|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 8, 2010 17:59:27 GMT -5
I don't remember who here mentioned this book, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account by John H. Sailhamer, but I ordered a copy for which I paid too much money. I've been reading it. I'm far from done, only 100-plus pages into it.
Even though I consider myself to be fairly open-minded, so far I am finding Sailhamer's proposal to be a bit unbelievable. He packs an indeterminate amount of time (he thinks millions of years) into the first verse of the Bible, then verse 2 jumps ahead to God preparing the promised land. "Let there be light" is just another way to say the sun came up that day?? Oh, come on. Then why didn't God say "Let there be light" the other six days? This type of simplistic interpretation almost seems flippant to me.
And even though the creation of the physical universe supposedly took place over an indeterminate period of time, compacted neatly into Genesis 1:1, the author finds it necessary to repeat over and over in the text and in callout boxes, his belief in science and the old age of the earth.
I am continuing to read it because I do think I'll find an occasional gem among the rocks.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Mar 8, 2010 19:00:26 GMT -5
I don't remember who here mentioned this book, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account by John H. Sailhamer, but I ordered a copy for which I paid too much money. I've been reading it. I'm far from done, only 100-plus pages into it. Even though I consider myself to be fairly open-minded, so far I am finding Sailhamer's proposal to be a bit unbelievable. He packs an indeterminate amount of time (he thinks millions of years) into the first verse of the Bible, then verse 2 jumps ahead to God preparing the promised land. "Let there be light" is just another way to say the sun came up that day?? Oh, come on. Then why didn't God say "Let there be light" the other six days? This type of simplistic interpretation almost seems flippant to me. And even though the creation of the physical universe supposedly took place over an indeterminate period of time, compacted neatly into Genesis 1:1, the author finds it necessary to repeat over and over in the text and in callout boxes, his belief in science and the old age of the earth. I am continuing to read it because I do think I'll find an occasional gem among the rocks. Bev Hi Bev. I remember getting that book right after it came out. He went to my former church many years ago. I've never met him. A couple of elders recommended it so I bought a copy in the church bookstore. The only bit of information I remember about it was his view concerning the land. I think he mentioned that anytime the word earth was used, it should have been translated "land." Or something like that. Is that right? Steve |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 8, 2010 21:30:04 GMT -5
I may have been the one to mention Genesis Unbound. It is a very important work because Sailhamer's view is the oldest continuously used view. It is essentially the view of John Lightfoot some 350 years ago. Lightfoot did not invent the view as that view came out of the middle ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 9, 2010 10:48:10 GMT -5
Hi Bev!
At least by reading the full book you'll be able to talk about the subject knowledgeably, and not out of ignorance or second-hand opinion. (I haven't read it since I've never heard of it before, but I have considerable doubt about the truth claims this book seems to make.)
I have determined to myself many years ago to never be afraid to read about another point of view. But that must be coupled with a determination to continue to study and pray, and not be too quick to change views based on an initial introduction or first study. It takes (and should take) significant time to weight the scriptural support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 9, 2010 17:37:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
Steve - Yes, he says that what is usually translated as "earth" should be "land." I can generally agree with that.
Jeff - Yes, it may very well have been you! There are aspects I agree with. I think I would have found it more believable if he had not separated Genesis 1:1 from what follows and had said that "the heavens and the earth" described the promised land and the temple (the Garden being the temple). I'm merging some ideas from Beale here.
Morris - "...never be afraid to read about another point of view. But that must be coupled with a determination to continue to study and pray, and not be too quick to change views based on an initial introduction or first study." I completely agree!
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Mar 10, 2010 11:36:26 GMT -5
Bev,
Tim Martin's 2nd Edition of Beyond Creation Science specifically addressed the Gap Theory and some other problems with Lightfoot and Sailhamer's local creation. Tim essentially demonstrated that no physical view of creation would work (which Tim understood) and that only a covenant view of creation could work (which he didn't realize and understand for 2 more years).
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 10, 2010 20:02:36 GMT -5
Bev, Tim Martin's 2nd Edition of Beyond Creation Science specifically addressed the Gap Theory and some other problems with Lightfoot and Sailhamer's local creation. Tim essentially demonstrated that no physical view of creation would work (which Tim understood) and that only a covenant view of creation could work (which he didn't realize and understand for 2 more years). Thanks, Jeff. I'll have to get around to reading BCS one of these days. I'm going to send you a PM right now. Bev |
|
