> I've only had time to merely glance at some of the posts on the topic
> of Genesis and historicity. But Glenn made a statement in a post on
> Mar 26 that, I believe, sets the question in the wrong framework. He
> made the statement that "it may be that science or the Bible is
> wrong." We need to distinguish between God's revelation from our
> interpretation of that revelation. God reveals himself in both
> creation and in Scripture (Bible) as well as in the person, Christ.
> Science is our human interpretation of God's revelation in creation;
> theology and/or our reading of Scripture is our human interpretation
> of God's revelation in Scripture. Thus, if we make contrasts, it
> should be at the level of Scripture with creation and science with
> "theology"; not with science and the Bible or theology with creation.
> God's revelation in both creation and the Bible are infallible, viz.,
> truthful. (I think we need to distinguish infallible from inerrant).
> But our interpretation of either or both creation (science) or
> Scripture (theology) may be in error.
> If we affirm the truthfulness of God's revelation in both creation
> and Scripture, then our challenge is to discern the nature of the
> truthfulness. That implies that we must discern the intent of God's
> revelation in Scripture, and in this discussion, of the early chapter
> of Genesis.
I agree with what you say above in general, however, I am wondering why
you said that "we need to distinguish infallible from inerrant." Also,
you seem to link infallibility with truth and seem to imply that inerrancy
should not be used. However, if some fact is true, then it is is not in
error, thus it is inerrant by analytical definition. Infallibility on
the other hand is "not being capable of error." This implies necessarily
true, not just contingently true. I believe that any pronouncements and
special revelation from God must be both inerrant and infallible, i.e.,
not in error and not capable of being in error.
>I would suggest that the thrust of the truthfulness
> concerns God's proclamation of God as the "maker of heaven and earth"
> rather than a description of God's creative activity.
>
> With regard to God's creative activity revealed in Genesis I would
> like to make this observation. God in his creative activity is
> calling forth the laws and ordinances that hold for the creation,
> that the creation is subject to. God's creative activity is thus not
> subject to the very laws that are being called forth for the
> creation. Human beings, as created beings are subject to the laws
> for created reality. Furthermore, our understanding as creatures is
> limited to the created reality, to that which is subject to the laws
> for creation. In view of this, there are limits to our knowledge and
> scientific investigation. We are unable to investigate or even
> comprehend God['s creative active simply because such activity is not
> subject to the very laws that are being called forth. I see Genesis
> 1 as God proclaiming to humankind that he is creator, etc... But
> since we cannot comprehend the creative activity, the proclamation is
> done in a form that denotes the truthfulness of the proclamation, but
> has nor direct relation to a description of the activity. It can't
> describe something we can not even comprehend.
If we can't even begin to comprehend Genesis 1 and 2, then why did God
bother to have Moses write all that he wrote rather than just saying
"In the beginning, YHWH created the heavens and the earth and then just
skipping to Genesis 3 (or 4 if we can't make sense of 3, or 5 if we can't
make sense of 4 . . .).
Jeff
>
> These are my two cents worth on this discussion.
>
> Uko Zylstra
>
>
>
>
>
> Uko Zylstra, Chair e-mail: zylu@calvin.edu
> Biology Department tel: (616) 957-6499
> Calvin College fax: (616) 957-6501
> Grand Rapids, MI 49546
>