Re: Cobb County

At 11:07 PM 16/01/2005 +0000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:32:30 -0000 "Vernon Jenkins"
><<mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
>George wrote: "One of the main problems with this and similar 'warnings'
>is that they pick out evolution as something uniquely
>controversial...".But it surely is uniquely controversial, isn't it? For
>example, do we have an ongoing, widespread and heated debate concerning
>the germ theory of disease, relativity, or plate tectonics? No, because
>none of these challenges the Authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
>as the revealed word of God. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, evolution
>is the only theory that comes with a built-in _imperative_. By that I
>mean, You _must_ believe this to be true - otherwise how can you possibly
>be trusted to think and behave rationally? Again, the fact that its
>proponents want to suppress all healthy scientific skepticism of it
>suggests that they believe certain aspects are better kept hidden.
>
>Vernon

"challenges the
Authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the revealed word of God"
is a sentence I certainly object to, since one does not have to challenge
God's Authority to read the bible nor to read nature. As a matter of fact,
calling one particular translation of an old transcript of a still older
original which is lost God's Word, is to say the least something we have to
be very careful about. I personally have trouble with anyone who tries to
"challenge" anyone who reads Scripture differently than they do. Generally
there are no two persons reading the Bible in the same way. Just read and
compare the exegesis of any Bible book by different authors. What a
particular exegesis says about a particular Bible passage, be it from a
"creationist" or a "scientist" is not God's Word. That goes for
translations as well.

What you say means really that you say "I am the only one who reads the
Bible correctly." That is a very dangerous statement to make. And, also,
it means that you say that God is lying to us when we study nature (or, God
is not in charge of nature). Very, very dangerous statements to make. God
wanted to talk to these people in their language, not in modern day
English. Misunderstandings will exist, just read the story of the tower of
Babel.

Also, keep in mind that firstly finding the best and oldest copies of the
Bible is already difficult, and causing disagreements. They do have
differences. Than discussing the first chapters of Genesis as natural
history is bound to get you into trouble. It is not natural history, but a
short composition explaining that God created, and that sin (not following
God's commandments) is man's tendency, or the tendency of us all. Trying
to translate an old language which is not spoken any longer is another
difficulty.

Furthermore, there are different types of writing. For example, now some
people do talk ironical, or in other ways which we do not call
"lies". Gen.1 -11 is not irony, but a story making God's ways known to a
people which did not understand modern science, but, yes, they apparently
thought that they could do and know anything they wanted. God told them
the way of Truth: Follow me, but He did not get into detail about
science. And that is still the same. Just as then, God talks in nature,
and we should listen to that too. Still, it is a Word of God we have to study.

The Christian Reformed Church had a study-committee which studied the
issues for a years, and reported to its synod in 1991. The report is long,
but it is worth studying, I hope.

Coming back to Genesis: God spoke and still speaks to people who do not
know science, and any statements about the beginning of the world to people
living 6000 or more years ago could not be written in a modern
language. Human pride made that impossible after the Tower of Babel.

Jan de Koning
Received on Mon Jan 17 14:07:24 2005