Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.origins
Subject: Re: Should we teach Copernicanism?
Message-ID: <1585@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 12:23:16 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1585
Posted: Thu Oct 24 12:23:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 04:27:19 EST
References: <1619@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2363@sunybcs.UUCP> <730@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.politics:11711 net.origins:2519


> **********************************************************
> *And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  And God saw that the
> light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.  God called 
> the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.  And there was evening and
> there was morning, one day.*
> ******************************************************
> Is there any conception in this passage that "one day" might only apply
> to solely our own solar system and the Earth's rotation?
> No, because to the author of this passage the only light was our own
> terrestrial day.  The idea that other stars and their planets rotation
> might lead to "days" on other planets is inconceivable given the
> author's primitive knowledge of the universe: after all, we all know there
> is only one "day" and one "night" as we directly experience it here 
> on Earth.  Moreover, of course, the fact that the Sun's light continues
> even tho the Earth may be temporarily turned away from it is also unknown
> to the author.  There is an irremediable separation between light and
> darkness-either all is light or all is darkness.  That part of the planet
> may be in light while the other is in darkness is alien to the author's
> view of the universe.

Given that this verse refers to a time before there were *any* stars,
and therefore that the reference to any solar event is questionable,
this sort of argument might be said to be somewhat misdirected.


> *then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground*
>  
> ******************************************************
> Only *after* Adam has been created does God create the animals:
>  
> **********************************************************
> *Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;
> I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God
> formed *every beast of the field and every bird of the air...*
>  
> ******************************************************
> When this passage says *every beast of the field* it implies
> that it is not a question of merely creating *some* beasts and birds
> for Adam's company but *all* beasts and birds.  Yet in Genesis 1
> beasts and birds have already been created *before* man.
> Therefore these two accounts of creation in the very beginning 
> of the Bible contradict each other quite blatantly.

...So out of the ground the LORD God *had formed* every... - as you will
discover by looking in different translations.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"The voice of the Lord is full of majesty."                         |
                           Psalm 29:4