If we want to understand the exalted language of Genesis 1:1-2:3, we must accept it on its own terms. We fail if we attempt to degrade it to the level of a potted history.
Treating it as history demeans the Bible's teaching of creation and creates a conflict between it and the witness of creation itself. It also generate a lot of silly uncertainties and unaskable questions, like how were there day and night before the sun, was it night on the opposite side of the earth, how long were the evenings and mornings north of the Arctic Circle, and were the great lights really below the waters above.
If we read Genesis 1:1-2:3 with the respect that is due to it, we find that it is not just compatible with the geological (and biological) wonders we are fortunate enough to know and understand, but enriches their appreciation.
B Philp
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
On Genesis One... Part 1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unaskable questions or unanswerable. Is there such a thing as an unaskable question?
ReplyDeleteI'll ask Bruce!
ReplyDeleteBruce, have you seen it yet? What do you think?
:-)