>
> For a moment there, I thought I was going to be completely ignored. Thanks
> very much for your comments.
My pleasure!
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Apologies for butting in here, but I'm glad you brought this up. It is
> >something I was thinking of mentioning, but didn't get round to. (And
> >I was a bit hesitant as I don't have any first-hand knowledge of Hebrew).
>
> Like you, I have no formal training in the Hebrew language, but I can read.
> Apparently, those who do have the formal training, as well as those within
> the churches who are in a position to guide, teach, or establish doctrine,
> choose to remain silent on this topic.
I heard this from David Pawson, who is a preacher here in the UK; he does
have training in the Hebrew language, and has had lessons from Jews. He
also studied science before training for the ministry; though I'm not sure
in what capacity (and it would be a long time ago now) but it seems he has
an interest in such matters so he probably tries to keep up as best he can!
So not all of them are silent.
> I have to wonder why, or maybe I don't really want to know the answer to
> that question.
>
> My purpose for that posting was fairly straight and simple. I wanted to see
> if I was wrong in my interpretation of Genesis. The best way I know of to
> accomplish this is to subject my beliefs to the scrutiny of individuals
> capable of correcting me if I made errors in my interpretation and
> conclusions.
> Admittedly, that's a two edged sword, honesty would require the same from
> all participants.
> As I see it, mine and everyone elses beliefs are based on certain
> understandings, interpretations,doctrines,etc. as a foundation with the
> entirety of what we believe built or based upon that foundation. If that is
> correct, then it would seem at least somewhat important that we try to be
> correct in our foundational beliefs.
I couldn't agree more - but it's not always easy of course, especially when
we find we have to amend what we believe, which is the position we have both
been in as well as some others on this list.
I think Genesis is just such a
> foundation for all of creationism. That would make Genesis a good place to
> examine carefully, perhaps even before we examine the minute details within
> the sciences.
>
> Gary said:
> >
> >I have heard it said that bara, whilst not necessarily meaning creation
> >"ex nihilo" does carry the meaning of bringing into existence something
> >new, which didn't exist before. This is used, as you say, in three
> >places - the creation of matter, of (animal) life, and of man - suggesting
> >that at each of those points God brought into existence some new quality.
> >It may be stretching things a bit far, I don't know; but I like to look
> >upon this as creation of matter, of consciousness (self-awareness) and
> >spirituality (capability of relationship with God).
> >
> >The other verb means a manipulation of something that was already there.
> >This verb is also used of animal life and man; to me this suggests that
> >at each of those creative points, God manipulated what was already there
> >and also "injected" something new.
> >
> >Thus, to me, the concept of biological evolution and the biblical framework
> >are completely compatible.
> >
> >I think this is something to which YECs need to give due consideration.
>
>
>
> You'll get very little argument from me with that.
> It seems to be so obvious, straight forward and simple, that how could it be
> missed by so many for so long, which includes myself??
Maybe because we (as "lay people" in the faith) don't have the necessary
detailed knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to analyse the texts properly, and
have to depend largely on the English texts, which, though good, wouldn't
convey all the nuances of thought in the original languages. And conversely
it is likely that those who do have the language expertise are
probably not sufficiently well informed when it comes to the scientific
aspects.
/Gary