Re: How Did Gentry Get Published in PSCF?

At 05:59 PM 07/12/2004 -0500, Dick Fischer wrote:
>I got only a few paragraphs into Gentry's article on "Collapse of Big Bang
>Cosmology" in this month's issue of "Perspectives" when it hit me, this
>guy is an idiot, and a YEC to boot! What happened to peer review? Are
>Gish and Morris on the peer review panel for ASA? What gives? Who's
>next, Ken Ham?
>
>Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
>Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>www.genesisproclaimed.org

While avoiding the term "idiot", I must say as well that I found the
"scientific" and/or "scholarly" foundation seriously lacking. Actually, it
is probably more than that, namely the "philosophic" background may be most
seriously lacking.

It is not a sin to be YEC, though I have yet to see a YEC adherent making a
coherent scientific explanation AND an exegesis of the first chapters of
Genesis which takes into account, that modern English was not spoken by
people 5000 years ago. That means that their way of thinking was not the
same as ours. As God was speaking to them in their language in a way they
would understand, we should first start with a thorough analysis of their
surroundings and the language which we do not know. Then, the story was
first told to people not able to write, but written down later in a
non-European language.

We should realize that our translations are based partially on our present
understanding of reality, meaning for example that we assume that because
we think that man has body and soul, we must translate "nephesh" in Gen
1:20 and 30 as "life"; and in Gen.2:7 as "soul'" because we follow the
Greek way of thinking that man has body and soul. This fact in itself
shows that "translating" is more than just taking words and replace them
with words in another language. It becomes thus right away clear that
"translators" and also we as readers, are placing a story as told by the
Lord to people who could not read, and had little idea yet of history,
that we place that "story" in the 21st century.

Exegetes have shown that the numbers used in the early chapters of Genesis
do not have the same meaning as our literal "translation". What that
meaning was is often not very clear. For a more extensive, though not
complete discussion of the numbers in the O.T. (in Dutch) I point to my
uncle's) J. de Koning, "Studien over de El-Amarnabrieven en het Oude
Testamnet inzonderheid uit historisch oogpunt." Delft (The Netherlands)
1940. He compared the material of the El-Amarna tablets with the numbers
mentioned in the translated Bible. The discrepancies between the regularly
copied Bible and the old tablets in stone may possibly be explained by the
fact that copiers of the Bible (he mentions Origen, but points to earlier
copiers) were not infallible as the first writers were. In the 18th
century many Bible commentators were aware of these difficulties, and
sometimes tried to give solutions. On the basis of their studies certain
well-known 19th century Dutch theologians like Kuyper and H.Bavinck did not
want to reject the evolution theory, though they did not accept the theory
either. But, they were not stuck on the numbers they read in the
"translated" and "copied" Bible. They were well aware of the shortcomings
of men: copiers, translators (and others who chose a particular copy of old
texts). Basically K.and B. said that, yes, the Bible is God's Word, but it
is not given to study nature, "only" to tell us about the sinful nature of
man, and the work of our Lord and Saviour, who took away the punishment for
our sins.

Jan de Koning.
Received on Wed Dec 8 15:22:08 2004