Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Given the clarity of the use of day in Gen. 1, in the sense of a 24 hour day, are there strong arguments that will refute the idea that each day could not have been a day experienced by the eye-witness, or vision, to the event, in lieu of the YEC version that holds the assumption that God created all of the account from scratch on each respective day?   Thus, could Moses, assuming it was he, have departed from where he was -- perhaps atop Mt. Sinai where other writings took place during his 40 days on the mountain -- on six different occasions, each on separate days.  Further, could the time period he was away not have been from each evening till morning of each of the six days? I have seen little on this idea, though much may be out there. "Coope" ----- Original Message ---- From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:11:43 PM Subject: RE: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required? -----Original Message----- From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of gordon brown Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:39 PM To: asa@calvin.edu Subject: RE: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required? I see a contrast where you don't. OT writers in praising God for His wonderful creation use ancient cosmology to describe the universe. This doesn't weaken the point that they are making. On the other hand, Paul's discussion in Rom. 5:12-19 loses a lot of force if sin did not enter through one individual person. I respond: That is a good point.  However, if you take early Genesis (and science in general, as the YEC and other concordists do) as though the trustworthiness of the entire Bible rests on the accuracy of the various scientific points which are *obviously* being made, then the conclusion is much the same.  To say that the OT writers (including Moses, in Genesis) were *simply* praising God for His wonderful creation is false doctrine, according to some of the to the YEC positions I have read.  If you can concede that point of accommodation in the former, why not concede the possibility of accommodation with Paul?  Moses is *clearly* stating that actual creation took place in actual 24-hour days, and who are we to argue?  (BTW, I'm not comfortable with some of the consequences of evolutionary understandings on theology either, just so you know.  Just evaluating your original statement on the logical merits of contrast between OT and Paul, trying to see the logical difference in conclusions of accommodation vs. non-accommodation.) Jon Tandy To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 11 20:08:38 2008