On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Here are some obvious 'battles' between book 1 (God's Word) and book 2
> (God's works):
>
> Book 1: The first man was physically made from a pile of dust
> Book 2: There is no first physically-made "man" ... man was made from
> lower life forms (evolution)
> -> At stake here is much theology, such as the meaning of "Adam and
> Eve," the fall, nature and origin of sin, etc.
>
> Who wins? I say Book 2.
>
> Book 1: There was a worldwide flood
> Book 2: There was no worldwide flood
>
> Who wins? I say Book 2.
>
> Ken Ham says to either ignore Book 2 or else refuse to see the testimony
> of Book 2. His theology comes solely for Book 1. That's why he is too
> extreme for most of us. Most of us try to reconcile Book 1 and Book 2.
> If you want to know what theology is like if you ignore Book 2, that is
> YEC'ism (although they do accept some Book 2 things like
> heliocentricity).
>
> ...Bernie
>
You seem to accept Ken Ham's claim that he correctly understands Book 1.
Actually many of these science-faith issues were around long before the
advent of modern science. Also YEC readings of some pssages have forced
them to come up with nontraditional interpretations of other passages. The
English translations of Genesis taken literally do indeed support a global
flood, which is evidence that that is the traditional view. However Hebrew
uses the same word for earth and land with land the far more common
translation. Even sometimes such as Gen. 41:57 and Gen. 8:9 (in light of
Gen. 8:5) earth doesn't really mean the entire globe even though it was
translated that way. Early church fathers such as Ambrose recognized that
the fact that a wind caused the waters to recede presented a problem for
the flood being global.
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 24 21:41:00 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 24 2008 - 21:41:00 EDT