From: Jan de Koning (jan@dekoning.ca)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 21:32:04 EST
At 10:29 PM 31/10/2003 +0000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Jan,
>
>Thank you for these observations. But are you suggesting that we should
>close our eyes, ears and minds to new truths that are emerging from the
>biblical text in the form of numerical and geometrical patterns?
Not at all. As a matter of fact I just read an exegesis of the first
chapters which I never heard before. However, I do think that God is not
contradicting Himself in nature or in scripture. As it is that the first
chapters of Genesis, though they are "true", that is faithful, are not true
in a modern mathematical sense. If you start reading them as "literal
true" in a modern, mathematical sense you run into many difficulties. The
most serious one is that you then must assume that God is lying to us in
what we see in nature and historical evidences. I do think that God is
true to Himself under all circumstances. I would be able to understand
your position, if you said I don't understand, but the reasoning you showed
is very strange and logically unacceptable.
Basic is: God is true to Himself in Creation and in His Word. That Word
was written for people that did not have any scientific, or literal
knowledge in a way they could understand. When we take that into
consideration the first chapters of Geneisis are not "untrue" in a modern
logical sense, but must be read by us in a way which takes into account the
original language, and the people to whom it is spoken. Many theologians
spent their life on doing that. For example, I can mention theologians,
considered to be very "orthodox", who had always full churches, and drew
people back to orthodoxie, but they lived in the second part of the 19th
century.
If you read Dutch I will give you the places where you may find their
discussions on it. I stress that they were not scientists, but theologians.
Nevertheless, if your faith depends on it, by all means read the Bible in
the way you want, but less us read the Bible in a way the Bible is to be
read. Yes, I know, we are not faultless either, but the discussion you
want to prolong has been going on now for over 150 years. The Christian
Reformed Church appointed a committee to study this matter. It reported to
their 1991 synod, and the report may be found in the Acts of that synod.
> Why should the genuine seeker after truth erect barriers to his own
> understanding? You must agree, it makes little sense! All empirical
> evidence that emanates from the revealed truth of God's Word needs either
> to be accomodated by, and incorporated into, one's worldview (which must
> be enhanced thereby!) or else _proved to be irrelevant_, and rejected.
I completely agree, so read the Bible and read God's Word in a way which
you like. I don't want to object to that. However, do not think that
every Christian is thinking the way you do. I do somewhat object to have
the same discussion year after year. For that reason, I seldom get
involved in it any more. To understand our reading of Genesis, you could
read "Reformational Theology, A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics" by Gordon
J. Spijkman. I do not agree with him in all respects, but we were together
in that study-committee I mentioned above. If necessary, and if wanted, I
can mention more books you could read, all written by people who accept
God's Word and believe that the God of the Bible is still ruling the universe.
>
>Further, you appear to challenge the point recently put to Gordon, viz
>that it is not possible for a Christian to believe _both_ the account of
>God's covenant with Noah and the non-universality of the Flood that
>preceded it. I see this as a matter of simple logic - having nothing to do
>with my interpretation of Genesis. I doubt whether theistic evolutionists
>in general are aware of this tension and, if so, have seriously considered
>its implications.
There is no tension, except a tension in reading. The Bible was not
written in scientific English, but was first given to "illiterate"
people. Consequently reading it as if it is given to 21st century
Christians who have had 15 or more years schooling does not make sense. It
only makes sense, if you realize that it was given to people who had had no
schooling but lived close to God, and wanted to live close to God. Then
you try to see it their way: Gen. 1 a poem glorifying God; Gen. 2 man
needing company (notice the so-called contradiction with Gen.1, but the
different point which needed to be made: man lives in company), Gen.3 man
wants to go his own way (and still does). Etc.
----------
I do not want to take away your faith, but neither do I want any scientist
forced out of the community of saints by other believers. As a matter of
fact, I do believe, that forcing any particular reading of Gen.1 - 12
causes unnecessary harm to the community of saints which accepts Jesus
Christ as their only Saviour, who died for our sins.
Jan de Koning
Ypu did not answer my posting below:
>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 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 21:28:44 EST