At 04:36 PM 12/06/02 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Jan,
>
>I am a little puzzled by what you have written. You say, "God is not
>constrained at all,..." (with which I clearly agree), but later you write,
>"...he (God) would not have used concepts unknown to people at that time."
>Is this not a contradiction? And, anyway, is not the latter simply an
>arbitrary opinion?
>
>You continue, "Nobody here thinks Noah knew as much about biology and
>geology as we do...". But surely God's dealings with Noah prior to the
>Flood involved no mind-boggling science. He first states His intentions
>and gives Noah His reason (Gn.6:13); He then commands the building of the
>ark (Gn.6:14), indicates the means of destruction proposed (Gn.6:17), and
>so on. Noah's role in these proceedings is simply to hear, and obey the
>instructions given. Any erroneous ideas he may have entertained regarding
>the true nature of 'the earth', or the extent of the Flood, were beside
>the point. He quickly got the idea that - apart from himself, his
>immediate family, and a representative selection of animal life - God
>intended to destroy 'all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under
>heaven...' (Gn.6:17). It all seems clear enough - but obviously not to an
>evolutionist. However, I'm glad you agree that He is not constrained.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Vernon
"Concepts" may not be the right word. I was writing about God talking to
people: God would use a language that the people to which it was directed
could understand. That would not be Noah, since the books of Moses were
written down many centuries later by any calculation. So, that means since
the Bible was written in the language of the Hebrews, in concepts they
would understand. Consequently, as I wrote many times before, Gen.1 - 11
was not written in a modern language using modern knowledge. After all,
though Moses had an excellent education, at that time nobody would know
about evolution etc. God would not have confused the Israelites by
writing about it in that way.
For the same reason, I talk to someone who only finished grade six (
comparable to grade eight now?) in a completely different manner than I do
to people who, I think, have at least some university
education. Therefor, if you want to read Gen. 1 -11 in an unscientific
way, it is well with me, but when we talk about biological and geological
science, about physics and mathematics, then I say, you should realize,
that all writing, all translating, all reading is based on a philosophy,
which in most cases is derived from the old pagan way in which the Greeks
did science and philosophy. (BTW for that reason I believe strongly, that
children should go to Christian schools from grade one on, where they learn
about a Christian outlook on everything in life.) So, when God wanted to
instruct His people, who most likely did not read or write, nor studied,
God would, in my opinion, talk in a way they would understand. God's
talking to us is, however, not restricted to what we read in the
Bible. Even in the Bible we read that God talks in nature as
well. Therefor we should learn to "read" nature properly as well.
So, on this forum, I am willing to discuss these things in a way scientists
would understand, without talking in a way which would go against
Scripture, though for some on this list it might appear to go against the
Bible. I have said it before, and repeat it again: all our reading is
based on a philosophy of life. In my opinion, most scientists have the
disadvantage of having had almost only a technical education, and if they
had philosophy lectures they were mostly of the secular type. The result
is that the concept "truth" is often understood to be the modern, secular
"conform to reality, facts" and that understood in a modern scientific
way. In the Bible, and in old-English "truth" is more like "troth". That
I learned many, many years ago at the University, actually 60 years
ago. But because of that much talking and writing on the subject over the
past 15 years in which I was directly involved in these discussions, is
talking past each other. It is not just a matter of quoting texts from the
Bible, but the whole Bible is involved, translations are involved, language
study is involved etc. The result is that I usually do not want to talk
about these subjects, unless forced to do so. In our church, Christian
Reformed, a thoroughly Calvinist church, I usually refer to the report
published in the agenda of our 1991 synod, which I signed.
However, I note, that despite what I wrote some time ago about Gen.1 - 11,
many have not answered the arguments I used. It was not the first time I
used them, so that, since I do not want to sound like a broken record, I
stop writing about these things, though every now and again I fall in the
trap again.
Jan de K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 16:03:45 EDT