Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?)

At 08:23 AM 31/12/2003 -0800, Sheila Wilson wrote:
>Is science not a good work? Is the truth not righteousness?

This discussion does not get us anywhere. Science, even being done in a
godly manner, has to be done in a righteous way, but it is not
righteousness. "Truth" has many different connotations. I, for one
believe strongly, that the way YEC is conducting its discussions is not
"truth", nor do I believe that they read the Bible as it should be read,
and interpreted.
But, . . .., this subject cannot be discussed in a few sentences from me,
than from you, etc. etc. It does not work that way. If you have Christian
Reformed friends or are Christian Reformed, I was part of a committee that
for three years studied "evolution" for the church and signed the final
report. The report may be found on pages 367 - 413 with an appendix pages
414 - 433. The committee had three "scientists, three "theologians", and
4 others, mainly philosophers, I believe. Unfortunately, all but one
taught at colleges or universities. It would have helped if we had some
people who did not have a college education. However, let me quote one of
the members who did not sign the report because, I quote:
"of his conviction that the debate on origins should not proceed until our
greater task in creation -its care and keeping- is restored in faith and
practice."

For that reason, I too believe now, that the discussion about YEC or not,
does not get us anywhere, because
a. of the different background of the people discussing the subject, and I
am sorry, that I every now and again feel that I have to state something.
b. the fact that we are not discussing, but just making statements.
c. we hardly listen to each other
d. the strange way that English speaking countries define "science", as if
all subjects included are dealing with the same kind of subject. The
subject to be dealt with requires a knowledge of old languages, yes, but as
well old ways of thinking, old religions (not only Israel's, but as well
the religions to which the prophets were reacting>)
e. dogmatics and its history.
etc.

Sheila, it does not mean that we do not want to discuss, but only that the
task is overwhelming and takes years of study. There are "old" theologians
of the 19th century, who did nor reject "evolution", but did not discuss it
much because it was not in their field.

And, how do you suppose that God would speak to the first human
beings? Try to explain the Big Bang etc.? I think both sides should be
very careful to speak as if they know things religiously. After all we all
fall short.

I am willing to discuss but I feel that the playing field is far from
level. People who have not had any Hebrew schooling or scientific
schooling other than engineering etc. should be willing to accept that we
too, yes we may be wrong, but to convince us of that we have to talk on
another level.

Jan de Koning
Received on Wed Dec 31 14:10:29 2003