Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: SEJ on Genesis I

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    ... to ... he ... Well if his goal was to harmonize Genesis I and modern science, he has utterly failed in this task. However, I am not sure this was even his
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2004
      --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, jdbeadle@h... wrote:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/10072
      >
      > Nice work SEJ, nice work! I must be way more biased than I like
      to
      > admit - when SEJ is pummeling his fellow Christian or some YECer
      he
      > seems to make a lot of sense to me. He certainly likes to try and
      > support himself by a preponderance of evidence. One of his very
      > effective tactics. Every now and then SEJ hits a ringer.
      >
      > jb

      Well if his goal was to harmonize Genesis I and modern science, he
      has utterly failed in this task. However, I am not sure this was
      even his goal.

      Quote: "My position is that Genesis 1 is not scientific enough to be
      a science textbook, but not *unscientific* enough to just be the
      work of unaided ancient man. I agree with Pearce, "The Bible may not
      have been written with the object of teaching science, nevertheless,
      the Bible is not unscientific, for hidden within its story is a
      Creator's knowledge":"

      I've heard this before, from many a biblical creationist...never
      once has any one of them been able to answer the question about what
      knowledge exactly is it in the Genesis creation account that could
      only have come from God. Jones doesn't answer this and the rest of
      his post seems geared more to demonstrate why he doesn't really have
      to (by envoking the literary framework hypothesis.)

      As far as I can tell, Jones "position" is like this: Hey if you
      don't examine it too closely, the Genesis account is not altogether
      unscientific. This may be true, but it still does not demonstrate
      how Genesis contains information thay could only have come from God.

      Quote: "My view is a combination of the Literary Framework and Day-
      Age interpretations of Genesis 1. That is, there is an underlying
      Day-Age concordism, expressed in the form of a literary framework of
      a working week, primarily for theological (and only secondarily
      chronological) purposes."

      To me this seems like a complete contradiction in terms. The
      literary framework hypothesis tells us that Genesis 1 is not meant
      to be harmonized with science. Rather, it is a literary arrangement
      used to communicate a theology of the Sabbath, not a literal
      historical account. Therefore, no concordism between Genesis and
      science is possible/necessary.

      This view stands in sharp contrast to the day-age interpretation of
      Genesis. Which tells us Genesis is to be interpreted literally,
      except for the days that are in fact long periods of time. Typically
      advocates of the Literary Framework view consider the Gap Theory and
      the Day-Age theory inadequate to harmonize Genesis with modern
      science.

      A combination of the two (is that even possible?) seems convenient
      enough. Anyone holding such a position is not burdended with having
      to provide evidence to back up the claim that there is a harmony
      between science and Genesis. Plus, whenever it is shown that a
      literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be harmonized with science,
      one merely falls back on the literary framework hypothesis to dodge
      the blow. A wholly unassailable position, in that it is totally
      unfalsifiable.

      Bravo, this is by far the most evasive "position" with respects to
      Genesis that I have ever seen.
    • Tom Curtis
      ... And excellent summary. The obvious intention of Jones in adopting both a day-age and literary framework view is to eliminate the discordance between light
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 1, 2004
        Daniel wrote:
         
        > A combination of the two (is that even possible?) seems convenient
        > enough. Anyone holding such a position is
        not burdended with having
        > to provide evidence to back up the claim that
        there is a harmony
        > between science and Genesis. Plus, whenever it is
        shown that a
        > literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be harmonized with
        science,
        > one merely falls back on the literary framework hypothesis to
        dodge
        > the blow. A wholly unassailable position, in that it is
        totally
        > unfalsifiable.
        >
        > Bravo, this is by far the most
        evasive "position" with respects to
        > Genesis that I have ever
        seen.
         
        And excellent summary.  The obvious intention of Jones in adopting both a day-age and literary framework view is to eliminate the discordance between light being created on day one, and the sun, moon and stars being created on day four - after the creation of dry land and seas.  By adopting a literary framework, Jones avoids any temporal link between the two triads of days in the Genesis account.  Thus day 4 (sun and moon) can be viewed as being concurrent with, or even preceding day 1 (light and darkness).
         
        It seems to me, however, that for Jones theory to be a day-age theory at all, it must retain temporal linkage within the triads of days.  Day one must precede day two, which in turn must precede day three.  Further, day four must precede day five, which must precede day six.  Absent this linkage, then calling this view a day-age view conveys no information at all, except to signal that Jones intends to be understood as appropriately "orthodox".
         
        Granted this minimum linkage, however, Genesis 1 still contradicts what is known through science.  Specifically, this system still has "winged creatures" created before "land creatures".  I am aware of the apologetic that treats "winged creatures" as reffering to flying insects.  This does not rescue the concordance, however, for it still leaves birds and bats either uncreated or created to early.  Further, if "winged creatures" includes flying insects, that "land creatures" must include terrestial arthropods (such as spiders) which preceded flying insects.
         
        Jones also needs to explain what is, in scientific terms, the "vault" (New Jerusalem Bible) that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below", and indeed, what are the "waters above"?
         
        Thus Jones' theory, to the extent that it is informative fails to demonstrate a concordance between science and Genesis 1.  Jones avoids notice of this by not discussing the details.
         
        So J.B., why did you like it? 
         
        Tom Curtis
      • jdbeadle@hotmail.com
        ... convenient ... having ... science, ... dodge ... to ... both a day-age and literary framework view is to eliminate the discordance between light being
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 2, 2004
          --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Curtis" <tom_kbel@h...> wrote:
          > Daniel wrote:
          >
          > > A combination of the two (is that even possible?) seems
          convenient
          > > enough. Anyone holding such a position is not burdended with
          having
          > > to provide evidence to back up the claim that there is a harmony
          > > between science and Genesis. Plus, whenever it is shown that a
          > > literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be harmonized with
          science,
          > > one merely falls back on the literary framework hypothesis to
          dodge
          > > the blow. A wholly unassailable position, in that it is totally
          > > unfalsifiable.
          > >
          > > Bravo, this is by far the most evasive "position" with respects
          to
          > > Genesis that I have ever seen.
          >
          > And excellent summary. The obvious intention of Jones in adopting
          both a day-age and literary framework view is to eliminate the
          discordance between light being created on day one, and the sun,
          moon and stars being created on day four - after the creation of dry
          land and seas. By adopting a literary framework, Jones avoids any
          temporal link between the two triads of days in the Genesis
          account. Thus day 4 (sun and moon) can be viewed as being
          concurrent with, or even preceding day 1 (light and darkness).
          >
          > It seems to me, however, that for Jones theory to be a day-age
          theory at all, it must retain temporal linkage within the triads of
          days. Day one must precede day two, which in turn must precede day
          three. Further, day four must precede day five, which must precede
          day six. Absent this linkage, then calling this view a day-age view
          conveys no information at all, except to signal that Jones intends
          to be understood as appropriately "orthodox".
          >
          > Granted this minimum linkage, however, Genesis 1 still contradicts
          what is known through science. Specifically, this system still
          has "winged creatures" created before "land creatures". I am aware
          of the apologetic that treats "winged creatures" as reffering to
          flying insects. This does not rescue the concordance, however, for
          it still leaves birds and bats either uncreated or created to
          early. Further, if "winged creatures" includes flying insects,
          that "land creatures" must include terrestial arthropods (such as
          spiders) which preceded flying insects.
          >
          > Jones also needs to explain what is, in scientific terms,
          the "vault" (New Jerusalem Bible) that divides the "waters above"
          from the "waters below", and indeed, what are the "waters above"?
          >
          > Thus Jones' theory, to the extent that it is informative fails to
          demonstrate a concordance between science and Genesis 1. Jones
          avoids notice of this by not discussing the details.
          >
          > So J.B., why did you like it?
          >
          > Tom Curtis


          Probably because when he's talking Genesis interpretations I can't
          differ shit from shinola!
          jb
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.