Re: [asa] Two questions...

James,

I realize you are not YEC. It is quite as applicable to OEC, who are still
looking for scientific concordism and are trying to ask questions of the
text that the text was never intended to answer.

Gordon, I thank you for your perspective. I understand what you are saying,
what I was trying to draw out is the difficulty of the word "True" and the
many meanings it can have, as well as asking what we mean when we say "what
we discover about the world... should agree with his Word."

Bethany

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@colorado.edu>wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bethany Sollereder wrote:
>
> James,
>>
>> Psalm 19:1-4 is a very interesting choice. You are aware, I hope, that
>> the
>> word which in your translation is made to be "skies" comes from "raqia".
>> This is better translated "firmament" or "vault" (See Gen 1 in TNIV) and
>> refers to the hard dome of the sky holding up the heavenly oceans. This
>> is
>> basic ANE cosmology and can be seen in Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian
>> creation accounts, and yet I assume when you read skies you think
>> "atmosphere" - which is certainly not what the Psalmist had in mind.
>>
>> You said " If what we discover about the world and how he created it and
>> us
>> is true to God, then it should (and does, IMO) agree with his Word." If
>> you
>> are going to do this, and agree with what concordism demands, then
>> ultimately you would have to agree with their cosmology as well. If in
>> fact
>> you don't think the sky is a hard dome keeping up a heavenly ocean (and
>> that
>> NASA has indeed sent space ships out which have not run into any such
>> firmament) then you have already taken the first steps in rejecting the
>> need
>> for concordism.
>>
>>
> Bethany,
>
> You and James may be using different definitions of concordism. If
> concordism is defined in such a way that noone is a concordist, it ceases to
> be a useful topic of discussion.
>
> In Psalm 19 David is not trying to tell us that the sky is solid. That is
> not his topic. He is remarking about what viewing the sky tells him about
> God. He uses a word that happens to be derived from ancient cosmology. What
> other word should he have used? Even though he presumably believed the
> ancient cosmology, it makes no more sense to say that he was trying to teach
> that cosmology than it would be to accuse me of teaching geocentricity if I
> refer to beautiful sunrises and sunsets.
>
> One can easily find many clues in OT poetical passages to what their
> cosmology was. You can also find passages such as the last few chapters of
> Job where the language about creation would presumably appear figurative
> even to people who accepted ancient cosmology.
>
> 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 Sun Feb 8 04:52:19 2009