>
> >Let us not start accusing each other of certain views, unless they are
>expressly stated, such as you do.
>
> The views have been stated very clearly and I stand behind everything I
>said. I did not accuse anyone of anything I simply made a statement to
>point out the root issue here. The whole issue of Creation vs Evolution
>for the Christian comes down to the key issue of whether you see science as
>authoritive or more reliable than Scripture. If you test the scripture by
>science you will be an Evolutionist (theistic or progressive or however you
>choose to define it). If you test your Science by the Scripture then you
>will be a Young earth Creationist, (assuming a consistent literal,
>gramatical, historical method of interpretation. which is the only way that
>the authority can rest in the scriptures and not in the interpreter)
>
I wholeheartedly disagree. You say Scripture but you mean your
interpretation of Scripture. I am not an Evolutionist, but I want to give
others the privilege of reading God's Word in Nature. I don't know your
background at all, so I do not know what and where you studied. I have
repeatedly named the people influencing me, and the one who had most
influence is a prof. of Philosophy, who studied Theology, Prof.Vollenhoven
at the Free Univeristy in Amesterdam. The most important thing he taught
me is that you cannot start studying anything as if you are a blank sheet.
That is the thought of the revolutionary Rousseau in "Emile". Vollenhoven
was the one prof. who took his time to go with us through the Bible (not
Genesis by the way.) I believe, that God created, and may have been using
evolution. I am not a biologist, but I know Christian biologists, who
believ that evolution took place. After that first introduction I studied
Scriptures, with a dictionary and a concordance in hand.
> >You forgot to mention, that when you start reading Scripture you have a
>certain philosophical outlook with which you read.
>
> If I have a philosophical outlook it would be that the scipture is wholly
>inspired by God, completely without error and that it is written to be
>understood by men of every age not simply the age in which it was written.
>What is your philosophical outlook?
Here again you make a philosophical statement: "completely without error."
What is an error in your view?
> >Even the translators did that, with as a result that the same word is
>translated in different ways.
> I> think I mentioned the word "ruach" before, trans;ated as Spirit,
>spirit. wind, breath.
> >Obviously the translator was interpreting when translating. I don't say
>that he did not have to interpret.
> >The same way in the NT, the word "pneuma" is in John 3:8 translated as
>"spirit" and as "wind".
> >The translator was obviously interpreting what he read in Greek.
>
> What is your point here? The context will define whether it is translated
>breath, spirit or wind.
I mentioned my point: a translator was interpreting, in order to make clear
what the text said. In some translations Gen.1:2 has the "wind of God"
over the waters in other translations it says "the Spirit of God." That is
quite a difference. Some translations have that in Gen.2:7 God gave man a
soul9though more modern translations changed that to living being), but the
same word is used in Gen.1:24 for living being, because there it is in
connection with animals. So you can go through the whole bible with these
two words. Another difficulty between Gen.1 and Gen.@ (if you want to read
it in the way you do) is that in Gen.1 man was made after evrything else,
in Gen.2 man was made before plant or herb was growing. That can only be
understood, if you start interpreting, it does not follow from "just plain"
reading.
How can you assume the context if you don't even understand the word?
Regarding your next remark, I probably studied hermeneutics before you were
born (unless you are older than 56), and I suggest that you stop making
rude suggestions. (That is in connection with your next remark.)
>
> May I suggest that you study the subject of hermenuetics, I certainly do
>not have time to expound it here.
Then you should not get involved in discussions here. You act as if I rate
Science higher than Scripture. I don't, though I do think that reading
Scipture is interpreting Scripture and therefor a science. For that reason
I agree with the next sentence of yours, though you imply I don't. You
don't even know me. I am just pleading that you do not accuse brothers in
Christ, who take Scripture seriously. It is easy to accuse, if you don't
want to discuss things, or even don't try to see something from some one
else's point of view.
>I would think that it would be more
>important to be interpreting God's Word as it is the ultimate source of
>truth for the believer not science.
Absolutely, but hermeneutics is a human "science" too. (In Europe all
scholarship is "Wissenschaft".)
>
> >Saying that is already a philosophical statement.
>
> Are you trying to say that you are without bias, that you do not come with
> a philosophical view?
No. I know I don't, but I think I know the view I represent.
Unfortunately, there are very few adherents in N.America. My view is based
on the bible as studied in Reformed (Calvinistic) theology and philosophy.
You may disagree with that, but I do not appreciate at all, that you
denigrate someone else's view in the way you do (though with some people
you attack, I disagree for completely different reasons) as if they do not
want to take the Bible seriously. They do, and the only way we will get
out of this mess is by listening to each other and discuss each other's
hermeneutic views, whch you apparently do not want to do.
>
> >I will accept that you are a Christian who is honestly reading and
>wanting to live by the Bible,
>
> Thank you and I give you the same.
>
> >but that does not give me the right to state, that you are dishonest.
> >At best, I would say that you are not seeing the many diificulties, which
> your way of reading the Bible will give you.
> >Unless you can think like a Hebrew in Moses time, and talk like one,
> >you have to be careful when accusing somebody of putting his "science"
>above the Bible.
>
> You are asuming that God was writing with only one audience in view. I
>prefer to believe that God wrote the Bible for all men in all ages
Sure, but not all men of all ages do read Hebrew, and understand the way it
was understood by Hebrews. But you do not want to talk about hermeneutics.
>
> >Also, history is a science, grammar is a science and literature may not
>be a science, but it could be discussing a parable.
> >Interpretation is certainly not a sure thing.
> They are if you apply a consistent hermenuetic!
Then you are perfect, and I believe I am not and you are not.
>
> >Please, note that here I have not given my own interpretation of a
>biblical story.
> >I do think that you should start thinking as a Hebrew thought in the time
>of Moses, when you want to read
> >Gen.1 in the way you appear you want to do it. Can you? And then live
>like one?
> >Just imagine, starting from slavery at a young age, in a country with
>pagan gods,
> >not being able to read, how would you listen to stories?
> >A "scientific" description would not be possible to listen to, so . . ..
>
>>Please, be careful in your discussions.
>Pete
>Halifax N.S.
>
Pete, I do not know you at all, but this is a discussion group of
Christians. We do not get anywhere by just stating our opinions, without
willingness to discuss. The only thing you did here as far as I can see,
is state a vcertain position, and the refuse to discuss it, or am I
misreading you?
Jan de Konig
Willowdale, Ont.