------=_NextPart_000_01BE9B19.756E4080
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jonathan wrote:
> Allen Roy wrote:
> > I would hesitate to consider the Bible a scientific account, because
> > science is a modern invention. However, I do accept it as accurate in
> > history and observation.
> I would go some way with agreeing with you. However I would add that
not all
> the Bible is history or observation. There is law, parable, wisdom,
narrative
> prose, many different types of poetry. So it is important to take the
context,
> style, and form into account. Even in the historical parts we also have
to
> allow for the fact that what the writers understood as being important in
terms
> of history and observation was often different to ours.
I would agree, I had not meant to imply that the Bible was only history and
observation. We have to put ourselves into their shoes as accurately as we
can.
> > I'd say that it was interpretations of the evidence acquired by science
> > that caused them to reevaluate their interpretations of Genesis. I
believe
> > that since God authored both the Bible and Nature they should be in
> > agreement with each other. If there appears to be conflict then one of
the
> > following is true.
> > a. We have an inaccurate or incomplete interpretation of the evidence
> > acquired by science.
> > b. We have an inaccurate or incomplete interpretation of relevant
> > Biblical texts, or
> > c. Both of the above.
> > I think most of the problems or conflicts are because of c.
> Again, I would go quite a way in agreeing with you, providing we
acknowledge
> that the Bible is written within the world picture of the era. In
contrast the
> Biblical world view stands in dramatic contrast to that of the era, as it
does
> to those of the present.
I would agree.
> I too was very fond of the tablet theory for a number of years. However
I
> understand that it's grammatical basis is not widely supported these
days. I
> have to rely on those more knowledgeable than I here,
I'm not sure what the grammar has to do with it. I think it has more to
with literary style than grammar.
> The whole raison detre for the tablet idea was that it allowed the text
of
> Genesis 1 to be harmonized with an old earth. If you do not believe that
the
> seven days to be anything other than consecutive 144 hours and/or reject
> concordism (as I understand you do), then the reason for having the
tablet
> theory simply evaporates.
I had never heard this before. I first read Wiseman many years ago and
thought it would harmonize with the 7 rotation days concept quite well.
Since then, groups like ICR (Henry Morris), AIG (Ken Ham) and others, have
begun promoting the tablet theory. The theory seems to successfully
counter the JEPD theory with an assortment of redactors writing the Torah
and the writings etc..
Allen
------=_NextPart_000_01BE9B19.756E4080
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jonathan wrote:
> Allen Roy =
wrote:
> > I would hesitate to consider the Bible a scientific =
account, because
> > science is a modern invention. =
However, I do accept it as accurate in
> > history and =
observation.
> I would go some way with agreeing with you. =
However I would add that not all
> the Bible is history or =
observation. There is law, parable, wisdom, narrative
> =
prose, many different types of poetry. So it is important to take =
the context,
> style, and form into account. Even in the =
historical parts we also have to
> allow for the fact that =
what the writers understood as being important in terms
> of =
history and observation was often different to ours.
I would =
agree, I had not meant to imply that the Bible was only history and =
observation. We have to put ourselves into their shoes as =
accurately as we can.
> > I'd say that it was =
interpretations of the evidence acquired by science
> > that =
caused them to reevaluate their interpretations of Genesis. I =
believe
> > that since God authored both the Bible and Nature =
they should be in
> > agreement with each other. If there =
appears to be conflict then one of the
> > following is =
true.
> > a. We have an inaccurate or incomplete =
interpretation of the evidence
> > acquired by science.
> =
> b. We have an inaccurate or incomplete interpretation of =
relevant
> > Biblical texts, or
> > c. Both of =
the above.
> > I think most of the problems or conflicts are =
because of c.
> Again, I would go quite a way in agreeing =
with you, providing we acknowledge
> that the Bible is written =
within the world picture of the era. In contrast the
> =
Biblical world view stands in dramatic contrast to that of the era, as =
it does
> to those of the present.
I would =
agree.
> I too was very fond of the tablet theory for a =
number of years. However I
> understand that it's =
grammatical basis is not widely supported these days. I
> have to =
rely on those more knowledgeable than I here,
I'm not sure what =
the grammar has to do with it. I think it has more to with =
literary style than grammar.
> The whole raison detre =
for the tablet idea was that it allowed the text of
> Genesis 1 to =
be harmonized with an old earth. If you do not believe that =
the
> seven days to be anything other than consecutive 144 hours =
and/or reject
> concordism (as I understand you do), then the =
reason for having the tablet
> theory simply evaporates.
I =
had never heard this before. I first read Wiseman many years ago =
and thought it would harmonize with the 7 rotation days concept quite =
well. Since then, groups like ICR (Henry Morris), AIG (Ken Ham) =
and others, have begun promoting the tablet theory. The theory =
seems to successfully counter the JEPD theory with an assortment of =
redactors writing the Torah and the writings etc..
Allen