Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

I presume you were watching the races!! This quote says it all and should be the end of the discussion!

But then perhaps you should know that plate tectonic movements began in the days of Peleg!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: skrogh
  To: skrogh ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 5:18 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] the Way Science Works/

  I am tired. I just got from the bicycle races. I hit send too soon before I got the reference in.
  This was a paragraph from Gordon J Glover's presentation on http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/

  ==============================================
  Rather than give the Hebrews a new Cosmology, which would have been totally worthless to them, given their situation, God inspires Moses to reassure his people using the familiar terminology of M.E. creation stories, in which the gods bring order to the primordial chaos, that YAWHEH is sovereign over the forces of nature and the HE will protect them as they enter the wilderness. So basically, the Hebrew creation narrative was God's theological rebuttal to the Egyptian creation mythology, not necessarily a scientific rebuttal to ANE cosmology. So to read modern science into it completely misses the point. As soon as [they heard the words regarding] the Spirit of God hovering over the formless and empty waters of Gen 1:2, that generation of Hebrews who received Genesis, would have instantly understood that Moses was about to give them, a creation story that would rival anything that they received in Egypt. So naturally, any passing references to the cosmos would be consistent with ANE science and have nothing to do with modern 21st century science. To expect Genesis to provide modern Christians with a scientific description of creation that meets our post-enlightenment standards of material objectivity is extremely arrogant and self-centered. It completely overlooks the seriousness of the situation in which Genesis was given, and instead, replaces these weighty spiritual matters with our petty scientific arguments over things like the age of the earth or alternate celestial centricities. Once we start demanding that Moses answer these types of questions, we have completely missed the point of the creation narrative.
  ==============================================

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of skrogh
  Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:54 PM
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: RE: [asa] the Way Science Works/

      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Jack
      Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:08 PM
      To: George Cooper; bertsche@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

      The problem with such a concordist approach, is that the author of Genesis, and his audience knew nothing about stellar accretion disks, Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering, and so forth. I dont think that an approach to biblical interpretation that would leave the intended audience completely in the dark as to its meaning, is a reasonable one.

    This is so true. Rather than give the Hebrews a new Cosmology, which would have been totally worthless to them, given their situation, God inspires Moses to reassure his people using the familiar terminology of M.E. creation stories, in which the gods bring order to the primordial chaos, that YAWHEH is sovereign over the forces of nature and the HE will protect them as they enter the wilderness. So basically, the Hebrew creation narrative was God's theological rebuttal to the Egyptian creation mythology, not necessarily a scientific rebuttal to ANE cosmology. So to read modern science into it completely misses the point. As soon as they heard the words, "the Spirit of God began hovering over the formless and empty waters of Gen 1:2, that generation of Hebrews who received Genesis, would have instantly understood that Moses was about to give them, a creation story that would rival anything that they received in Egypt. So naturally, any passing references to the cosmos would be consistent with ANE science and have nothing to do with modern 21st century science. To expect Genesis to provide modern Christians with a scientific description of creation that meets our post-enlightenment standards of material objectivity is extremely arrogant and self-centered. It completely overlooks the seriousness of the situation in which Genesis was given, and instead, replaces these weighty spiritual matters with our petty scientific arguments over things like the age of the earth or alternate celestial centricities. Once we start demanding that Moses answer these types of questions, we have completely missed the point of the creation narrative.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: George Cooper
        To: bertsche@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
        Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:04 PM
        Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

        Thanks Kirk. I should have known Wiki had it.

        This "framework" view seems to be more of a duplex than a single household. It seems too much of a recondite approach for such a very important introductory group of passages that would be best in simple terms. It does not flow for me, it log jams. My pipes, admittedly, are not all that large, so I will not rule this view out.

        I strongly encourage this group to consider the latest discoveries in astronomy and apply them in an exegesis of Gen. 1. Perhpas you have.

        Modern astronomy is bringing amazing news as to the early eras of our solar system. Spitzer's infrared observational abilities has "eyed" hundreds of stellar accretion disks. These disks were postulated as far back as Kant, but only in our times have they been observable. Also, planet formation models are becoming more and more accurate, though they still have a long way to go.

        Is it plausible to state that an uneducated observer of antiquity would, as an eye-witness, state the Earth ever appeared as an object "without form and void"?

        Could the Sun burst forth a flood of light? Dust and gas will enshroud many proto-stellar bodies, but not for very long as light will flood outward flushing it away. Indeed, it is radiation pressure that swells a star to equilibrium. Let there be light.

        Water anyone? Guess what color an observer would see for a highly illuminated accretion disk? It can be blue for the very same reason the sky above is blue -- Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering. It would require neighbors. Guess what? Iron60 evidence, and other isotopes, demonstrate that our star formed in a typical, active nursery. These neighbors would also need to be very bright, assuming our observer is using normal vision. A single big neighbor is capable of visible light at over a million times the visible solar flux. They are also strongest in the blue end of the visual spectrum. How would our observer describe a billion miles of blue?

        If any have references that explore these ideas, I would be grateful.

        Helio

        bertsche@aol.com wrote:
          FYI, there's a fairly decent summary of the Framework view on Wikipedia:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29

          Kirk

          -----Original Message-----
          From: drsyme@cablespeed.com

          Second, you used the word framework. Whether you realize it or not, there is a biblical interpretation titled the "framework" view. It sees Genesis more figuratively, but not as a fairly tale, and it does not conflict with science. If you are not familiar with it the leading authors of this view are Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, among others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
          AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 05:33:27 2007