Dear Jan,
I just have a simple question, Do those who believe in evolution as a
scientific theory also believe that Christ turned water into wine? If so,
what is the scientific basis for that fact.
Take care,
Moorad
p.s. I decided to include your whole post.
>At 01:12 PM 22/01/98 -0300, you wrote:
>
>>
>> >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.
>