matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (08/20/85)
Let me throw a question out to the creationist side of the house. Answers need not be based on a literal reading of Genesis. On the second day, after separating the waters, why did god NOT see "that it was good"? I think there must be hidden significance here and no comprehensive creationist picture should leave this point unilluminated. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (08/26/85)
In article <933@oddjob.UUCP>, matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: > Let me throw a question out to the creationist side of the > house. Answers need not be based on a literal reading of > Genesis. > > On the second day, after separating the waters, why did > god NOT see "that it was good"? > > I think there must be hidden significance here and no > comprehensive creationist picture should leave this point > unilluminated. > _____________________________________________________ I guess this is some form of light humor?? (it's actually a somewhat interesting question). If you look at the account, the expanse set in the midst of the waters wasn't declared good, the creation of darkness wasn't declared good and neither was the creation of the stars just of the moona and the sun. Whether Moses was actually just saving space ( :-) ) or there is some actual, superordinate grouping to the creation events, I'm not sure. Rick Frey (...!ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <2196@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: > Whether Moses was actually just saving space ( >:-) ) or there is some actual, superordinate grouping to the creation >events, I'm not sure. > Just to set the record straight, Moses did *not* write the opening chapters of Genesis, and it is highly doubtful that he wrote *any* of it. In fact it, is highly doubtful that he wrote any portion of the Old Testament at all. This is not to say that the book of Genesis wasn't inspired by God, only that Moses had nothing to do with it. In such a discussion as this, it is important to get your facts straight. If you are going to try to support a literal reading of Genesis you will lose credibility if you make demonstrably false statements. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/06/85)
In article <683@psivax.UUCP>, friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > Just to set the record straight, Moses did *not* write the > opening chapters of Genesis, and it is highly doubtful that he wrote > *any* of it. In fact it, is highly doubtful that he wrote any portion > of the Old Testament at all. This is not to say that the book of > Genesis wasn't inspired by God, only that Moses had nothing to do with > it. In such a discussion as this, it is important to get your facts > straight. If you are going to try to support a literal reading of > Genesis you will lose credibility if you make demonstrably false > statements. Great, but show me what the demonstrably false statement is? "No man can claim to know with absolute assurance who wrote the Book of Genesis. Since Genesis is a necessary foundation for Exodus to Deuteronomy, and since the available evidence indicates that Moses wrote these four books, Moses is the likely author of Genesis itself. The New Testament evidence points in the same direction (cf. expecially Jn 5:46,47; Lk 16:31; 24:44) ... No evidence to the contrary has been able to invalidate this tradition." H.C. Leupold D.D. "Although the Book of Exodus nowhere claims Mosaic authorship in toto, the entire body of Pentiteuchal Law, comprising principally the portion extending from Exodus 20 through the Book of Deuteronomy, in explicitly positive terms claims to be Mosaic. Moses is declared to be the writer of the Book of the Covenant (chs 20-23) comprising the Ten Commandments and the accompanying judgements and ordinances (24:4,7) ... Present day conservative scholarship as well as tradition have maintained the Mosaic authorship. Critical theories offer no adequate substitute for Mosaic authenticity." Merril F. Unger Ph.D. Sorry for continuing this argument in net.origins but I couldn't let something that blatantly contradictory stand without some sort of support for my side. If you'd like to continue this discussion (Mr. Friesen) post in net.religion or net.religion.christian, I read both. Rick Frey