Re: Cobb County

At 11:51 AM 17/01/2005 -0800, Edward Hassertt wrote:
>It does not surprise me to see such a weak and dismissive idea of GOd's
>word here. Is such a relativistic view of GOd's word which claims man's
>activities like science to be more reliable than God's word, necessary to
>be a scientist in today's world? I pray that is not the case since
>science will always be tainted by the sinful nature of man, regardless of
>which level we are speaking. Let God be true and every man a liar!

Indeed, let God be true, but realize, that the Word of God, was spoken in
many languages before English even existed. At that time God spoke as
well. And God spoke a language which those people understood. That means
that they spoke a language which they understood with their limited
knowledge. They could sing as a song a chapter like Genesis 1. Therefor I
do not mind at all to accept as brothers and sisters un-learned people who
read the Bible as if it was written in 21st century English. They still
sing with me the song "All we see is created by our God. We, men, tried to
undo God's work, but He sent His Son to take away our sins. That same God
gave us our brains and logical thinking ability. So, I do expect that
learned people are willing to think through matters. I therefor refer
once more to a report written for the Christian Reformed Church and
published in their 1991 synod agenda. So: if you want to believe in a
six-day creation a few thousand years ago, I still accept you as a
brother. However, to say that my view is "weak and dismissive" does not do
justice to my views, unless you read the who;e report and study what others
on this forum have said in the past. However,

I believe that our whole life, including our studying is serving God. That
includes my studying science as well as studying the Bible. They are not
in conflict, but our understanding of what we read in science or Bible may
sometimes appear to be in conflict. If that is so then a lot of studying
is needed. God created, and then man sinned. I confess, that all we do is
stained with sin. Note, that I wrote "we do". Therefor I would invite you
to read the report and then write again. We have gone through this debate
several times before, and at no time yet have I heard an argument from a
scientist which personally studied the subject that is superficial and just
dismissive.

Jan de Koning
Received on Mon Jan 17 17:54:06 2005