On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:13:49 -0500 you wrote:
>SJ>"The Heb word for "subdue" in Gn 1:28 is very strong:
>"3533. kabash. kaw-bash'; a prim. root; to tread down..(Strongs)
>
>The Earth was "good" but not perfect. Man's intervention was required
>to complete God's plan. Similarly, there is no reason to limit God's
>freedom to intervene directly in developing His biological creation.
>The desire to limit God's involvement in His living creation, to only
>His immanent working via providence, stems from human philosophy,
>not the Bible.
BH>I totally agree that we cannot infer from the Genesis text that God
>created the world perfect. It was very good, but that is not the
>same as perfect.
Western gentile Christianity has imposed its own ideas on the Hebrew
text. I presume these were derived from Greek idealism.
>BH>Anyway, I would expect it [the Hebrew word translated "subdue" in
>Gen 1:28] to be strong. When God trains men, if indeed that's what
>He's doing, He doesn't pull any punches. To be a perfect training
>environment, earth would _have_ to be challenging.
>SJ>Fine, but this seems to be shifting the deinition of "perfect"? A
>perfect training environment could even be a fallen world!
BH>Good point. In much of the creation/evolution debate we throw
>terms like "good" and "perfect" around and fail to qualify them. I
>should not have used the word "perfect" above. Maybe "suitable" or
>"appropriate" would have been more appropriate.
OK. I have just received a set of audio tapes and a video by Phil
Johnson. Clear definitions are one of the key things he is calling
for. He says he refuses to answer a question with "evolution" in
it! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------