NoNukes writes:
So Hugh is describing the creation of the universe from a 'viewpoint' or 'perspective' (because surely, "frame of reference" is a horrible misnomer) that no living being actually occupied? Why would that be a sensible thing to record?
It is perhaps understandable that a human being on earth at the time might have mistaken the time of the atmosphere turning transparent as the day the sun and moon were created, but in actuality, nobody could have seen any such thing. Instead man learned of (or made up) the story in Genesis well after all of the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were completed.
Now given that there was nobody at reference point X and that the story in Genesis does not claim to be an eye witness account, for what purpose was the giving a bogus and incorrect account of creation. Was it really too much to expect early humans to understand the sun and moon being behind some clouds?
I have to admit that in the past when you talked about 'frames of reference', I had assumed that there was some general relativity time/space explanation that munged up the order of events as perceived. But now I learn that we were pretending that some human on earth saw creation, something entirely inconsistent with the story in Genesis itself? Makes no sense to me.
Hugh is a scientist. He has a tendency to re-express theological concepts in scientific language. Sometimes this is helpful (especially for others with scientific training), but at other times it is a bit confusing (especially for those with theological training).
What Hugh refers to as "frame of reference" is what theologians call "authorial perspective". See, for example, Henry Virkler (Hermeneutics: Principles and Practices of Biblical Interpretation, Baker, 1981, pp. 84-85):
Henry Virkler writes:
Third, what was the perspective of the author? The authors sometimes write as if looking through the eyes of God (as spokesmen for God), particularly in moral matters, but in narrative sections they frequently describe things the way they appear from a human perspective (as reporters speaking phenomenologically). ... Distinguishing the author's intention to be understood as a direct spokesman for God from his intention to speak as a human reporter describing an event phenomenologically is important for an accurate understanding of his meaning.
Virkler uses the example of the Flood (Gen. 6-9) to illustrate the importance of this principle. If the account is meant to be understood
noumenologically (from God's perspective), statements such as "all flesh" and "every high hill" imply a global flood. But if it is meant to be understood
phenomenologically (from the perspective of a human observer), these could refer to "all flesh" and "every high hill" visible to the human observer; this would be consistent with a regional flood as well as with a global flood.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger