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

Hi David,

Of course, one has to suppose the existence of the vacuum beforehand.
However, my point was mainly to indicate that the statement I wrote,
viz., "The universe arose from a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum,
which may sound more scientific than "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth," is just as hard to determine whether the
statement is scientific, historical, or theological.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bradford [mailto:david.bradford1@which.net]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:10 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; ed babinski; Glenn Morton
Cc: Charles Carrigan; asa@calvin.edu; dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Subject: Re: Gen. 1:1 as "real history" or "real philosophy?"

Hi, Moorad
I've missed a step here. Is "The universe arose from a quantum
fluctuation
of the vacuum." a quote from someone else? Whatever, I believe it
contains a
misconception. Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum in which a
quantum
fluctuation could occur. What do the physicists say about this?

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu>; "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: "Charles Carrigan" <CCarriga@olivet.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>;
<dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:47 PM
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 Sat Nov 13 13:09:24 2004