Re: Drawing Glenn Back Into Debate

GRMorton@aol.com
Thu, 4 Jan 1996 22:23:30 -0500

Jim and Denis point out that verse 1 and 2 form a single thought. I will
withdraw my claim that v.1 is an executive summary. I yield to Hebrew
expertise. But that still doesn't change much of my explanation since the
scripture clearly says the earth was formless. The way most people interpret
this verse, the earth had the form of a sphere. The verse can not be
referring to a time after the earth is formed or it is self contradictory
i.e. it can not both have the form of a sphere and be formless.

Let me ask this. What is the shape (form) of the argon atoms contained in
the cubic meter of air in front of your face?

I do have a question. If there is no historical value in Genesis 1, why does
the grammer mean anything at all? It conveys no historical information so
why do we study the grammar for every jot and tittle to understand what the
story is saying when we already know that it says nothing historical. And
within what I view to be your view of inspiration, God Himself did not write
the account so it was written by a fallible man. And you examine this man's
grammar like proctologists examine entrails. This makes no sense. Why
should the grammar convey something which the content of the passage doesn't
convey? Would you examine the grammar of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" with
such gusto?

glenn