Re: misgivings

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:19:52 -0500

To tell the truth, I have some misgivings too. I find I'm more in Jim
Bell's camp (as I understand it) regarding the nature of the account in
Genesis: that it doesn't seem intended to be a historical account so much
as defining the beginning of the relationship between God and man, with an
outline of the history that preceded this point. Very much like the first
two sections of a suzeraine covenant, which provide a historical prologue
and identify the covenanting parties (This view is not of course original)
I first became aware of it when reading Howard Van Till's book, "The fourth
day...".

Nevertheless, I was intrigued by the possibility that perhaps there _is_ a
viable way to reconcile Scripture as history with geology, and that's why I
agreed to review the book. I'm not opposed to such a reconciliation -- if
it can be justified. Glenn has certainly endeavored to show the viability
of his approach, not with handwaving, but with logical analysis of real
data. While he admits to not being a Bible scholar, I think he has handled
the Word with a great deal of respect.

One point this discussion demonstrates is that whatever means we try to use
to relate Scripture and natural history, there always seems to be at least
one point where the reconciliation is imperfect -- from at least one point
of view. Perhaps that's intentional on God's part. These sorts of
discussions prove to us that we really know very little, and they keep us
focussed on God's written Word in the Book of Scripture and His works in
the book of nature. What is required to bridge the gap is a miracle, or
faith, or both. I have a hard time with the flood being 5.5 million years
ago too, but every other flood interpretation I've seen requires faith or a
miracle somewhere, and I don't see why a 5.5 million year gap is any more
of a miracle than (say) where the water went following the flood if it was
global, or how living creatures evolved at fantastic rates to negate the
effects of a genetic bottleneck ca. 2350 B.C.

Why then do I believe the Bible to be true? When I became a Christian at
age 29 I thought inerrancy was baloney. I had grown up in a liberal church
that considered fundamentalists very amusing. But when I accepted Jesus
Christ as my Savior He began doing what He promised He would do: he sent
the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth -- IOW to make what Scripture
says clear to me. In the final analysis my trust in Scripture is not the
result of having done minute comparisons of what Scripture says with what
nature and history say at every point. My trust in Scripture is based on
the fact, which I can observe in my own life, that the Holy Spirit is at
work. And as that process has continued I have found that my trust in
Scripture has increased. Yes, I do read it more literally now than I used
to, but the what's important is not to read it literally so much as to
learn what the Lord wants you to learn from it.

Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)