> In a message dated 4/24/99 11:15:36 AM, Bert wrote:
>
> Quoting Paul Seely: "There is no clear statement in the Bible saying "Genesis
> is scientifically accurate."
>
> Bert wrote, "We can however be lead by statments such as "God cannot lie."
> and the "heavens declase his handywork." As a basic principle would God give
> a technically innacurate revelation and then expect sceptics to accept his
> gloary. I think not."
> >>
>
> Bert,
>
> Saying that God used the cultural beliefs of the writers of the Bible in
> revealing himself to them does not him a liar. To expect God to give a
> technically accurate revelation that would satisfy our scientific culture
> thousands of years later, when the writers would have had no understanding of
> what they were writing, is to give a distorted view of revelation, IMHO. Is
> it so difficult to convey this to a sceptic? If sceptics have a distorted
> view of revelation, that, it seems to me, is the place to start.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
**********************
I disagree. I do not think that God would have given a description that would be
incorrect even as seen in light of today's science. Keep in mind that
Christians, including such notables as Luther, saw various passages incorrectly
as to projecting science from the scripture. There is of course the well known
early view of the Church that the Sun revolved around the Earth and the tortured
science to accommodate this view through epicycles.
While I do believe God did reveal his witness through the eyes of the ancients
terms they could understand that he did not say anything that would not stand the
test of time. Why would he when He is perfectly capable of not doing so? In
fact, in contrast, see how the creation stories of other ancients have not stood
the test of time.
As a great anticipation of modern science, I note that Genesis puts God outside
of his creation and requires a beginning for the universe. So does General
Relativity and the Big Bang Theory. YEC do not accept the Big Bang but should
find comfort in the view that science now claims that there was a beginning even
if they think it is the wrong date.
WOW. This came from a guy in a tent before any kind of scientific reasoning and
in the context of anthropormorizing the forces of nature.
Bert Massie