At 11:00 AM 23/04/02 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:
>Jan writes
>
> >What is your age, Jim?
>
>33
>
> >I am seventy-seven and have always been interested in studying
> >about Gen.1 and science,
>
>I respect that.
>
> >but I have never seen the "stunning correlation" between Gen.1
> >and science.
>
>Can I recommend a few sources?
>Genesis Reconsidered, Ruest & Held
>Genesis One and the Origins of the Earth Newman & Eckelmann
>Dick Fischer's work
>Mike Satterlee's recent post
>the silence of opposing arguments on this listserv
>the Bible (taking it seriously)
In the first place, at the moment I have other priorities than studying
these books. I did study many (I suppose) similar books when I was part of
a three-year study committee for the Chr.Ref.Church. You can find my
position on that generally speaking in the report which we wrote and it is
published in the CRC's synodical report of 1991.
Secondly, Gen.1 is part of a larger book and is so to speak an introduction
to the introduction of Genesis. Genesis is an introduction to the five
books of Moses, itself an introduction to the complete Bible. That means
Gen.1 cannot be read without referring to the rest of the Bible.
Thirdly, Gen.1 is more like a song praising God for His work, than actually
describing the (time-)order of creation.
Fourthly, the word "yom" is not necessarily "day", but was used as well in
the OT for time-periods.
Fifthly, in Moses' books numbers cannot mean exactly what they are
translated as (forgive my grammar.) My uncle showed that in his book about
the el-Amarna tablets and the OT. What they do mean, and how the writer
arrived at them he did not know, except for saying that some say, that it
may have something to do with the numerical value of names. He showed that
"thousand" in the story of the fall of Jericho cannot have meant what we
say that "thousand" means, seeing the size of Jericho found through
excavations. Maybe it should be "clan."
Sixthly, I do think studying Gen.1 unrelated to Gen.2 and even 2 - 11 is a
very dangerous business. Not only do you get in trouble with what you call
"science", but also with Scripture, if you go by an English
translation. Some words have more than one meaning in translations of the
Bible. "Ruach" for example is translated as "spirit", as "wind", as
"breath". Another word.also in Gen.1 "nephesh" is translated as "living
being" in Gen.1, but for example in Gen.2 often as "soul".
Seventh, all of us, even on this list, have limited time available. So
discussing where Gen.1 disagrees with science is not a point, since it will
depend very much on what you think the language used in Gen.1 tries to
do. It is more a song glorifying God for and in His creation. There the
difficulty starts already. I do think some scientists have shown that the
order of Gen.1 and the order of "science" do not agree. For me that is not
a problem, since it is a piece of literature glorifying God for His
creation, and noting the place He gave us in that creation.
Eighth, the Bible was not written to satisfy our so-called "scientific"
curiosity. God gave us His Word to re-connect us (and the old Hebrews)
with Him. That would not have succeeded (since the fall in sin came in
between) if He had either written it in modern English or old Hebrew to
exactly tell us how He did create. Consequently, Gen.1 is neither
"science", nor "imagination." These contrasts are not valid here.
Ninth, but I must stop now, I have other duties too.
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 12:17:30 EDT