It very well might be dangerous stuff. But let's move away from Gen. 1.
What about 6-9? I have told you that my big problem in the geological
sciences was the total lack of evidence for the flood. The flood reads like
history and is in another Todolith[sic?] So what is the "proper reading
package for Genesis 6-9?
I wrote:
>>> The language "When God began to create the heavens and the earth" fits
quite nicely within the days of proclamation view I advocate, t. I view
Genesis 1 not as the actual creation but the planning and proclamation of
the laws of nature.<<
You replied:
>>You are going to have to give me a lot more on this notion because I am
not all that sure what you are talking about.<<
This is St. Basil, Alan Hayward's, an my view; I talk about it on page10.
(like how I put myself in the same sentence with a Saint?) Basically it
treats Genesis 1 as being at the very beginning of the universe. The days
are 7 proclamations outlining the rules of the universe. Nothing is actually
created in Genesis 1 but things are set in motion leading to life on earth.
Genesis 2 is a long time after Genesis 1 and is not an expansion of Gensis
1:26-30. They are two separate events at two separate times. Since the days
are proclaimations, the order of the proclamations does not have to fulfill
the order of creation. It avoids all those nasty temporal problems. You can
see this view in Alan Hayward's book _Creation and Evolution_ just reprinted
by Bethany House. (If you buy it I would like to know if my name is still in
the acknowledgements on the new copy. In the old version I was right next to
Sir Fred Hoyle. That is my claim to fame.)
You wrote:
>>
God could well have done this. But did He? I say "no" because all these
concordist programs failed. This was exactly what the Evangelical
Academy tried do in the last half of the 19th century, but it failed
(this by the way was a good part of my PhD dissertation in theology, and
after seeing how often it failed it is no wonder why I am not a
concordist). Living proof of the vacuity of concordism is the fact there is
not one important theologian
today who believes in concordism that has put forth a detailed book on
it. Oh, you have Bernard Ramm in 1955 suggesting such a program, but it
is not all that well thought out and it is quite sparse with regard to
content--eg., he never really does commit himself to when these purported
interventions occurred, how many, or what their exact nature was.<<
I would not expect most theologians to be able to come up with a concordist
account anyway. They simply do not know enough science. And scientists like
me do not know enough theology. I would strongly suggest that the turnoff to
concordistic views is due to the lack of success not due to the lack of need
for one. I agree with you that that approach has failed miserably in the
past. That is why I have not taken the paths former concordists have taken.
Why repeat failure when you might be able to create a new failure. :-)
I also see the retreat from concordism as a protection mechanism which
prevents the disproof of our faith. But it also prevents science from
supporting the events in the Bible. It is the equivalent of making a
non-verifiable, non-refutable theory in science. You can never be proven
wrong that way but it is basically a reaction of fear; fear of failure. We
withdraw into our protective cocoon and no one can point a finger and say
"Christianity is wrong."
You wrote:
>>How can Gen 1 be a historical event, yet be prior to the foundation of
the universe? I very confused here. Please explain what you mean.<<
Are you saying that God couldn't have done anything prior to the creation of
our universe? Is God not transcendental? Or is He, like Frank Tipler's God
(Physics of Immortality) the universe itself and so did not exist prior to
the existence of the universe. Was not the creation of the angels, prior to
the existence of the universe? Jesus was slain from the Foundation of the
World. While not historical in the sense of "within our time" it is
historical in the sense that it was done prior to time.
Your wickedly hermeneutically UNCLEAN concordist friend,
glenn