Uko Zylstra wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 ZYLU@legacy.Calvin.EDU wrote:
>
>> I've only had time to merely glance at some of the posts on the topic
>> of Genesis and historicity. But Glenn made a statement in a post on
>> Mar 26 that, I believe, sets the question in the wrong framework. He
>> made the statement that "it may be that science or the Bible is
>> wrong." We need to distinguish between God's revelation from our
>> interpretation of that revelation. God reveals himself in both
>> creation and in Scripture (Bible) as well as in the person, Christ.
>> Science is our human interpretation of God's revelation in creation;
>> theology and/or our reading of Scripture is our human interpretation
>> of God's revelation in Scripture. Thus, if we make contrasts, it
>> should be at the level of Scripture with creation and science with
>> "theology"; not with science and the Bible or theology with creation.
>> God's revelation in both creation and the Bible are infallible, viz.,
>> truthful. (I think we need to distinguish infallible from inerrant).
>> But our interpretation of either or both creation (science) or
>> Scripture (theology) may be in error.
I very much appreciate your point. But most people understand the issue as
"science and the Bible" so I spoke in a colloquial term. I would add to
what you say (in your terminology) that science and theology should not be
contradictory. If they are one or the other must be altered.
> If we affirm the truthfulness of God's revelation in both creation
>> and Scripture, then our challenge is to discern the nature of the
>> truthfulness. That implies that we must discern the intent of God's
>> revelation in Scripture, and in this discussion, of the early chapter
>> of Genesis.
>
I have a question. We can read and sometimes understand WHAT is in God's
revelation, but deriving the intent is something else. What is the critical
test between the two competing views: the YEC view which says that God's
intent was to tell us exactly what happened and the order it occured in, and
the more allegorical approach which says that all God intended was to tell us
that we are sinners and that He created the world. I find it difficult to see
where we are to get the data with which to determine the "intent". Both sides
claim they know God's intent. All I can see is WHAT was written. Any
derivation of intent on my part is speculation and nothing more, (unless
that intent is clearly stated.)
Romans 11:33-34 says:
"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable his judgements, and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"
>>I would suggest that the thrust of the truthfulness
>> concerns God's proclamation of God as the "maker of heaven and earth"
>> rather than a description of God's creative activity.
You may be perfectly correct, but there is no way that I can see how to tell
if indeed you are correct or the others are correct.
glenn