Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

But the text describes both sun and moon as "lights" in the sky, whereas we know that the moon is a reflector.

So, the science is clearly wrong.

And if the science is wrong, then the moon clearly doesn't exist, right?

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> The sun and moon are objects you can see.
>
> One might answer that the creation of Adam, the existence of the firmament, and the "image of God" are hypotheses of their modern (our ancient) worldview.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:17 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux
>
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> However- this does pose a very interesting question for Denis Lamoureux. As I understand Denis, he says "there is no Adam" just like there is no firmament. Can we go farther? The only mention of "made in the image of God" is also from the same passage! No firmament, no literal man named Adam... why not also no literal 'image of God' given at one point. Wouldn't that be consistent? It is all Gen. chapter 1! Shouldn't the same hermeneutic be used on the whole chapter?
>
> So, no sun and moon, then?
>
> Blessing,
> Murray
>
> 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 Thu Oct 8 14:27:20 2009