On other topic, one thing I did was to ask a Christian Jewish Rabbi (traces
his bloodline to the tribe of Levi) if the way the Genesis text, as is
composed in Hebrew, left room to interpret it as if Adam was the first
spiritual being that evolved. Here is the question as I wrote it to him:
> Does The Scriptures, as written in Hebrew, give a clear and concise view
of God
> forming Adam from the dust of the earth or do they leave room to
interpret Adam as
> the first spiritual human that evolved ?
This was his answer:
> Dear Dario,
>
> The text you refer to is Genesis 2:7 and in no way teaches Adam
> evolved spiritually or physically. The Hebrew says that from lifeless
> clay God formed the man and breathed into him life. Adam was a direct
> special creation from God formed from the ground of the earth. The
> Hebrew word is adamah and is a play on words with Adam in the Hebrew.
> Adam did not evolve over a long period of time. God created him on
> the sixth day (Genesis 1:27-31). This has been the standard meaning
> accepted by the ancient rabbis of Judaism and Bible-believing
> Christians for several millennia. Theistic evolution is nowhere found
> in Scripture and is completely antithetical to the biblical model of
> creation.
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:53:34 -0600 post:
> snip...
> I would bet that you beleive that the story of Noah represents a
historical event, and
> thus in your opinion the Bible matches your historical expecations.
Would you
> consider the Bible false if there was no global flood?
Yes on the first question. And the more archeologists dig up Israel, the
more they rely on the Scriptural record and this builds my faith of the
accuracy of Scripture. My historical expectations are what I read in the OT.
On the second question, if there was no global flood we have that the Gen.
6, 7, 8, 9, 11(tower of Babel), Heb. 11:7, 1Pet. 3:18-22 and 2Pet. 2:4-11
make no sense.
Why would God come and break humans' communications and scattered them ?
Scattered for what purpose ? The planet had human beings living elsewhere
and having a community in Sinar that spoke the same language would have no
impact.
If every time one reads in the Scriptures earth or whole earth, and it
means only a local area and not the planet, then translators, interpreters
and theologians throughout the ages have been wrong. ('If the foundations
be removed, what will the righteous do ?').
If the hebrew word is used to describe local land and not the planet, the
meaning changes completely. For example:
Isaiah 54:9 '...for I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer
cover the
earth...'
'...for I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no
longer cover the land...'
The first translation has a global tone while the second is only local.
Not quite the same. Specially when The Lord is in the middle of one of His
great promises of everlasting kindness and the implication here is that
doesn't matter where you are, He'll be there with you.
No lets see another portion of Scripture where the word land is used
instead of earth:
Ez. 14:13-14 'Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent
unfaithfulness..."
'Son of man, when the earth sins against Me by
persistent unfaithfulness"
By the context that follows (and BTW mentions Noah), one can clearly see
that the
word earth or whole earth won't be appropiate.
If the flood was only local, why the need for specimens of clean animals ?
After all, just jump to the other valley and you'll find some more. Why
was Noah instructed to build the ark, if going to another region will spare
his life; like in the case of Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah. Why wait 80
years while the ark is being built ? Why the need of the rainbow as the
symbol of the Noahic covenant ?
The ramifications go far beyond that one may think.
At this point I will like to say that I read mainly the Spanish version of
The Bible, as translated by Casiodoro de la Reina. This Bible was first
published in Switzerland in September of 1569 (1100 copies). Although it
had several 'modernizations' through the past 400 years, one could read the
original today and still understand over 90% of it. This allows me to
double check every concept and idea between English and Spanish.
Although I don't find any main doctrinal differences, there are some verses
that really don't come up the same, specially with those versions that
incorporate slang. The Vulgata (Jerome's translation to Latin) was
rejected by Reina for being filled with errors and inaccuracies from both
the Hebrew and Greek translation. Moreover, Jerome had some wild ideas
regarding redemption through blood and he passed his ideas in his work.
Lastly, the Biblical God is a being that gave some very precise
instructions on things He wanted. Will He be any less precise in the
narration of His story ? Will He allow
a wrong teaching to be passed through 5000 years without any correction ?
Specially with Jesus showing up around 2000 years ago. He never criticized
the Scribes and Pharisees for not knowing the Scriptures. His criticism
was that while they knew the Scriptures forward and backwards (literally)
they didn't followed them completely. Only a piece here or a bit there.
Whatever was convenient for them at the moment.
Moreover Jesus confirmed several times that The Scriptures were something
to be
believed and trusted completely. He challenged His opponents and
encouraged His followers to read the Scriptural record.
> snip...
> ... I know science and lots of it.
I don't have any doubt of the truth in this statement. You won't find me
challenging you scientific knowledge. Will you call yourself a scientist ?
>You presented an argument for an age of the earth based upon the assumption
>of a half a percent growth rate of the human population each year. You
>presented what you thought were observational facts to try to convince me
>and the lurkers that the young-earth/global flood position is correct.
What is the average human population growth for the last 5000 years ?
There have been ups and downs, but one can come up with an average. This
was the average I was reffering to. My point was the current global human
population. Could it have come from four couples during the last 5000-6000
years? Old earth vs. New Earth that is another topic in itself.
>>
>Denis would agree. But he probably wouldn't agree with your hermeneutics
>either.
>
I will love to one day read his point of view. We'll see. Maybe in Heaven
we can spend a couple of thousand years exchanging ideas.
>
Anyway, thanks for your replys and again excuse me for being caustic in my
writings.
Grace still working on me and hope to do better as time goes by.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington