[asa] Re: Slug

Glenn Morton wrote on Thu, 15 Jun 2006

The only way out is through verification. But that is what the
'scientists' on this list don't want--they don't want observational
verification of statements in the Bible or any other sacred text for that
matter. I find this odd. We say science is true because of the evidence,
but theology is true in spite of the lack of evidence. Quite an
interesting way to fool oneself.

What do you want to verify? If I go to the text of Genesis 1, I find
several references to /raquia^/, translated "firmament." In LXX the
translation is /stereoma/, whose primary sense is, according to Westcott
and Hort, "a solid body." There have been many attempts to make the
Hebrew term refer to the atmosphere or to space, rather than to connect
it to ancient views. But there is water above it, when it would have to
be within it for the water to be in clouds. The sun, moon and stars were
placed on it. If it were space they would be in it. Birds fly in front of
it (literally in the face of), but I have never seen a bird fly under the
atmosphere. When penguins and cormorants "fly" under water and so below
the atmosphere, we call it swimming. So, if you want to verify the
/ipsisimma verba/ you have to declare it false by modern standards. It is
impossible to justify Genesis 1 by days of proclamation because the
description does not match our current knowledge. To put it bluntly,
there is nothing in Glenn's interpretation that keeps the statements from
being false by his requirements. It may meet the purposes given in II
Timothy 3:16, but not factual description. All the reformation period
statements note that scripture is the standard for faith and practice.
The notion of general inerrancy was devised later.

Paul have meticulously shown that the description of the "universe" in
scripture is that of the ancients, who could not conceive of something
billions of years old, a moving spherical earth, etc. Glenn seems to have
no trouble with the latter in spite of the biblical teaching. Were he
consistent, he would either be a flat-earther or abandon faith
altogether. But he insists that only what he holds "consistently" (I
can't stretch my mind that far) is correct.

I sympathize with Glenn, for I too once was YEC. I had a similar mind
set. But reading science forced me from that position, and a closer study
of scripture demolished OEC and similar claims. At least I did not have
the wrenching of changing from a belief that YEC was essential to my
salvation.
Dave

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 16 00:38:14 2006