Mebbe it’s because I fall into the “OF”(old fart) class as Keith does. I too would appreciate it too! tanks, guys…When you reach my age and with my current attention span, I’ll forget where I am when looking up a big word….and THEN forget where I was

Yeah I’ve read some of Ross’ stuff. He makes many good points. Thanks for the heads up.

I’ve never heard the literary form of Genesis 1 (i.e. poetry) to be questioned,

I find that interesting, as almost all Jewish, or Hebrew scholars will tell you that Genesis, including Chp 1 was written as a historical account, to be understood as historical fact, allbeit written in a poetic style. There’s a difference in Hebrew between style and substance. That still would definitelty not negate God creating in 6 days. My thoughts are always “how would Timothy or Paul have understood Genesis 1?”

I’m trusting the plain reading of Genesis and my wife (OF ALL PEOPLE!?!?) on this one, sorry to say. Just to make sure, we are only debating the difference between poetic interpretation and a more historical literal interpretation, right?

My wife doesn’t know anyone else who would interpret Genesis 1 to be a poem that can mean “this this or this”.

And I don’t know why everyone sees conflict between Gen 1 and 2, I got it my first time reading Genesis.

First a general description of all of the universe, then a specific description of the Garden.

Anyways, thanks for the links Chris, as always I’m excited to look in to them.

Joe

I had been thinking on lines of this and had heard of one of the “Rabbi’s” mentioned had a thought that there were 10 dimensions in Genesis 1.

I was also thinking about multi dimensional effect on time and other weird stuff… so Googled and that site came up

Now I am not saying every thing there is something I agree with, but I do see where both ideas can be true… and see that in the over all view how it all works out regardless to it being from a Jewish perspective.

I also liked how the rabbi’s mentioned are not present day but from a few centuries ago… so it shows that biblical thought precedes science for a few centuries… even if it is “kaballism”. (which again I do not think “biblical” other than they interpret things from the bible)

iggy

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tell essentially the same events, but Genesis 1 (Actually Genesis 1:1 – Genesis 2:4a is written in poetic form, whereas Genesis 2 is in the format of chaistic prose.

One source you might look at for literary analysis, might include this one. To be honest, I’ve never heard the literary form of Genesis 1 (i.e. poetry) to be questioned, as the texts I had at my Christian college and the books/sources I’ve read since have always referred to it as “the Creation Song in Genesis 1″, or simply as Hebraic poetry in format.

In examining the differences between old-earth and new-earth, you might check out Hugh Ross’ site.

It’s also interesting to compare the Genesis account to other accounts from the Near East. Other accounts have the earth being created almost as an accident or by-product. The Babylonian account has one god killing another, and the land is formed by the dead god’s flesh and the water by his blood. The Hebrew account is unique in that it shows God creating with a purpose and intent.

Why couldn’t God just have made man out of the dust, bam, fully formed, like He did with say…the Universe?

Why does God need to use a very human-esque process of death and decay, a slow grinding (scientifically untestable) process, to create His prime creation, Man?

Besides, I thought the whole point of Genesis was to showcase God’s power to just speak things (by The Word) in to existence, you know?

So, it goes both ways Phil. It’s just yours has a basis in modern scientific thought, mine sounds insane lol.

You win. =)

Joe

I like the construction worker analogy by the way.

One thing I’ve wondered is that when we look back and see the process of Creation, it might not just appear as evolution. In Genesis, the words used to describe God making man are the same words that are used to describe a potter working with clay. It’s a very intimate form of creation. Well, what if God was working carefully to form Creation, and to us looking back it looks like things happening randomly, but to Him, it’s was a very guided process.

I guess I think of it like this. Say you drive by a construction site every day on your way home where the workers are already gone. The first day you see a hole in the ground. The next week a foundation. Soon some structure, and then walls, etc. From your perspective, the building is evolving. From the workers, who you never see, the building is being created. It’s a rough analogy, I know, but to me it shows how God could guide Creation in a way He wants, but to us who look through a glass dimly, we may perceive something else.

“In a similar manner by which cosmologists have measured the age of the universe, they have estimated that the general relationship between time near the beginning and time today, is a million million. This means that if a pulse were to be sent at one point in time every second, it would arrive in one million million seconds. Due to the expanding universe, after receiving the first pulse, the succeeding pulses would not arrive every second after that. As time goes by, the universe expands, and thus the time it relationship between time would rise. In viewing the six days of creation as this “pulse” which was being transmitted, we find, that the first day, (of whom’s hours numbered 24) would have been experienced by us to be 8 billion years. The second 24hr day, would be experienced by us as 4 billion years. The 3rd – 2 billion. The 4th – 1 billion. The 5th – ? billion. The 6th – 1/4 billion. 8+4+2+1+1/2+ 1/4 = 15 3/4 billion years!!!!! “

I would agree with this statement. I’m young earth, but all things considered, I’m young earth within the context of Gravatational Time Dilation.

As for after the 7th day, I find there to be only about a 6000 regular earth-years passage of time, as born out simply by the Biblical record.

Joe

Joe