tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post1551834743953630115..comments2024-03-24T11:03:03.106-07:00Comments on Just Genesis : Paul H. Sheely on YEC Dogma and ConcordismAlice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-87227291859207376182011-03-22T10:34:41.238-07:002011-03-22T10:34:41.238-07:00Genesis doesn't describe "a great destruc...Genesis doesn't describe "a great destruction." Tehom means chaotic waters and Tehut overcame Tehom at the beginning. Tehut is the wisdom or sophia of God.<br /><br />The light in Gen. 1:2 is what the Eastern Church refers to as "the Uncreated Light" of God's presence.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-43069430080114236902011-03-22T10:23:21.804-07:002011-03-22T10:23:21.804-07:00Q. Could you explain how there could be light on ...Q. Could you explain how there could be light on the first day of creation when the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day? <br /> <br />A. As explained in the last few answers, great destruction had occurred to the earth as pictured in Genesis 1:2. When God looked at the chaotic state before Him, He saw an atmosphere filled with thick clouds. If there had been a human being on the earth’s surface, he would have seen nothing—because no light penetrated the saturated atmosphere. God’s first act in recreating the earth’s surface was to thin the clouds enough to let light from the sun filter to earth.<br /><br />Then, on the fourth day of creation, God cleared the clouds away so that the sun, moon and stars could be clearly viewed. Verse 16 tells us that God “made” the sun and moon. The Hebrew word for “made” is asah. It could be translated as “made,” “had made,” or “will have made.” Any of these renderings could be correct. But the exact one would have to be determined from the context. By looking at the context, it is evident that God already “had made” the sun, moon and stars long before and set them in the sky.<br /><br />Note what one well-known Old Testament introduction says on the subject: “In explaining this phenomenon it must first be noted that the standpoint of the first chapter of Genesis is an ideal geocentric one, as though the writer were actually upon the earth at that time and in a position to record the developing phases of created life as he experiences them. From such a standpoint the heavenly bodies would only become visible when the dense cloud-covering of the earth had dispersed to a large extent” (R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 554).<br /><br />Therefore, the sun, moon and stars were created long before the fourth day of creation. They were made visible again on the fourth day of the week of re-creation of the earth’s surface. <br /><br /><br />www.cognwm.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-64371741218827110402010-09-23T14:49:26.796-07:002010-09-23T14:49:26.796-07:00A nostalgic attitude towards Abraham's ancesto...A nostalgic attitude towards Abraham's ancestors is hardly the point of this blog. An anthropological understanding of them... that's an entirely different matter, and one with which Calvin didn't concern himself.<br /><br />The divine condescension in the Incarnation, the Kenotic event of all time, is upheld at this blog. Let there be no doubt about that!Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-44620592620878492772010-09-23T07:56:43.456-07:002010-09-23T07:56:43.456-07:00"For who even of slight intelligence does not..."For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express what God is like [in himself] as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness." (Inst I:13:1).<br /><br /><br />This quote from Calvin's institutes is nothing more than an expression of divine condescension (not using this word in the pejorative sense). The entire incarnation expresses this idea.<br /><br />Calvin in no way looked with a haughty eye on the ancients, and nobody who understands Calvin today does, either.<br /><br />Yet, the fact remains- holy scripture itself says "knowledge will increase in the last days". Therefore, be careful about a nostalgic attitude toward our ancestors. Reverence and joyful surprise at their level of knowledge is one thing, but in no way can we maintain in honesty that we do not have a much more thorough understanding of creation than they did. The bible says otherwise.Mairnéalachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-13879726504966792482010-09-11T16:41:08.253-07:002010-09-11T16:41:08.253-07:00So Calvin's idea was that God accomodated Abra...So Calvin's idea was that God accomodated Abraham's ancestors because they were ignorant? They knew more than we do today about the natural world. They knew about things like binary star systems and the precession of the equinoxes. The only people who know about things like this today are well-informed astronomers.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-91788081705764602132010-09-11T10:40:07.777-07:002010-09-11T10:40:07.777-07:00He is saying that creationists are wrong because t...He is saying that creationists are wrong because they disagree with scientific experts; concordists are wrong because they disagree with Old Testament experts; but he is right because he does not disagree with them (at least not in their area of expertise). This looks like a simple appeal to authority.<br /><br />His position is "accomodation": divinely inspired scripture accomodates the ignorant views of those who originally received it. In this view, neither set of authorities is contradicted and the apparent disagreement between them vanishes as if by magic.gjmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-66461388962118285112010-09-10T23:03:37.405-07:002010-09-10T23:03:37.405-07:00He's saying that creation science claims to fi...He's saying that creation science claims to find volcanoes and many other such things at the time of Noah's flood. (Exegetical support: Psalm 104:32?) Well, the problem is, there is a massive geological record that has to be explained, and the creationist has to cram all of it into a very small time window, ergo volcanoes must be in the bible. (It would have been helpful for him to cite a source here.)<br /><br />You're right: too many people assume they know what's going on. Saying that Genesis represents history accurately does not tell us which parts of Genesis are actually history as we conceive it, nor which parts were intended to be seen as such.<br /><br />Trying to fit geological evidence gathered by modern science into an ancient cosmological framework (or perhaps the other way around) is going to be an exercise in frustration for both sides. Concordism and "literalism" are starting to sound like two sides of a coin.<br /><br />Overall, he seems to have complaints for both sides. Based on footnote 1, he also seems to see the Biblical account as being "outmoded science," but in doing so it seems he makes the same fundamental mistake as those he detracts: seeing any sort of (explanatory) scientific intent behind it at all.Nathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-65673961635049410552010-09-10T21:19:15.031-07:002010-09-10T21:19:15.031-07:00I think he is saying that you cannot be a scientis...I think he is saying that you cannot be a scientist AND a Christian (but it's hard to tell.)<br />Susan B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com