Re: Kerkut

re the message below (of Bill Hamilton).

I am not a theologian, but I can mention the names of several theologians
who for years already said, that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not
to be read as history in our sense of the word. I tried to stay out of the
conversation, but it becomes a little too difficult to keep quiet.
In the Chr.Ref.Church we had a study committee appointed to study these
matters. That was in 1988. I was a member of that study committee. My
task was to find what theologians in the 19th century thought about it, and
if necessary go back before that. I did not mind since my uncle published
in 1940 already (in Dutch) a book in which he said among other things, that
he did not know what numbers in the books of Moses meant, but that they did
not mean, what we think they do, since these numbers conflict with
historical possibilities and were conflicting also with the findings in
excavations.
So, in studying these theologians (I was in the committee as a
"philosopher", not a theologian) I found that some already stated openly in
very orthodox surroundings that the age of the earth was much more than a
few thousand years.

  For me personally, I love the Lord, and believe that He speaks to each
generation in a language which that generation understands. That means,
that He would not speak to generations living 4000 or 6000 years ago in
modern Emglish as if they knew all the scientific facts which we think we
know. But I believe as well that my God is not trying to fool me by
showing that the earth must be millions of years old. I trust Him.

Also, try to think as a person of the age that God gave them His Word
first. They had hardly any geological knowledge, hardly any other
scientific knowledge. Do you think that God would try to confuse
them? But, He still wanted to lobe them, and wanted that they loved Him in
return. Now try to read the Bible in that light. However, you cannot
because when translating the translators had knowledge, had a point of
view, etc.. So, firstly before you can really read the Bible you have to
pray for understanding, then you ask what does God want to tell me
here. Well, God wanted to love His children at the time the Bible was
written, so He used their language and their understanding.

But, then more modern people come. They think they know a lot, when they
translate, and do not translate in an old-fashioned language, but in a
modern language. They don't do that either with an empty mind. For
example, in Gen. 1 the word "nephesh" is used and translated as "living
being" because it concerns an animal, but when the same word is used in
Gen.2 they translate it as "soul" because it concerns humans. That was
under the influence of Greek philosophy which thought that man had body and
soul. Of corse, that gave troubles later in the Bible, so that the meaning
is translated in such a way as to agree with that philosophy. But, the
Bible does not teach us that we are "body and soul", only that we when we
die we are read and will be resurrected when the Lord comes back. But that
means that we better know the difference between "time" and
"eternity". So, what is "time"? But that is a subject in itself. I only
mention it, because the discussions as they are going on do not get us
anywhere if we do not start from the same background in our thinking.

Jan de Koning

At 08:33 AM 07/02/2004 -0500, William Hamilton wrote:

>On Friday, February 6, 2004, at 10:24 PM, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>>GRM: I view Genesis 1 as the pre-planning for the universe. The 'and it
>>was so" after so many of the verses is not what God said but what the
>>Biblical narrator said. By viewing Genesis 1 in this fashion, Genesis
>>2, the supposed second account of creation is really several billion
>>years later at the time when mankind was created. Thus, the'evidence'
>>supporting YEC, could be merely the wrong conclusion coupled with the
>>fact that Theologians seem to never think out of hte box.
>>
>I am also attracted to that view, with some caveats. One is that the
>creation of man is mentioned in Genesis 1. Maybe the division isn't
>between Gen 1 and 2, but somewhere in Gen 1.
>
>Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
>
Received on Sat Feb 7 13:26:35 2004