I gave up reading everything in this thread, since I was frustrated by all
the abbreviations I encountered.
Now I write, because I do think, that the point mentioned about standing
before the judgment seat is true maybe, but we cannot know which questions
will be asked. However, we know, that God wrote not only the Bible, but
also the book of Creation. Maybe we have to give an account of how we
read. If so, then the reading of the book of Creation is not the only
thing questioned, but also: "How did you read the Bible?" "How did you
study the Bible?"
Then we will have to account for reading litterally stories, which were not
meant to be read litterally. "How did you connect the two books?" is
another question. We should not try to sit in God's judgment seat by
accusing each other. So, please, discuss "How to read the bible." if you
must, and like some valiantly try, and like I wrote about it, I believe,
last week or the week before. But do not try to say: "If you don't read
the bible as I do, you are wrong." Of course, I admit, that i think the
same way, but I hope that I do not accuse others of not wanting to take
God's Word seriously.
In MY opinion, anyone who wants to read Gen. 1-11 as we read historic
facts, is not recognizing the facts that:
1. It was written by Moses after he had received the two tablets.
2. It was written in a Hebrew environment. We cannot apply our modern
English ideas of "factual" writing to it.
3. God did not give us the Bible to study modern science out of it. So why
do we have these chapters in the Bible?
4. We do wise to study, not only in Gen. but in the whole Bible, what does
the Bible mean when it is speaking the Truth. What is the good news in
Gen. 1-11?
5. Human reading in science, and in the Bible is just that: human reading.
Let us discuss these issues, without accusing each other. (And, please, do
not use abbreviations as used in previous postings.)
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.