Re: To Concord or Not to Concord

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 16:35:18 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Concordist sequence--why be a concordist? (off list)"

    >In reply to Paul:

    I disagree . There are OT scholars going back to the original Hebrew, who
    realize that God was talking to a people which had no scientific
    understanding in the modern sense. God talked to them in a way they
    understood, not in modern scientific language. The first 11 chapters of
    Genesis are by many bible-believing scholars understood as God talking to a
    people which did not yet have a scientific understanding of geology, but
    they needed to know that they were as a people deviating from God's
    will. Even in the 19th century already: in Holland Kuyper, Bavinck for
    The bible talks more often in that way. Take the "parables" of
    Jesus. They are true, but not in a modern scientific sense.
    Lest you doubt my orthodoxy: I believe that the Bible is the Word of
    God. I believe that Jesus died for my sin.
    But also: I believe that none of us reads the Bible as we should, since we
    are all sinners.
    And: God is not lying to us when he shows His powers in nature, nor when
    He is talking to a people which had not studied modern science. He wants
    to be understood, though.He always speaks (in nature as well) to be understood.

    Jan de Koning

    >The consensus of modern OT scholars, who are certainly going back to the
    >original Hebrew and are interpreting the text in the light of its ancient
    >Near Eastern background, is that the "misconceptions" which you speak of
    >represent the original meaning of the biblical text, albeit the globe per
    >se was not in view. Nevertheless, Adam is the first human being, the flood
    >destroyed all mankind in a cosmic event that leaves no place for anyone
    >escaping, and therefore all languages were one after the Flood until the
    >events at the Tower of Babel. It is not the translations which are causing
    >the problem of a lack of concord with modern science, but the Bible itself
    >when viewed as a revelation of history and science. The real problem is
    >the apriori extra-biblical philosophical assumption that a divine
    >revelation could not be couched in terms of the science of the times. The
    >Bible does not claim to be a revelation of history and science. It only
    >claims authority for spiritual matters (2Tim 3:16).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 16:30:51 EDT