Re: To Concord or Not to Concord

Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 19:45:13 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "Norway has peaked"

    In a message dated 6/26/03 1:37:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

    > >> 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 example.
    > 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

    I'm not sure how you misunderstood my post. I intended it to agree with all
    you have written above, and I do agree with all you have written above.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 19:45:33 EDT