Re: extra stuff in Genesis 1-2

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 16:42:15 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Petermann: "Re: Phillip Johnson"

    This is exactly the point I wish to stress all the time from 33AD until
    about 1780 when geological evidence for the age became unequivocal
    theologians of all persuasions were not certain of the either the duration
    of Chaos/without form and void of Gen 1,2 , or the length of days or whether
    we could talk about time bound days before Day 4.
    Hence no one can claim that before these geologists came along all were good
    literalists ala ICR and AIG. Neither can one claim all allowed a vast time.
    As Oscar Wilde said to every complex question there is a simple answer which
    is wrong!!
    But simple answers are far better for crude pulpit rhetoric.

    The other thing we need to avoid is to say that there was a sudden switch
    from 144hr in Gewn 1 to millions of years in about 1790. There was a gradual
    awareness that the earth was older than they thought - which varied from
    4004 BC to 10s of thousands and many were totally vague. So by 1790 some
    were onto millions others 10s of thousands - de Luc.

    Finally the standard view that Chalmers invented the Gap Theory in 1802 to
    allow for geology is totally false, he simply stretched and modified
    traditional interpretations.

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
    Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:51 AM
    Subject: Re: extra stuff in Genesis 1-2

    > Uncertainties about the interpretation of the "days" in Genesis go back to
    > the patristic period, they are not a result of modern science. This is
    esp
    > true for the first three days, which (so a number of writers held) predate
    > the sun's creation--where the sun and moon are expressly assigned the job
    of
    > marking out time and to divide the light from the darkness! The days were
    > often divided therefore into two sets: 1-3 and 4-6. It is abundantly
    > unclear, from the biblical text itself, that the "days" must be taken
    > literally.
    >
    > ted
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 17:42:51 EDT