Re: Inerrancy

Jan de Koning (
05 Jun 96 22:13:25 EDT

In answer to Glenn's remark, that there must be some thing "true" in the
stories told. Of course there is. However, in my opinion, Glenn is using a
20th century scientific definition of "true" when reading Genesis. That is not
the concept of "true" the original listeners of the story had. They were not
scientists, nor were they 20th century people, who are used to another
definition of "true". I think it is an unbiblical definition, as I tried to
explain yesterday. I know God is faithful, as He showed me in my life several
times. Thus when I read in Romans that sin came through one man, Adam, I
believe it as a child, not in a scientific way. That is not a dualistic
approach. It simply means reading the Bible as it should be read, just read
what the Lord said about becoming a child, Mat.18:2-4. That means among other
things, that we do not always have to act as if we know everything. Besides, we
know only partly here, later we will know more: 1Cor.13:9-12.

Also, I know that all mankind is sinful, totally depraved. I believe
1Cor.15:22: ". . . in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
I know that I was there when Adam sinned, but that because of Christ I am saved,
and will be with Him on the new earth. See as well Romans 8:18- 23. Much of
the richness of the Bible disappears when we try to fit things in our scientific
categories. I am sure on the new earth we will all know how things were, and if
not, we will still be perfectly happy.

The trouble I have with much of the discussion about dating "The image of
God" is that we try to read something into the Bible which is foreign to the
climate of the Bible, especially to the climate of Genesis. The beginning of
Genesis is written for a people, which lived among Sun and Moon worshippers.
Now God comes and tells them: neither sun nor moon is god, I created them, "I
am" the Creator of everything. Let us hold on to that. That we as a scientists
(not me, it is outside my field) want to study remains of men and/or possible
ancestors of men is a scientific business, which is done in God's service. From
my experiences since highschool and at the university, it is very, very
dangerous to try to read "scientific" data out of the bible, especially out of
Genesis 1-11. The type of literature is different from a historical text, as is
already clear from the order of creating in Gen.1. If you want to read it
literally, it is easy to point to contradictions between Gen.1 and 2. If
treated as a "historical" text in talking with students, you do more harm than
good, especially if they are taught by completely secular, unbelieving
scientists, at a secular university.

Jan de Koning