Don,
I realize what you are saying, but I know that you cannot exegete Genesis
without exegeting the whole bible. But that means, that there are several
levels to read the bible, depending on your background. Someone who has
only grade 4 education can never understand science nor exegesis. So
talking becomes impossible. Depending on backgrounds, talking about
Genesis one, which is part of Genesis 1 to 11, which is part of Genesis,
which is part of the O.T., which is part of the Bible, involves one in
exegesis in general, which is part of Theology, which studies (or ought to)
the Bible in the original languages. Language studying always involves
knowing the surroundings in which a certain language was spoken, and later
written. Then, we ourselves do not start studying as if we did not live
before we opened a book. Consequently, history (of our own culture, in
comparison with other cultures) should be included.
Even more, since many people are indoctrinated by an un-Christian
philosophy, often, if not always some Christian philosophy has to be
included. A small thing is for example, that fact that my Philosophy prof.
60 years ago said already: " do not trust the words "objective" and
"subjective", because behind these words is always a philosophy. Add to
that, that most people on this forum want to be Christians, but they do not
all agree with each other on basic doctrines, resulting in quite a few
preliminaries to get everyone aboard before a real discussion can start.
Jan
At 10:47 AM 14/03/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Thanks for your input Jan. While I have no intention of drawing an unwilling
>participant into an old discussion, my purpose is to draw on the vast
>knowledge of more educated and enlightened people. My goal is to have a
>comfortable understanding of Genesis and how it relates to science. The end
>effect would be the ability to approach atheistic evolutionists from a
>scientific perspective that they can appreciate and hopefully convert them
>to Christianity(big task). I see no other way to do this. 5 years ago, I was
>able to influence my own father. He was raised an orthodox Catholic but
>after he got his BSEE he became an atheist. I myself had no such downfall
>after getting my BSEE. Anyway, if there is a particular (new) subject that
>you wish to discuss please feel free to bring one up.
>DON P
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Jan de Koning
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:08 AM
>To: ASA Forum List
>Subject: RE: ASA Perspective
>
>
>Welcome, Don.
>On the other hand, don't expect us, old-timers, to go through (incomplete)
>discussions again. We have been doing so for many, many years. Many years
>on this forum, ever since its beginning, we discussed and argued here about
>how to read the Bible. Even before that I spent many years studying the
>subject, but I, and I am sure many others, are not starting all over again
>for the so-maniest time. It will happen again no doubt, and no doubt I
>will repeat again that one cannot read a document written thousands of
>years ago as if it was written yesterday. For many reasons, the main being
>that everyone here in N.America lives in the twenty-first century, and has
>had a schooling in "science" which makes it hard to understand documents
>written even two-hundred, let alone three-thousand years ago. So let it
>suffice, before we can talk about your way of reading Gen.1, we have to
>know much more about you and your background. Even then there may be
>preliminary discussions needed about theology and philosophy.
>For now, Gen.1 is just one chapter of a very big book, that is not written
>as a science book.
>
>Jan
>
>At 09:10 PM 13/03/02 -0600, Don Perrett wrote:
> >Thanks for your comments Jim.
> >While I can at times be long winded, it is primarily as a result of being
> >new and wanting to insure that what views I have are conveyed completely.
> >Wouldn't mind you sending me the info at a latter date.
> >tks
> >Don P
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jim Eisele [mailto:jeisele@starpower.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:10 PM
> >To: asa@calvin.edu
> >Cc: don.perrett@verizon.net
> >Subject: RE: ASA Perspective
> >
> >
> > >Scientific: The gases(water) drifting around the sun began to cool and
> > >mass together and form a proto-earth with a atmosphere that separated it
> > >from the open space(water) above. The second era/stage past.
> >
> >Hi Don. It sounds like you are willing to look for a correlation
> >between science and Gen 1. Where were you a month ago when we
> >needed you? :)
> >
> >A couple of us regulars are on your side. And papers and books
> >have been written supporting us. My favorite on the ASA website
> >is Genesis Reconsidered, by Held & Ruest.
> >
> >I haven't had a chance to look at all of your posts yet (you are
> >prolific!)
> >
> >If I weren't so tired I'd copy their view on the separation of the
> >waters into this e-mail.
> >
> >Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 13:22:10 EST