Re: Thorough Humiliation of Bible "scholars"

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 12:40:42 EDT

  • Next message: Stuart d Kirkley: "Re: Celebrating Creation.II"

    Rather than exactly agreeing with Jim (see below) I would like to say, that
    the OT was written on the basis what the OT philosophy of life was, in
    order that believers at that time could understand what the Lord did and
    The OT is translated into English by scholars who live in modern times and
    look at the world the way they learned at school. Consequently words like
    "nephesh" are sometimes translated as "living being" (Gen.1), sometimes as
    "soul" (Gen.2, not in every translation, again depending on the philosophy
    of life of the translator.) "ruach" is sometimes translated as "wind"
    (Gen.) sometimes as "heart" in Proverbs. Etc. Is the modern translation
    always right, if it depends on a philosophy which we (at least partially)
    inherited from pagan Greeks?
    However, it is important to realize that translations are human work, thus
    not infallible. And that OT people did not have the scientific knowledge
    we have, and that will be shown to fall short of God's reality.

    Jan de K.

    At 07:27 PM 24/10/2002 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:
    >Jan writes
    > >Our conclusion was that Gen. chapters 1 - 11,
    > >were not history in the modern sense of the word
    >You know what, Jan. I agree with you now. Conservatives (as I
    >used to be) get upset with liberals because of what seems to be
    >logical inconsistencies. Ex 20:11 is a case in point. Did God
    >really tell Moses that he created the heavens and earth in 6 days?
    >Any person reading Gen 1 without scientific considerations would be
    >certain that is what the text is claiming.
    >Hugh Ross says that we are living in a post-Christian world. And,
    >it's not hard to see why.
    >YEC is a very ugly reality. I can't defend day-age any more.
    >That leaves you with an OT that only reflects the views of the writers.
    >Why on earth would we think it is inspired by God? It fits the
    >definition of mythology, exaggeration and ignorance far better.
    >A lot less trusting these days,
    >Jim Eisele
    >Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 18:51:50 EDT