All right, I won't be able to get any work done until I respond to this
little misunderstanding. (I had hoped all of my other posts would obviate
the need for this.)
When I wrote,
> "First of all, recall what we know -- or at least hope we
> know with reasonable assurance -- about this sequence of events:
> the formation of heavier elements in stellar cores/supernovae,
> .... and the sequence in which life appeared in the ocean and
> then on land."
I was not proposing that it be the "first step" in our interpretation of
Genesis 1. I was merely proposing it as the first step in the little
exercise I had outlined.
Since the "overlapping day/age" interpretation and the "days of
proclamation" interpretation are both well-established, and BOTH claim
that the "Days" in Genesis 1 describe actual supernatural events which
occurred in the order described, it is fitting and proper that we remind
ourselves of what we know about history as we evaluate these
interpretations. The method I proposed falls well within the "warnings
and confirmations ... stage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your denial of my victimhood |
is lowering my self-esteem!" | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu