Paul wrote:
>In Gen 1:20 the 'op are said to fly above the earth _"across the firmament of
>the the heavens"_. Any serious commentary will tell you that this means you
>see the sky as a background to the 'op. It is a common experience to see
>birds with the sky as a background. It is a rare experience to see flies,
>bees and fleas with the sky as a background because they usually are not over
>our heads; and when they are, they are too small to see.
Swarms of locusts can blacken the entire sky.
>Dozens, perhaps even hundreds of translations of Genesis have been made by
>Hebrew scholars. None of them have understood 'op in Gen 1:20 as referring
>exclusively to flying insects, excluding birds.
Any Hebrew paleontologists in that group?
>Rather than supposing that the universal scholarly consensus can or should be
>overthrown because translating 'op as "bird" is out of order compared to the
>fossil record, one ought to allow the biblical text to correct the mistaken
>theory that Scripture because it is inspired will always agree with the
>scientific facts.
If Scripture is inspired then it should agree with all facts, scientific,
historic,
etc. If we have a disagreement, look for an error someplace, such as a
scribal mistake. We can see those comparing Kings and Chronicles for
example. There are translational errors. 'erets translated earth in many
instances, 'adam translated "man" in the wrong places, har translated
mountains, 'op translated "fowl," and so on. We don't need to perpetuate
ignorance or look for a cop out which is what I think you are doing.
>A more biblical approach was outlined by John Jefferson Davis in his recent
>paper, "Is "Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful Concept," (Perspectives,
>December, 1998) particularly on page 251. Genesis 1 is a polemic against
>false theologies.
That's a backup theory. Well, Genesis is wrong. It must be saying
something. So it is deemed historic falsehood but theological truth. If
that's the best you can do, don't do anything. Just profess ignorance and
leave it alone.
In the phrase "there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole
face of the ground," "mist" is the wrong word. The Septuagint uses the
word "fountain." It is the correct word because it fits the historical
context
of Genesis and it makes sense. But you've given up on the historical
integrity of Genesis. In your method of apology, Genesis is wrong anyway,
so why bother correcting anything? You give up too readily, profess it
publicly, and badger those who try.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_13297902==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Paul wrote:
>In Gen 1:20 the 'op are said to fly above the earth _"across the
firmament of
>the the heavens"_. Any serious commentary will tell you
that this means you
>see the sky as a background to the 'op. It is a common
experience to see
>birds with the sky as a background. It is a rare experience to
see flies,
>bees and fleas with the sky as a background because they usually are
not over
>our heads; and when they are, they are too small to see.
Swarms of locusts can blacken the entire sky.
>Dozens, perhaps even hundreds of translations of Genesis have been
made by
>Hebrew scholars. None of them have understood 'op in Gen 1:20 as
referring
>exclusively to flying insects, excluding birds.
Any Hebrew paleontologists in that group?
>Rather than supposing that the universal scholarly consensus can or
should be
>overthrown because translating 'op as "bird" is out of
order compared to the
>fossil record, one ought to allow the biblical text to correct the
mistaken
>theory that Scripture because it is inspired will always agree with
the
>scientific facts.
If Scripture is inspired then it should agree with all facts, scientific,
historic,
etc. If we have a disagreement, look for an error someplace, such
as a
scribal mistake. We can see those comparing Kings and Chronicles
for
example. There are translational errors. 'erets
translated earth in many
instances, 'adam translated "man" in the wrong places,
har translated
mountains, 'op translated "fowl," and so on. We
don't need to perpetuate
ignorance or look for a cop out which is what I think you are
doing.
>A more biblical approach was outlined by John Jefferson Davis in his
recent
>paper, "Is "Progressive Creation' Still a Helpful
Concept," (Perspectives,
>December, 1998) particularly on page 251. Genesis 1 is a
polemic against
>false theologies.
That's a backup theory. Well, Genesis is wrong. It must be
saying
something. So it is deemed historic falsehood but theological
truth. If
that's the best you can do, don't do anything. Just profess
ignorance and
leave it alone.
In the phrase "there went up a mist from the earth and watered the
whole
face of the ground," "mist" is the wrong word. The
Septuagint uses the
word "fountain." It is the correct word because it fits
the historical context
of Genesis and it makes sense. But you've given up on the
historical
integrity of Genesis. In your method of apology, Genesis is wrong
anyway,
so why bother correcting anything? You give up too readily, profess
it
publicly, and badger those who try.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_13297902==_.ALT--