RE: Gen. 1:1 as "real history" or "real philosophy?"

I would say history. If it didn't, then it is myth.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 7:48 AM
> To: ed babinski; Glenn Morton
> Cc: Charles Carrigan; asa@calvin.edu; dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> Subject: RE: Gen. 1:1 as "real history" or "real philosophy?"
>
>
> "The universe arose from a quantum fluctuation of the
> vacuum." What is the nature of this statement? Is it
> history, science, philosophy, or what?
>
> Moorad
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of ed babinski
>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:56 PM
> To: Glenn Morton
> Cc: 'Charles Carrigan'; asa@calvin.edu; dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> Subject: Gen. 1:1 as "real history" or "real philosophy?"
>
> "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> Can I ask if you can point me to the word 'ex nihilo' in what I wrote?
>
> ED: You wrote, "I am waiting for someone to tell me why 'In
> the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' is not
> meant to be taken as real
> history." Agreed, Dave and I shouldn't have analyzed Genesis 1:1 in
> terms of its ancient Near Eastern meaning and
> historical/literary context, but should have asked what you
> meant by the "history" in that verse. If you meant merely
> that "God exists" and "separated chaos" in some unspecified
> way that defies historical analysis, fine. That's really
> more of a philosophical question than an historical one. And
> do you really need to read Genesis 1:1 to "prove" such a
> thing or to believe it?
>
Received on Tue Nov 2 20:23:11 2004