RE: [asa] Two questions...

A missionary friend once told me that the “New Testament reveals what the Old Testament conceals.” How do we know how much of the New Testament is itself concealed from us? There is a mystery to our existence and all that there is which we cannot fathom. We must learn to live with that fact. Sure, we can have certain opinions, some stronger than others, but we certainly do not yet know the whole truth. Let us face it; it is not easy for God to let His creatures know Him. We cannot even communicate with our presumed cousins the apes. However, all of Scripture will one day make complete sense, but the time is not yet here.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Bethany Sollereder [bsollereder@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 3:19 PM
To: James Patterson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...

James,

Psalm 19:1-4 is a very interesting choice. You are aware, I hope, that the word which in your translation is made to be "skies" comes from "raqia". This is better translated "firmament" or "vault" (See Gen 1 in TNIV) and refers to the hard dome of the sky holding up the heavenly oceans. This is basic ANE cosmology and can be seen in Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian creation accounts, and yet I assume when you read skies you think "atmosphere" - which is certainly not what the Psalmist had in mind.

You said " If what we discover about the world and how he created it and us is true to God, then it should (and does, IMO) agree with his Word." If you are going to do this, and agree with what concordism demands, then ultimately you would have to agree with their cosmology as well. If in fact you don't think the sky is a hard dome keeping up a heavenly ocean (and that NASA has indeed sent space ships out which have not run into any such firmament) then you have already taken the first steps in rejecting the need for concordism.

Finally, I think we need to really investigate what we mean when we say "His Word is True". What do you mean by "True"? A poem, a parable, and a historical study can all be true in their various ways, but we would not expect them all to meet the same standards.

Always,
Bethany

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net<mailto:james000777@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
Well, I agree with you about YEC...I am not one. I am most closely aligned
with OEC theology. I must disagree with you on concordism, however. Let's
look at the Bible:

---
Psalm 19:1-4
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display
knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the
world.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal
power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what
has been made, so that men are without excuse.
---
God is Truth. His Word is True. He created the Heavens and the Earth. If
what we discover about the world and how he created it and us is true to
God, then it should (and does, IMO) agree with his Word.
That doesn't mean we understand everything, or agree on everything, but it
does mean (to me) that our interpretations of the Bible and of nature should
agree.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On
Behalf Of Douglas Hayworth
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:56 AM
To: James Patterson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:24 PM, James Patterson
<james000777@bellsouth.net<mailto:james000777@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
> I don't think it's the science issues that are the most troublesome, at
> least for me. It's the lack of foundational doctrines that are, I think,
> critical to many mainstream Christian churches. That would be concordism,
> and inerrancy/infallibility of the Word of God.
Actually, I think that concordism and YEC are problematic and faulty
primarily on a theological, doctrinal and hermeneutical grounds. When
we actually treat God's Word with the respect it deserves as his
revelation of his purposes and calling for humankind throughout
history, it becomes obvious (to me, anyhow) that concordism and YEC
detract and demean it.
In pre-science days there was no such thing as concordism or
scientific YEC because there was nothing that had to be made
concordant. The theological message was what mattered most. In other
words, the advent of science created a new issue for us to work
through, but it is the concordists and YECs who went down the wrong
path by making scripture "say" things that it was never meant to mean.
Doug Hayworth
Rockford, IL
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.