Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 17:43:54 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: The Problem of Liberal Theology"

    Hi Jan,

    Looks like Dave was getting blamed for some my remarks in this post.

    I got an offline post that explained some of my errors to me. I
    apologize and reply as follows:

    Jan de Koning wrote:

    > > >
    > > > Some of us:
    > > >
    > > > 1.) Think that the Bible is truth (without redefining "truth")
    > That redefining of "truth" has already been done through time. It used to
    > mean "faithfulness", now the faithfulness-aspect has been watered down, and
    > becomes something else, like "according to fact" in a modern sense of
    > facts, which is not the biblical way of telling stories. However, I find
    > it awfully difficult to talk with people who have this changed way
    > ("according to fact in a modern sense") since they are usually not able, or
    > don''t have the time, or are not willing to study these subjects into the
    > necessary depth. So than I shut up. The subject of biblical truth needs a
    > lot of studying, so if people (in my church, a calvinist church) are not
    > willing to study, then I keep quiet. I will do the same on this forum. I
    > have before referred to the report to the 1991 synod of the Christian
    > Reformed Church, where my position is clearly stated in many
    > pages (published as Acts of Synod of the 1991 Synod of the Christian
    > Reformed Church.) If someone denies that Christ died for his sins, than I
    > may answer once or twice or more often depending on what is said. The
    > faithfulness of Jesus Christ in taking upon Himself the punishment for our
    > sins is basic, denying it means that the person doing so is not a Christian.

      I guess that my limited background in this area leaves me with nothing
    but common practice. I understand when a term like "religious truth" or
    or truth with some other adjective before it is used. Otherwise I tend
    to take "true" to be synonymous with fact. I'll try to overcome that but
    it really is difficult.

    > > > 2.) Do not believe in myths (without redefining the term "myth")
    > Agreed, but I think that Siemens and I have a different idea about what
    > "myth" is. Basic for a definition of "myth" is that it is a "lie" that is
    > not faithful to the God of Scriptures.

    Again, that is difficult for me for the same reasons, but I'll try to
    get in sync with this new way of speaking.

    > > > 3.) Realize that the Biblical authors were humans who could make errors
    > No, I don't think so. If that is so, than I have difficulty talking with
    > them. I do think, however, that copying and translations may bring
    >in errors.

    Well there we just disagree. But we are entitled to that I think. Even
    if the errors were introduced by other than the original writers, the
    result is the same to the reader. (I think).

    Apologies for the next 3;

    > > > 4.) Reject as not inspired by the Holy Spirit any "myths" in
    >the OT or NT
    > ??? Meaning ???
    > > > 5.) Think that our I.Q is as high, and our logic as good, as yours is.
    > No. Please, don't sound that way. That sound childish. Sorry.
    > > > 6.) Do not accept the "authority" (of so-called "scholars") as a
    > > reason to accept the beliefs of others -- such as > you, Shuan
    > >and/or George.
    > Again, that is not an argument, but just the sound of somebody that is at
    > the end of his reasoning. The only way to act then is to go back to
    > studying to see if it is the way Shuan and George say it. In general they
    > give their reasons. If they don't, ask them.
    > > > 7.) Believe that God is great enough to do anything that He wants to
    > > do in our space-time continuum.
    > All agree, but it does not help you in this particular debate.

    It does if people reject certain things as non-historical because they
    think that God would not do it that way. Maybe nobody herein does, but
    I seen many scholars who do.

    > > > 8.) Think that salvation is an individual matter and that the Lord
    > > will overcome all these problems -- despite out nutty disagrements.
    > The Lord will indeed overcome all our disagreements, but salvation is not
    > an "individual" matter. There is a community of those who are blessed and
    > are belonging to His community.

    Not sure what you are saying here. While we are community of believers,
    salvation does not get accomplished on a group basis IMO.

    The rest of the text was not mine.

    Apologies for being offensive and let me try harder in the future.


    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 17:59:37 EDT