At 05:53 PM 11/03/02 -0500, Walter Hicks wrote:
>Let me disagree on two points:
>
>1.) There are indeed people who hold to the conventional scientific
>belief that natural physical laws explain all that that is required for
>evolution, etc. Many then say that the chronological description in
>Genesis One is incorrect. This, I believe is the norm, not the
>exception. Similarly, there are those who will not accept any physical
>theory which results in the above because they will not accept that
>Genesis One can be anything other than what God has personally revealed.
>I would have to say that over 90% of the Christians I know fall into one
>of these two categories.
This is a statement for which no proof is given. I think it depends much
on where you grew up, where you went to school etc. Even when I say that
God revealed Genesis 1 (and there is much more than just Gen.1
involved, Make it for the time being Gen.1-11. Where do you get the idea
that it is the norm?
I believe that all of Genesis is inspired by God, but I do believe as well,
that it was first written for a people who did not know science. I do
think that it is more a poetry like description of God's great works. But
here again, I have to say, that talking about this requires a deep study,
and not just some remarks. I was a member of the committee that studied
these questions for the Christian Reformed Church about 14 years ago. It
took us three years.
Remarks like you make: "Many say ..." don't get us anywhere. The same with
"there are those....".
I am opposing what is said by you, but cannot be specific, when you are
just talking in generalities. In general I can say you are wrong with your
statements, but that does not help you or me. That is why I have given up
more than once on this forum to talk about these things.
>2.) I believe that those who wrote Genesis firmly believed that they
>were writing history as it really happened. They may have been wrong,
>but I see no indication that they took it as anything other than
>history. The people who write to the contrary are indeed engaged in
>theology. The original texts are not theology -- the writings about them
>are.
I don't think that the writer who wrote down Genesis in the first place was
thinking about "history" as modern N.Americans do. Firstly, because they
did nor write history, but wanted to glorify God for His works. Secondly,
in the same way as many "glorifying" psalms, poems, books, etc. are
written: the writer wanted to point out God's greatness. He did not adhere
to any N.American theory of "truth", but knew that he had to glorify
God. That means, that when we exegete God's Word of Truth, we have to
realize, that the world is created by God, and that we have to glorify Him,
even when man, Adam, became self-centred, even when man, Cain, became a
murderer. When sin takes over God will destroy, the flood. Not taking
care of creation properly causes the age of men to go drastically
down. And now I tried to say in a few lines what we studied for years, and
reported in many, many pages.
However, generally speaking your, nor mine, general statements do not get
us anywhere, since we have to say much, much more. As long as you speak in
generalities, I can't even answer.
Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 21:19:09 EST