Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits"
- Previous message: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: Old-Earth Creationism"
- Next in thread: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: James Taggart: "RE: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
You may have noticed that I've especially avoided day 4. From what I've
read, Gen 1:9-10 is pretty well supported by what others have said.
Day 4 is a mess. Either Moses lost his mind, or God knows something we
don't. Moses must have known that light came from the sun. What the heck
is all this stuff doing on day 4?
Was there cloud cover? But, no matter what, Moses intentionally put day 4
where he did. If Moses knew that light came from the sun (Gen 1:15-18), he
had something else in mind by putting the sun, moon, and stars in day 4. We
already had light, day & night in Gen 1:3-5.
We can accuse Moses of "confusing us." But, can we honestly accuse him of
being wrong? For some reason, he chose to put day 4 where he did. Was he
merely "appointing" the sun, moon, and stars their tasks? Whatever he was
doing, it seems like weak ground to rule out the scientific/historical
accuracy of Genesis One based on day 4.
I looked under atmosphere in Microsoft Encarta 98. I couldn't match that
with the Bible. But I'm no atmosphere expert. And, again, I wouldn't
expect Encarta to try to reconcile science with the Bible. I'm very certain
that I don't have all the information that I need. I'm not sure that
science yet has all the information that we need. I've seen a few claim
that there was some type of cloud cover/haze. I think Hugh Ross claims
that. Also,
In Genesis Reconsidered (1999), Armin Held and Peter Ruest claim:
Previously, light of celestial bodies had reached the earthís surface only
in scattered form, such as on an overcast day. The text does not say that
bodies were "affixed to the firmament," but that God "gave" the lights (the
light rays, not their sources) "into the raqia of the skies," the region
which previously could not be reached by direct light. Now changed
atmospheric conditions caused the previously permanent cloud cover to break
open, so that for the first time the celestial bodies appeared as "lights in
the sky." Over some time, the lights were being "prepared" [asah], coming
through hazily first, more clearly later. Literally, God said, "Let it be
(singular) lights (plural)!" The single process of the atmospheric change
caused the appearance of a multitude of lights. They were to provide space
and time indications required by many organisms.
- Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits"
- Previous message: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: Old-Earth Creationism"
- Next in thread: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: James Taggart: "RE: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Reply: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 18:26:26 EST