[b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void
Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com
Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com
Tue Apr 18 14:02:07 EDT 2006
In a message dated 4/18/2006 11:42:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
kwrandolph at email.com writes:
> Now you mention the day=age theory. This is what
> I say that the text excludes. As one Christian
> literalist told me, "The question is not what God
> could have done, but what did God SAY he did?"
No, I don't believe text excludes day = age. In every lexicon (Hebrew,
Greek, English) I own day may be rendered as age, eon, etc.
> You bring in things from outside the text. You
> mention Einstein, modern science, the frozen flora
> and fauna found in the tundra of Alaska and Siberia
> (earlier message) and you claim that God is "the
> Master Scientist". The last brings up the question,
> do modern scientists follow the same science as
> God? If not, then the statements of the Master
> Scientist should take precedence over the claims
> of modern scientists.
Only because it confirms Scripture. Science and Scripture are in agreement.
> As far as Einstein is concerned, back in my college
> days I commented to physicist friends that I had
> trouble with the image of atoms as described by
> quantum mechanics, and gave an alternate
> description based on experiments: their answer was
> the quantum mechanics was not a description, rather
> just a series of mathematical models which worked,
> but could very well be wrong. In fact, they said
> that my understanding fits the experimental data
> better than did the mathematical models of quantum
> mechanics, but in order for my understanding to be
> accepted, I would have to "do the math" - make
> mathematical formulae that would describe what the
> experiments show. Well, I'm not good at math (much
> to the disgust of my math prof father) so that was
> out of the question. (An interesting (to me)
> sidelight: when I disagree with evolution,
> biologists get all emotional and accuse me of
> attacking science; but when I attack quantum
> mechanics, physicists quietly evaluate and discuss
> what I say. The difference is: evolution is a
> deeply held religious belief that masquerades as
> science, while physics is science.) Recently I
> found a site, http://www.commonsensescience.org
> where a group of scientists apparently have done
> the math that I was unable to do.
You're a physicist, I'm not, and it would be folly for me to try and discuss
physics with you. I have studied Scripture since the 40's (Th.B, Th.M., and
Litt.D) and I admit I'm unqualified to discuss physics with you or Kirk, yet
you feel qualified, even enthusiastic to correct me in biblical things. I am
willing to learn, but you're going to need to show me something first. You told
me you became a scholar by studying Hebrew. A linguist scholar in Hebrew
doesn't impress me. What would impress me is a linquist scholar willing to push
the biblical envelope to explore beyond tradition.
> The conclusion I draw is that the text of Genesis 1
> describes a six day creation where each day is the
> equivalent of a 24 hour day. It is immaterial to
> the discussion whether or not anyone believes
> this description, what Einstein said or other
> discoveries that may or may not have been made,
> what we have here is a linguistic question asking
> for a linguistic answer. I read years ago, I think
> it was in a book by Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, biology
> prof then at San Jose Sate University, that a
> creationist organization sent letters to profs of
> Hebrew at major universities throughout the U.S.
> asking the question, "day" when connected to a
> number, as in Genesis 1, does it mean the
> equivalent of a 24 hour day, or could it mean a
> long period of time? Of those who answered, the
> unanimous response was that it referred only to a
> day, and that an age is not indicated. I personally
> have seen nothing that contradicts that assessment.
> Karl W. Randolph.
Good for you, Karl. You have my blessing.
Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
San Antonio, Texas
More information about the b-hebrew