I always enjoy your posts, your biblical perspective, and your careful
analysis! Your interpretation of Paul's treatment of women's standing in
the church is interesting.
> Hello Peter,
> Thank you for reposting your recent reply some of Dick Fisher's comments. I
> somehow missed your post to Dick the first time around. I've printed a copy
> of it out for future reference, as I have also done with "Genesis
> Have you written any other articles which are available on line or for sale
> in hard copy form?
Here is a list of some more or less recent articles about creation and
evolution (if you don't read German, just ignore those):
Creation and Evolution - Sch–pfung und Evolution
P. R¸st, "How has life and its diversity been produced", PSCF 44/2 (June
1992), 80-94; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Rust.html
P. R¸st, "Die Herkunft des Lebens - Wissen und Glauben" (1994),
Dokumentation 1/94 (VBG-Verlag, Fr. 7.50), 46 S.
P. R¸st, "Spezielle und allgemeine Evolutionstheorie" (1998), in: E.
Gutsche, P.C. H”gele & H. Hafner (Hrsg.), "Zur Diskussion um Sch–pfung
und Evolution, Gesichtspunkte und Materialien zum Gespr”ch", Porta
Studien 6 (4. ver”nderte Aufl., SMD Marburg), S. 51-112);
http://www.iguw.de: P. R¸st, "Spezielle und allgemeine
Evolutionstheorie" (1998), ...doc (373 kB) oder ...txt (161 kB)
A. Held & P. R¸st, "Genesis reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999),
P. R¸st, "Das Weltall - auf den Menschen abgestimmt" (2000),
VBG-Fachaufsatz 1/00 (VBG-Verlag, Fr. 5.-), 32 S.; http://www.iguw.de:
P. R¸st, "Das Weltall - auf den Menschen abgestimmt" (2000) , ...pdf
(185 kB) , ...doc (597 kB) oder ...txt (97 kB)
A. Held & P. R¸st, "Taking Genesis as inspired", PSCF 52/3 (Sept. 2000),
P. R¸st, "Die Entstehung des Lebens und seiner Vielfalt
-naturwissenschaftliche und theologische Aspekte" (2001), MS 18 S. ("How
has life and its diversity been produced", ¸bersetzt und erweitert)
P. R¸st, "Creative providence in biology", PSCF 53/3 (Sept. 2001),
179-183; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Ruest.pdf + ...
RustFig1.jpg; ... Ruest.html
P. R¸st & A. Held, "Genesis und Evolution" (2002), MS 27 S. ("Genesis
reconsidered", ¸bersetzt und erweitert)
American Scientific Affiliation (ASA): quarterly publication:
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF); PSCF articles (since
1991) available from: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/
VBG-Verlag: Publikationen erh”ltlich im VBG-B¸ro, Postfach 2169, CH-8033
Z¸rich (Preise ohne Versand).
Institut f¸r Glaube und Wissenschaft (SMD, Postfach 5 54, D-35017
Marburg): Internet-Dokumente verf¸gbar von: www.iguw.de (Textsammlung
(Download) - Naturwissenschaft).
> Did you catch my reply to Dick concerning his claim that Genesis 1:27,28
> cannot be referring to preadamic men because, he says, preadamic men were
> meat eaters and the people referred to in Gen. 1:27-30 were not? If so, could
> I get your feedback to what I wrote? If you missed my post on that subject,
> here is a copy of it.
> Though this is off the list, please feel free to post your reply to the list
> if you think it may be of interest to others.
I have read your reply to Dick concerning the meat eating of
preadamites. Your interpretation looks convincing to me. But I must warn
you that I don't know Hebrew myself, so, apart from direct use of the
Hebrew concordance and the Interlinear Hebrew-English, I must rely
heavily on my dear friend Armin Held for that. I have sent him a copy of
your reply to Dick, asking for his opinion. So I might come back to your
> My ASA list serve post to Dick Fischer concerning Gen. 1:29,30 and preadamic
> meat eaters.
> Hello Dick,
> Regarding my contention that in Gen. 1:29 God was talking to the first group
> of men and women He had created, long before he created Adam, you wrote,
> "Early men were meat eaters. So if God was talking, they weren't listening."
> I think they were listening very closely. For I have studied the Hebrew of
> Gen. 1:29,30 and believe it has been mistranslated due to its translators
> having a strong bias towards a belief that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are both
> describing God's creation of Adam and Eve.
> We have already discussed verse 29. now let's take a look at verse 30. This
> verse reads, "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air
> and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath
> of life in it - I give every green plant for food."
> Why God would have told man what wild animals were allowed to eat? Why would
> man have had any interest in their diets? After all, man had no control over
> what they ate. Also, if this translation of verse 29 is correct, then both
> verses 29 and 30 are scientifically inaccurate. After all, neither mankind
> nor all creatures in the animal kingdom have ever been strict vegetarians.
> Anatomically, human beings appear to have been designed by God as omnivores.
> And many animals clearly appear to have been designed by God as carnivores.
> Both human and animal physiology seem to stand in clear conflict with Gen.
> 1:29 and 30, as these verses are commonly translated.
> With these things in mind, I contend that the Hebrew language in Genesis 1:30
> has been widely mistranslated, in a way that also greatly affects the meaning
> of verse 29. I believe these two verses should read as follows:
> Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole
> earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for
> food, and all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all
> the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life
> in it - I give, as every green plant, for food." And it was so.
> This variant translation only involves the removal of one word, "to," at the
> beginning of verse 30, which does not appear in the Hebrew, and the addition
> of one word, "as," toward the end of verse 30. Small words like "as" are
> often added for clarity when biblical Hebrew is translated into English, just
> as the small word "to" has long been added at the beginning of verse 30.
> However, these two tiny changes in the translation of verse 30 completely
> change the meaning of both verses 29 and 30. Instead of telling us that God
> created mankind and all animal species to be strict vegetarians, they tell us
> that God created mankind to be omnivores.
> However, this creates a problem with the traditional understanding of Genesis
> 9:1-4. If mankind had long eaten both meat and vegetables, why did God tell
> Noah after the flood that he would from then on be permitted to eat meat,
> seemingly implying that mankind was not permitted to eat meat previously? I
> believe the answer to this question can be found in a careful reading of the
> text. Such a reading reveals that Gen. 9:1-4 may not actually be saying such
> a thing. The only real change in diet that this verse may actually be
> describing is one concerning the eating of blood. I believe that before the
> flood God had allowed Noah and his family to eat meat with "its lifeblood
> still in it." (vs. 4) But after the flood God required them to bleed their
> meat before eating it. I believe this new command from God that required the
> bleeding of meat is the only dietary change referred to in Genesis 9:1-4.
> If this is true, then why would God have said that, from that time on, all
> animals would be in fear of Noah and his family? Probably because Noah and
> his family had, by necessity, been vegetarians for the year they had just
> spent on the ark, and had during that time made friends with all of the
> animals on board. Now, however, those same animals which had come to love and
> trust Noah and his family would come to fear them.
> As I recall, you pointed out in your book that evidence exists in scripture
> that people were permitted to eat meat long before the flood. This evidence
> is found in Gen. 4:4. There we read that, "Abel brought fat portions from
> some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and
> his offering." The reason God's servants in Old Testament times offered
> sacrifices to God which included "fat portions" of meat from their flocks is
> because they wanted to give God their best. And, as most of us know, cuts of
> meat that are well marbled with fat are considered to be the best cuts of
> meat. Why? Because they are far more tender and flavorful than lean cuts of
> meat. How would God's servant Able have known this if he was not a
> I do not believe Adam was a fruitarian. God had only prohibited Adam from
> eating the fruit of one tree. His doing so did not limit his diet to eating
> only the fruit on the other trees. God did not prohibit Adam from eating
> vegetables. Neither did He prohibit him from eating meat. And neither did God
> prohibit the race of preadamic men and women he spoke to in Gen. 1 from
> eating meat. In fact, I maintain that He gave them, "all the beasts of the
> earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the
> ground - everything that has the breath of life in it, as every green plant,
> for food."
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <firstname.lastname@example.org> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 12:22:40 EDT