Jan de Koning wrote (Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:17:00 -0500):
> At 05:21 PM 03/04/02 +0200, Peter Ruest wrote:
> > 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
I basically agree with all of this (although I haven't studied the
archeology of Jericho or your uncle's book). I have never tried to use
the Bible as a scientific textbook. It definitely is primarily a
theological message from God to all people, independent of their amount
of knowledge or ignorance. Nor have I claimed to have solved all
"difficulties". I was just struck with the degree to which the biblical
text can be paralleled with much of scientific knowledge. I continued to
pursue this trail, without claiming that all biblical expositors had it
"all wrong". It is certainly possible for the primary Author of both
creation and the Bible to guide his prophets in formulating his word in
a way avoiding gross errors of fact. He certainly intended the basic
thrust of his word to be understandable by the first readers, but also
by all later ones. And the Bible gives us some indications that often
the original hearers of prophetic messages didn't get their full impact,
which sometimes extended to centuries into the future. Neither does this
detract from what God intended these first recipients to comprehend. If
God is its Author, there is no requirement that every Bible text has
just one specific level of meaning, see the spiritual use Paul makes of
the definitely historical Sarah and Hagar, and there are more examples.
Peter Ruest
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 13:11:02 EDT