|
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that
God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of
most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't
they?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for
believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour
period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in
definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in
the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that
"day" is more than a 24 hour period of
time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was
created...... not a 24 hour period.
Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed
on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into
Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of
firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of
Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three
extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the
creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth
day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that
creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time
and extended into other creation events.
If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God
to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed
time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely
and for all the reasons stated.
Bishop J
--------------
Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the
>
idea that
> the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were
created
> roughly 10000
> years ago. Certainly I'm a
creationist in the sense that I believe that God
> created the
universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also,
> you
are completely right:
>
> David:
> > I think your
attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing
feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific
explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
>
> That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I
believe that a
> purely scientific explanation of natural laws and
evolution can't explain life
> getting here. I t hink there is a lot
of necessary evidence missing for
> evolution, but that evolution is
accepted because the only other possibility,
> God, is ruled out in
advance (by scientists). However, I also believe
> that the
>
universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very
> long time.
>
> Quoting David Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Conor wrote:
> >>
Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven
> >> days of
creation are meant to be taken literally.
> >
> > I tend
to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the
>
> emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation
account
> > appears to be an empirical, chronological style
description in comparison to
> > the second creation account.
> >
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Ironically
though, I'm not a strict evolutionist,
> >> or a strict
creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third
> >> option, which
seems to be slow in coming.
> >
> > If you believe that
God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a
> >
creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God
> > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at
all. Evolution
> > is the only option.
> >
> >
Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but
> > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not
incorporate
> > any creationist components. I think your attitude
of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling
that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation
of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
> >
> > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on
earth is of
> > relatively recent origin.
> >
>
> David Mille r
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your
speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive
posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
>
he will be subscribed.
|
