Hi Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: <adam@crowl.webcentral.com.au>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Methane in the late Archean
>
> Adam,
>
> I appreciate that you are not a classical concordist; but, with regard to
> science in the Bible I see only divine accommodation to the science of the
> times, so reject all concordism. That leaves the spiritual message
without
> rival.
>
As is a necessity when pre-modern psychology states our thoughts are in our
hearts, that the Earth is flat, that the Sun moves around us, that hail has
storehouses like the winds, and so forth...
I think Glenn's scenario tries to get geo-history straight but I'm not sure
his hermeneutic works when faced with all the other pre-scientific trappings
of Scripture. Do we defend the rising of the Sun to guarantee the rising of
the Son?
> <<But what then is the thick darkness that the Earth is wrapped in aka
Job?
> And I don't think the ancients conceived the sky-dome as "rock solid"...
> isn't it more "hammered out" and likened to a layer of transparent
> sapphire???>>
>
> Job 38:4-7 is about the founding of the earth, which is Day 3; Job 38:8-11
is
> about the establishing of the sea, Day 3 again. Therefore Job 38:8 is
about
> Day 3. You might move your theory to Day 3. That way you at least have
an
> ocean and a sky; but the dryness of the earth is emphasized, which doesn't
> fit your scenario; and you would still be missing the sun.
Who knows what the order is in Job? I'm not sure the book is even by pure
monotheists since some passages are awfully suggestive of Sun-worship [Job
37:21,22.] Is Job about Yahweh or Shamash?
Also, even after
> the ocean is put in place, it is not on the earth but around and under the
> earth. The earth is on the ocean (Ps 24:2; 136:6), rather than the ocean
on
> the earth.
>
Another a pre-scientific anomaly for Glenn to puzzle out...
> There may have been more than one idea of what the firmament was made of.
> metal or rock. But, the rock concept seems to dominate historically. The
> rock, however, is transparent, crystal, looking like "ice" Ezek 1:22.
(The
> sapphire seems to be the throne above the firmament, Ez 1:26)
>
But then see Exodus 24:10...
> <<Thanks Paul... I accept what you say, but like the words of the prophets
> that weren't understood in their relevance until Christ fulfilled them,
> perhaps God has hidden data in the Genesis account for us to divine?>>
>
> The problem arises with the subjectivity of the hermeneutic that is
necessary
> to "divine" the hidden message. With Christ, there are objective themes
in
> the OT, like the coming of a new covenant and the Gentiles coming into the
> kingdom which give some framework for the rest; and of course, that
spiritual > message fits the proclaimed purpose of biblical inspiration (II
Tim 3:16).
>
A good point. But then how do we apply any of the pre-scientific moral
philosophy of St Paul, especially since his "conscience" idea came from the
Greeks?
> <<As for the global ocean being incompatible with science I've read that
quite
> a few geoscientists still hold out on that concept for the earliest aeons
of
> the Earth - a Panthalassa with mostly submerged proto-continents until c.
> 800 mya.>>
>
> It seems that your "mostly submerged" indicates that not all was
submerged.
Nor was it all one land mass until Rhodinia emerged.
> But the historical background of Gen 1:2 and the implication of Gen 1:9 is
> that there was no dry land until Day 3. If you know of any evidence or
even
> authoritative opinion for a totally submerged earth at any time in the
> earth's history, I would certainly like to know about it, as I regularly
twit
> concordists by saying that they cannot get past the second verse of the
Bible.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
>
Ok you got me on that point... :o)
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 16:38:22 EDT