Hi George;
George Murphy wrote:
> George Andrews Jr. wrote:
> ...............................
> > "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. ...........................................
> Seems to me both sides in this debate may be trying to prove too much.
> There is no justification for trying to get Minkowski & space-time out of the Bible
> or the doctrine of creation. OTOH, if it doesn't make sense to talk about time
> until there's something which changes, then time began with the creation of the
> universe. That time is God's creation may not be an explicit teaching of Scripture
> but is a reasonable deduction therefrom. & as I pointed out in an earlier post,
> this is significant for the way we evaluate becoming & history.
> Shalom,
> George
I have no problem with the "OTOH" you caution with for it is indeed a "reasonable dedution" and not "relativistic scripture
mechanics" :-).
Thanks
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 10:54:29 EST