Massie wrote:
> George Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why not leave modern science out of Genesis? It simply doesn't belong there.
> >
> > George A.
> >
> >
>
> Why not stick out head in the sand. Modern science has valid findings
> and you believe in them and use them every day such as the internet.
> No, one should not stick ones head in the sand and ignore modern science
> and the (true) findings as they help us understand the scripture. No, I
> am not placing science over the Bible, but, it the instance of the few
> words in Genesis, there is a great deal of controversy as to what the
> words mean. Bert M
I do not doubt the findings of modern science; they are my bread and butter.
I also do not doubt that they are nowhere to be found elicited upon in scripture.
So, let me try again.
"Many Hebrew scholars believe the Hebrew of the opening verse of Genesis starts out
with a dependent clause (e.g., Speiser; The Anchor Bible: Genesis), with verse two
being parenthetic. Additionally, this is the same grammatical structure as Enuma
elish. Thus, the opening verses have nothing to do with the creation of time in the
sense of modern physics but simply begin the creation story in a linguistically
naturally way: 'When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being
then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas ....',
If this view is accepted then it precludes any attempt at reading in relativistic
mechanics.
If the view that "In the beginning....." implies a "t=0", then it does just that and
nothing more.
It still has nothing to do with relativistic mechanics.
To read into Genesis modern scientific notions is worse than any behavior of an ostrich;
it is imposing upon the text extra biblical material that simply does not belong.
Sincerely
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 15:48:05 EST