At 05:21 PM 03/04/02 +0200, Peter Ruest wrote:
>Dick,
>
>Thank you for this excellent piece of stocktaking!
>
>Let me just add a few points in confirmation.
>
>Claeys, K. (1979), "Die Bibel bestätigt das Weltbild der
>Naturwissenschaft" (Stein am Rhein, Switzerland: Christiana) proposed
>that
>(1) a reading of Genesis which considers it as divinely inspired in all
>its details is consistent with what is known from science;
>(2) the Hebrew text clearly indicates evolution as an essential one of
>the Creator's instruments;
>(3) Gen. 2:4 ff is a continuation of Gen. 1:1 - 2:4 (not a double or
>"second creation story");
>(4) humans descended from animals;
>(5) in Gen. 1:27, the creation of the first humans in the image of God
>is in view - it does not talk of Adam and Eve;
>(6) Gen. 2:7 does not talk of creation - Adam was not the first human
>being;
>(7) there were therefore human preadamites before Adam, from whom Adam
>descended.
>Claeys died in 1986.
>
>In "How has Life and its Diversity been Produced?", PSCF 44/2 (June
>1992), 80-94, I wrote: "As no other scientific hypothesis has been
>formulated, there is, at present, no alternative to evolution as God's
>creation method. And evolution is even a very attractive option for
>Christians who believe in the full inspiration of Scripture! There seems
>to be an inner congruence between developmental processes in nature and
>the way God deals with His creation according to Scripture." The whole
>text can also be found on the ASA website:
>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Rust.html
>
>In "Genesis Reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999), 231-243, Armin Held
>and I elaborated, in detail, a concordant interpretation of Gen. 1:1 -
>2:7 based on these ideas. The text can also be found on the ASA website:
>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html
>Of course, it was attacked, both in PSCF and on this list, by those in
>what you call the "big group". Nevertheless, I am still convinced our
>concordant interpretation is at least as valid, theologically,
>scientifically and philosophically, as the
>ancient-near-eastern-worldview interpretation (or rather dismissal) of
>this text involving the feeble excuse of divine accommodation to human
>errors (mistaken for kenosis).
Without wanting to "attack" you, my reply would be, that it does not solve
all the "difficulties" that one encounters in Genesis chapters 1 through
11. The difficulties are partly philosophical in that the Bible does not
talk about scientific processes but about serving the God of
Scriptures. But also in the fact that numbers are treated differently in
the OT, see my uncle's (J.de Koning) book: "Studien over de
El-Amarnabrieven en het Oude Testament inzonderheid uit historisch
oogpunt." (Delft, 1940). He talks about the impossibility of some of the
numbers given. For example, he compares the figures given for Jericho's
fall, when Joshua surrounded the city with the size of Jericho found in
excavations. He gives some possible solutions, but is not sure of any. So
the difficulties multiply.
Even taking the difficulties with numbers about the entrance in Canaan into
account, the difficulties of reading Gen. 1-11 as a scientific account
remain. It should not surprise us, since the Bible is not written for
scientists alone. Besides, I doubt that at the time Genesis was written
down anyone would have understood any of the accuracy of recording history
we have now. Would they have understood any of it?
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:16:34 EST