Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void
  • Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:01:41 +0100

On 15/04/2006 20:30, Karl Randolph wrote:
...
You misrepresent me. I don't reject Genesis 1, I just interpret it in a different way from you.

The question is, what does it mean according to historical and linguistic principles? If the linguistic principles indicate a six 24 hour day creation, then a reinterpretation is a de facto rejection of the text.

If the earth is flat, then I am wrong to say it is round. But I don't accept your premise.
My mention of the Big Bang was explicitly dependent on "according to those same physicists". But if I am forced to choose, I would prefer to trust those physicists, many of whom are also believers, than the people who are mostly incompetent in theology and biblical languages as well as in sciences who promote so-called "creation science".

...
Peter, that characterization of creationists is not like the normal you.

Well, I don't want to get into mud slinging, but this is factually true, at least if I replace "incompetent" by "unqualified". For example, the recently deceased "Dr. Henry Morris, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research and the “father” of the modern creationist movement" (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp), was a hydraulic engineer, with no qualifications in theology - although according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris he did have a "minor" in geology, so he was not completely scientifically illiterate.

I don't want to defend evolution as an explanatory framework either, although (as someone qualified in both science and theology) I accept that the general scientific picture of the history of the universe and the earth is generally true, although no doubt in need of refinement of some details.
...
I will not think the less of you if you reject Genesis 1 and are honest about it. It is part of life to disagree with others. But I find this reinterpretation of the text not supported by linguistic principles to be intellectual dishonesty and it is that intellectual dishonesty that I despise. ...

The intellectual dishonesty which I despise is of those who think they know better than the experts in a field when they haven't even looked properly at the evidence on which the experts base their conclusions.

... You claim that "day", when acted on by a number can mean something other than the equivalent of a 24 hour day? The onus in on you to demonstrate other examples where that occurs, ...

I don't accept that onus. But, quite apart from the verses I mentioned and concerning which you have not yet answered me, I can validly appeal to historical facts. There are many places where we allow our interpretation of the biblical text to be informed by what we know to be true from external history. And by that same principle, there is ample historical evidence that the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago and so we need to interpret the biblical records in the light of that apparent fact.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page