> > Focussing on the 1st line, the Hebrew construction (waw consecutive: _ki
> hu'
> >'amar wayehi_) suggests that the action of the second verb follows that of
> the first
> >with nothing intervening. It would be good for somebody with greater
> Hebrew expertise
> >than I to comment on this both in regard to Gen.1 and Ps.33.
>
> I too would be interested in hearing more of this.
Of course there is no word "instantly" in either Genesis or Psalms. The
question is whether the Hebrew grammar implies, not necessarily instantaneous
succession, but succession with nothing relevant intervening between the two verbs.
Note that what is in question relates the the verbs "said" and "was" (or "came to be")
and not the substance of what was said, either as a direct or indirect quotation. In
other words, it involves the relationship of two actions as described by a narrator, not
God.
> >> Absolutely this is why I think Genesis actually teaches evolution. IT WAS
> >> THE LAND that did the creating not God directly! God ordered the land to do
> >> the job but the land actually did it. Similarly with the water bringing
> >> forth fish. God didn't create the fish--the water did.
> >
> > This is a very important point which needs continual emphasis: Genesis 1
> very
> >clearly pictures _mediated_ creation of living things. & it is
> _creation_, as the
> >connection of 1:20 & 21 (which uses the verb br' which only God can do)
> shows.
> >Messenger's detailed study in _Evolution and Theology_ demonstrated that a
> number of
> >important church fathers (Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, &c)
> understood the
> >creation of life in this way. That doesn't automatically mean evolution
> (Ephrem, e.g.,
> >thinks of the plants coming out of the earth full grown with (gasp!)
> apparent age, but
> >the idea of mediated creation is a crucial one for an evolutionary theology.
>
> No it doesn't automatically mean evolution. But it is mediated creation
> which then does fit into an evolutionary perspective if we need it to. And
> we moderns need it to. If we moderns insist that Genesis was not teaching
> evolution AND evolution is true, then God told us a falsehood. The
> statement that the land brought forth life is the sort of simple but true
> account of creation that I would expect God to deliver to us in order to
> avoid the problems you and I debated a month ago in which if God tells us a
> false story he isn't to be trusted. But if God tells us a simplifed, but
> true, account of how life came to be, then He tells the truth, Genesis can
> be true (and historical but not exhaustive), and we can then differentiate
> this creation story from other creation stories like the pea-man.
I would prefer just to say that Genesis 1 provides material for a theology of
creation which makes it possible to speak about biological evolution. Beyond that we
would get into our old debate about what constitutes a "flase story" &c & I don't have
anything right now to add to what I've said previously on that.
Shalom,
George
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/