Re: Concerning the Creation - (a paradigm shift in Christian thought)
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 15:23:37 -0800
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/29/99 5:27:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, Richard
> FraningD@ria.army.mil wrote:
>
> << 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
Not true. The order of events from Genesis fits the natural history
view extremely well if:
We interpret the Hebrew word for day as a period.
We remove the world "evolution" from the natural accounts and insert
something like "and then God created"
Moses, living in a tent as a nomad and prescience got the order of
events right and this is amazing. Bert Massie