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

I will agree withJon as a simple reading does strongly suggest a 24 hour day.  It is only after we consider the evidence against it that the lucid becomes murky.  Even without the contradiciton of science, a paradox remains since it was held in the past, and by many today, no doubt, that how could a day exist without the Sun, which did not exist till the third "day"?   In reading the impressive work of H.C. Leupold's Exposition of Genesis (1942), he attempts resolution with the notion: "If scientists now often regard light as merely enveloping the sun but not as an intrinsic part of it, why could it not have existed by itself without being localized in any heavenly body?" Modern science, fortunately, is now more apt to offer greater knowledge to this paradox.  It was probably not known that protostars can be shrouded in dust and gas, thus darkened by the material falling into it.  Once the sunlight burst forth through this solar cocoon day light would suddenly exist, but the observer is obviously not standing on familiar ground but in the hand of God, and the Earth is still "without form and void" since it is still the first day.  This exoplanetary reference frame is important to the idea that the author may not have realized what was actually transpiring within our solar system, other than where the earth was forming -- even astronauts could not judge distance while on the Moon.  This would allow his declaration of the "creation" of the Sun and Moon on day 4 since he was now on terra firma -- a reference frame he was familiar.   [This 4th day would have been more than a billion years after the first day based on the favored Lunar collision event theory.]  Also, if the day merely represents his days of experience, then clarity seems to be restored. George wrote: Just what force does it lose?  Other NT writers, & Paul in other places, is able to speak forcefully about Christ as savior without mentioning Adam. Are these statements not forceful?  Why not? Paul said "by one man" that suggests it was by one man.  He also mentions Adam as an individual in v. 14.   He is simply being more specific in his account, though I agree that the other accounts are no less forceful.  How do you explain his use of wording that suggest Adam was an individual? "Coope" ----- Original Message ---- From: gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:28:59 PM Subject: RE: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required? On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Jon Tandy wrote: > Moses is *clearly* stating that actual creation > took place in actual 24-hour days. Jon, I am not sure whether you are quoting the YECs or that you really believe that this is clear. If the latter, then you seem to have been convinced by the YECs. If this were clear, then Christians should have believed it before there was any scientific input on the age of the earth or universe. Yet we find in the writings of the early church fathers that they puzzled over the meaning of days in Genesis 1. To the Hebrews a day was the time between one sunset and the next (not normally exactly 24 hours) rather than a fixed unit of time. Thus solar days could not have existed until the sun was created. I also question whether the length of the creation period would qualify as being accommodation since I think that the ancients could have understood any of many possible lengths. Gordon Brown (ASA member) 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 23:16:31 2008