Totally agree with you Jan.
n lakker reply.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan de Koning" <jan@dekoning.ca>
To: <Asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: At last, searching for the truth (was Re: Personality
Conflict?)
> 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 - 17:42:56 EDT