of time as well as every thing else in this universe and
beyond. So even a million or a billion years can be as one day or one
nanosecond to Him as He chooses it to be. With that in mind, lets move into
Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I think
that this represents the start of our universe. The heavens representing
space and the earth representing matter. The earth being without form and
void and the Spirit of God hovered above the waters. The matter had not
coalesced together sufficiently to form large physical bodies in space, but
had coalesced enough that internal heat within the matter was driving off
water vapor that may have condensed on the surface of that matter. Then God
said let there be light. This was beginning of nuclear fusion in our
universe, along with planet building. Where the light hit these (snip)>>
This interpretation is quite in line with classical concordism; so I'm afraid
no one on this list will attempt to burn Richard at the stake.
At the same time, it is evident that only by taking Genesis 1 out of its
historical and biblical context and interpreting it in the context of modern
science can any form of classical concordism survive. If Gen 1 is interpreted
in context, concordism fails from the first day of Gen 1 forward. Except for
the fact that in both the Bible and in modern science there is a beginning and
the fact that man arises at the end, not a single day of Genesis 1 corresponds
with modern science.
The spiritual truths in Genesis 1 are embodied in 2nd millenium BC "science."
Strict concordism with modern science is an impossible dream.
Paul