On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:11:36 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>PM>Yes, the bible makes for such a great explanation of what really
>>happened <g>
>SJ>"This assumes that "the bible" *intends* to "make...a great
>explanation of what really happened." Indeed, Ramm considers that the
>Bible's lack of explanations of ["what really happened" as a mark of its
inspiration:]
This was incomplete. I have added words in square brackets to complete it.
SJ>"The Bible is singularly lacking in any definite theorizing about
>astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, zoology, and botany. These
>matters are dealt with according to popular and phenomenal firms and are
>free from scientific postulation. We cannot but agree with the judgment of
>W. B. Dawson when he wrote
PM>Of course the Bible does tell us of a Global flood or so some interpret
this.
The Bible does not say it was a "Global flood". It is just how "some
interpret" it. There is no evidence that the original writer of the Flood
source(s) was aware that the Earth was a globe.
But my point was that there was is no "definite theorizing" in the Bible. For
example, in the case of the Flood, the Bible has no "definite theorizing
about ...geology." Use of the Bible to develop a full-blown Flood geology
is going well beyond the Bible, and is therefore a "tradition of men" which
is not binding on Christians (Mk 7:7-8).
PM>Others have claimed that Genesis teaches us of the order of the
>appearance of life etc.
I don't claim "that Genesis" actually TEACHES "the order of the
appearance of life" but given the range of concepts available to the original
author in ca. 10,000-5,000 BC, and considering the nearest contemporary
Mesopotamian equivalent, Genesis 1 is *amazingly* accurate, which is
good evidence for supernatural guidance of its human author.
I would therefore defend a moderate concordism of Genesis 1:
"By moderate concordism we mean that geology and Genesis tell in broad
outline the same story. Both agree that the earth was once in what may be
called a chaotic condition. Both agree that certain cosmical conditions had
to be realized before life could begin, e.g the need for light, dry land,
separation of waters and atmosphere Both agree that the simple is first and
the complex later. Both agree that the higher animals and man were the last
to appear. The time element is not stated in the Genesis record and must be
learned from the geological record. Both agree that man is the latest and
highest of all forms of life." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science
and Scripture," 1967, reprint, p154)
PM>We should try to refrain to look to the bible for scientific
>explanations. So perhaps the story of Adam and Eve, Noah etc do not
>really mean to provide for scientific data but more a religious foundation
>to faith ?
See above. I would probably now hold the general Neo-orthodox (or Neo-
evangelical) view that the stories in Genesis 1-11, including "the story of
Adam and Eve, Noah etc" are `legends'. That is, they are based on real
events and real people, but have been expanded to teach universal
theological truths.
But while I don't believe that these stories in Genesis 1-11 are *primarily*
meant to "provide...scientific data", but are the *medium* for God's
theological *message*, it is indeed still *God's* theological message and
therefore is absolutely true in what it is *teaching*. If it came to a genuine
and irreconcilable conflict between what Genesis 1-11 was *actually
teaching* and what science claims it has discovered, then I would believe
Genesis 1-11.
But I don't anticipate any problems in this regard. If the Bible and the
`book' of nature both have the same author, then they cannot contradict
each other:
"If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that
the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to
some very positive theory of harmonization between science and
evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech
in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then
the two books of God must eventually recite the same story." (Ramm B.L.,
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 1967, p25)
>SJ>The essential message of the Flood being God's universal judgement
>of sin and His gracious deliverance of those who obey Him, has been
>obvious to the people of God down through all ages.
PM>Yep
*Amazing*. We actually *agree* on something! :-)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------