You are going north at this time of year? You are 'sheng jing bing" :-)
Dennis wrote:
>>So Glenn, Gen 1:2 has an "earth" and "waters", but you suggest these are
"scattered" throughout the universe. I find this puzzling because the
Hebrew writer had at his lexical disposal the word 'aphar' (dust, used
about 100 times in the OT; and he knew of it because he used it in Gen
2:7, 3: 14, 3:19) and the word 'ed' (mist, only used once, but he used it
in Gen 2:6). Why Glenn did he not use these other Hebrew words, because
surely you must agree they would more accurately convey your 'exegesis'? <<
If you really think that the words are supposed to convey content, then why
didn't the Hebrew writer use the term sphere instead of 'formless'? The
earth put together, is a sphere. If you go back to the start of the big
bang, I am not sure that dust would be an appropriate description for what
was there. At that time the universe was 10^-33 centimeters. All atomic
particles overlap and in quantum that means that no particle was really
distinguishable from the next particle. You could not describe that as a
dust. Dust is separate. The density of the first millisecond was 10^90
kilograms /cm^2. This was not dust, but the energy which would become mass
and form the earth, had no form in that world. Formless is a perfect
description.
But I would say that God had planned for the earth. Is this deistic? Only
partly.
You wrote:
>>Disrespect AUTHORIAL INTENTIONALITY and LEXICAL MEANING as you have
done here, and you will have set a precedent to open the biggest can
of hermeneutical worms you will ever see. WORDS have meanings and
usages, just like the ones I am using to communicate with you right NOW.<<
You do give me too much credit here. The precedent for what I am doing was
set by others long ago. And like it or not, Christianity already has a big
can of worms with this part of the Bible.
Now, to me the difference in our position is what is the bigger threat, a
hermeneutical can of worms or a scientific can of worms? I am willing to pay
a hermeneutical cost to have the Bible be historically real. You are willing
to pay a scientific cost to have the Bible be hermeneutically sound. But I
don't see very many people out there saying to me, "Is Genesis
hermeneutically reliable?" But I do hear a lot of people asking if Genesis
is scientifically reliable