From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 11:09:31 EST
At 12:08 PM 29/10/2003 +0000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Walter,
>
>I appear to have caused you some anguish, and I am sorry about that. But
>the point I was attempting to make is well exemplified I believe in my
>recent reply to Gordon, viz to be an evolutionist, the Christian has to
>jettison his acceptance of the Noahic covenant with its 'global flood'
>implications. One wonders then where this leaves the Apostle Paul's
>statement that the 'word of God' is the 'sword of the Spirit' (Eph.6:17)?
>
>Vernon
Vernon,
To address your thoughts to <asa@calvin.edu> is sufficient. You don't have
to address it to each one who does not agree with you separately.
I have not seen an answer to my posting in which I said, that I think that
you are not very knowledgeable about theological books exegeting the first
twelve chapters of Genesis. If you were you would not write the way you do.
The Word of God is indeed the sword of the Spirit, a saying the majority,
if not all writers on this forum agree. However, I also believe, that the
majority of the writers does not agree with your exegesis of
Genesis. Neither do the majority of God-fearing Christians. The points
you raise are numerous, and need to be discussed in a book. If your faith
depends on believing the way you do, go ahead. Jesus died for sinners, for
all sinners who accept Him as their Saviour. However, your understanding
of the Bible is unacceptable to many people. It does not mean that they do
not want to live by the Word of God, it only means that they think that
your way of reading does not do justice to the richness of the Bible. Now
some remarks on
Literality:
A poem in the Bible is a song glorifying God, but is not necessarily
describing facts in the order they happened, nor in an exactly literal
meaning: "The heavens declare the glory of God.". So read Gen.1 as a poem.
Translation difficulties cause words to be translated differently in
different places. Example: the word in Gen.1translated as "living being"
(verse 20) is translated in Gen. 2 as "soul", because in Gen.1 it was an
animal, in Gen.2 man. It does mean, though, that even here are
difficulties, which we have not even started discussing.
Modern English thinking (even non-scientific thinking) in the Bible is
usually understood "literally", even when we, for example,
in our daily use may say "thousands" when we mean "many". Hebrew talking
is not any different. Their daily talking, as recorded in the Bible, tells
us the Truth, but not necessarily "truth" (facts) in our sense of the words.
Difficulties experienced by scientists who are studying God's Word in
creation cannot be swept under the rug as easily as you do. I have no
objection to your believing as you do, provided that you realize, that your
reading is a reading not acceptable to most, if not all readers on this
forum. Reason: it is too easy. You just assume that God is lying to us in
His Creation. Obviously you do not read the Bible as it was originally
written. Read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek and you realize that your
reading is too simplistic.
Also, language does develop. Englishof the 16th century is not American
English. Consequently we have had several more modern translations. Books
written in old English are hard to understand, not only because the change
in language, but also because the change in living conditions, in
surroundings etc. Now add to that translations of a book given first to
shepherds in completely different living conditions, and you will realize
that learning to read the BIble properly is a life-long exercise for all of us.
Science learns more and more about creation, but there is so much to learn,
that none of us can be an expert in more than one or two areas. But, now I
stop, and I hope that your realize that the great majority of the readers
on this forum have accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour and as the
Saviour and King of the World, now, and of the world to come, when we may
know the answers to our difficulties.
Jan de Koning
In the Bible God spoke to people, not just to scientists, though scientists
are included. That means talking "scientifically" would not be understood
by most people, especially not to people living, say, three thousand years
ago. They would not even have words for the conceptions now known by
scientists.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 11:04:06 EST