Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Paul Seely wrote:
> Peter wrote,

>> But the core of this argument of mine was not even the beliefs of the
   ancients, but that God probably didn't have much difficulty
persuading a
   writing prophet to not hook his text to a flat-earth worldview, even
if,
   for discussion's sake, he would have held it, and the possibility
that
   God indeed had a reason for doing so and did it. <<

> You were more accurate in an earlier post when you said God _would_ not have much difficulty persuading a writing prophet to not hook his text to a flat-earth worldview. You can't say "didn't" because the evidence is that he did hook his text to a flat-earth worldview (actually worldpicture), and that more than once. I will not lay out all of the evidence here, as it is already laid out in my paper, "The geographical meaning of 'earth' and 'seas' in Gen 1:10" in the Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997) 231-55, which you can read if and when you want to see the evidence. <

Armin Held and I have already dealt with this evidence in our 1999 PSCF
paper, where endnote 16 reads: We are not claiming Genesis 1 to "teach
modern cosmology", but we want to show that a very good case can be made
for non-contradiction between the biblical narrative and scientific
data. The opinions that Genesis 1 reflects an ancient mythological world
view, and that this view implied a flat earth and a solid firmament are
popular. We consider both of these opinions to be in error. Seely, P.H.
(1991), "The Firmament and the Water Above; Part I: The Meaning of
raqia^ in Gen 1:6-8", Westminster Theol.J. 53, 227-240; Seely, P.H.
(1992), "The Firmament and the Water Above; Part II: The Meaning of
'The Water above the Firmament' in Gen 1:6-8", Westminster Theol.J. 54,
31-46; Seely, P.H. (1997), "The Geographical Meaning of 'Earth' and
'Seas' in Gen 1:10", Westminster Theol.J. 59, 231-255. Seely interprets
Hebrew concepts on purely external ethnological grounds, concluding from
non-Hebrew "primitive" views that the correct interpretation of Genesis
1 must be a flat-earth mythological one. He assumes without discussion
that even divine inspiration would make do with however erroneous the
world view of a prophet's cultural background might happen to be. On the
other hand, Russell, J.B. (1997), Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus
and Modern Historians (Praeger, Westport, CT) demonstrates the recent
origin of the "three-story-universe" myth. We further consider this
question in the last section of our paper.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)