RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Jan de Koning <>
Date: Sat Aug 21 2004 - 20:50:40 EDT

At 02:11 PM 21/08/2004 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [] On
>Behalf Of Jan de Koning
> >Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:39 PM
> >
> >
> >All the respondents so far appear to agree that Gen 1:1 is true.
> >
> >What do you consider to be "truth"? Why is Ge.1-11 in the Bible?
>Certainly not to tell us history. Since we are in the
> >middle of moving I don't have the necessary time to say more than that,
>but I am 100% sure that God did not speak to
> >people living 6000 years ago in scientific language, nor just to tell
>us how He made His world.
>GRM: This is the type of misrepresentational claptrap and nonsense which
>Peter and I have been complaining about. Listen carefully Jan: NO ONE
>Please stop saying misrepresentational nonsense. To communicate in
>scientific language God would have to talk about the big bang, the
>formation of stars, interstellar dust, molecular processes, magnetic
>fields, and general relativity, none of which appears in the record.
>What we are asking for is (listen carefully Jan) NOT SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE

Okay. Don't shout. God did not speak in a language which 20th century
historians use. That would not be understood by people of a primitive

>Historical information can be communicated
>without and scientific language. Do you get the difference? I hate to
>sound so condescending but you seem to invite it by not listening to
>what we are saying.

I know what you are saying,but you don't understand what I am saying. If
you don't understand my refutation, so be it. I am not going to discuss
this any further. I have been discussing this for about 20 years now, and
some of it is no doubt in he archives of this listing. Extensevily you can
read it in the Agenda of the synod of the CHristian Reformed Church of
1991, where we reported after being instructed by synod of 1988. My books
are packed now, so I cannot tell exactly page number.

>Please listen Jan. It is entirely frustrating to
>have such misrepresentations (which begin to appear intentional) if one
>continues to say it even when it has been refuted.

I would not try to write if I had understood it as a refutal. I don't. I
still believe that God does not lie in Scripture when He is speaking in a
language which people 600 years ago understood, and I don't think that God
is lying when scientists in the 20th and 21th century read nature.
I could write in capital letters as well, when I am not understood, but I
will not. The literature of Christians refuting what you say is large
enough, and to reach you would need more than a few sentences. Our report
had, I believe, something like 90 pages.

> > Also, I am convinced that He spoke in a language they understood,
>about concepts they understood.
>And according to those who don't think the story is true, God spun them
>a yarn worthy of the best fishing story ever told! Sure they understood
>it, just like I understand how big that fish was, but neither story is
>worth taking seriously.

Since you do not understand me, and only repeat what you said before, which
shows that you don't understand me, I stop. Your last sentence is insulting
God in my opinion.

Jan de Koning
Received on Sat Aug 21 21:22:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 21 2004 - 21:22:49 EDT