Re: George's reply to Howard

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 20:36:19 EST

  • Next message: robert rogland: "Re: George's reply to Howard"

    At 06:52 PM 09/12/2002 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:

    >My point was that you can't take the words at face value. We all
    >(except the in-denial YECs) accept that. To me, the next logical
    >question is "what about the New Testament?" Are these more historically
    >inaccurate "stories" to "make a theological point?" Did Jesus raise from
    >the dead "in a spiritual sense?" If we can destroy the meaning of words
    >in the OT, it is only intellectually honest to challenge the NT as well.
    >Jim Eisele
    >Genesis in Question

    "face value" is a modern expression. I still believe that we have to be
    careful with expressions like that. There is a great difference between
    Gen.1-11 written in ancient Hebrew to get the introduction to the books of
    Moses, following a tradition of discussing in ancient Palestine, and the
    telling of Jesus'life and the actions of the young church written in a more
    modern language which we know from secular writings as well. Though even
    there you have to watch that you do not read modern meanings in certain

    Also, certain words in the OT are translated differently into English
    depending on the way the translators think. For example "ruach" in the OT
    and "pneuma" in the NT, resulting in different translations.
    Or, "nephesh" and its derivations. For example: in Gen.1 for animals
    translated as "living being" and in Gen.2 for men as "soul" in some
    translations. (In the NIV in both places "living being"). Sentences have
    to be made understandable in our modern times with the danger that in many
    cases our modern understanding is hampering a proper translation.
    BTW I am somewhat hesitant about mentioning these things, since it can
    easily develop in a long, unending discussion. It is more a subject for a
    full course than for a conversation, even when both sides are thoroughly
    versed in the subject. The only reason I react is, because I find the
    expression "historically inaccurate" dangerous and objectionable when we
    talk about the Bible. I believe that the Bible is "true", but that we come
    to it with a lot of insights we want to use in explaining things we do not
    understand. I believe that the Bible is clear in the NT about the
    necessity that our Lord Jesus had to die to make (eternal)life for us
    possible. I believe as well that at that time and even now "miracles"
    happen, though I am sceptical when they are widely advertized.

    Jan de Koning

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 01:03:37 EST