Woensdag, 25 Augustus 2010 21:02
Aanhalings in die Indeks vir nog aanhalings.
Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis? (Bevat 'n lys van aanhalings van verskillende teoloë)
Debat oor ouderdom van aarde 2014
2013 McDonald Lecture Series (veral "The Creation Record: Is it Poetry?")
Prof James Barr
(Glo self nie dat Genesis 1 tot 11 letterlik gebeur het nie)
[Professor James Barr, Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures at Oxford University. Personal letter to David C. C. Watson, 23 April 1984 (kyk Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?)
Bible authors believed Genesis to be history and they rejected myths and ‘cleverly invented stories’ (2 Peter 1:16). Eminent early exegetes like Josephus, medieval Jewish scholars, church fathers like Basil the Great, Reformers like Luther and Calvin, also all understood it to be historical. C.S. Lewis had strong words to say about modernists writing thousands of years later and far removed from the cultural context, yet claiming to understand the text better that those living much closer to the time and culture of the writings. He also came to reject evolution.
Bybelskrywers het geglo dat Genesis geskiedenis was en hulle het mites en "slim uitgedinkte stories" (2 Petrus 1:16) verwerp. Vooraanstaande vroeë eksegete soos Josephus, Middeleeuse Joodse geleerdes, kerkvaders soos Basil die Grote, Hervormers soos Luther en Calvyn, het dit ook as histories verstaan. CS Lewis het sterk woorde oor moderniste gehad wat duisende jare later en ver verwyder van die kulturele konteks geskryf het, maar beweer om die teks beter te verstaan as diegene wat veel nader aan die tyd en kultuur van die geskrifte was. Hy het ook evolusie verwerp.
[Uit Genesis: Myth or History?]
Pattle P. T. Pun
('n Christen, maar glo nie self dat Genesis 1 tot 11 letterlik gebeur het nie, heel moontlik oor sy wetenskaplike opleiding: Ph.D. Biologie, State University van New York by Buffalo, 1974 | M.A. Biologie, State University van New York by Buffalo, 1972 | M.A. Teologie, Wheaton College, 1985 | B.S. Chemie, San Diego State University, 1969)
“It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered, the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.“
Dit is duidelik dat die mees eenvoudige verstaan van die Genesis verhaal, sonder inagneming van al die hermeneutiese oorwegings voorgestel deur die wetenskap, is dat God die hemel en die aarde in ses son dae [24-uur] geskep het, dat die mens op die sesde dag geskape is, dat die dood en chaos in die wêreld gekom het ná die sondeval van Adam en Eva, dat al die fossiele as gevolg was van die katastrofiese universele vloed, wat net Noag se familie en die diere saam met hulle gespaar is.
[Pattle P. T. Pun, “A Theology of Progressive Creationism”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 39, No. 1, March 1987]
Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was 'n sistematiese teoloog by Princeton Seminarium, wat baie boeke en artikels geskryf het wat die waarhede van die Christendom, insluitende die Bybelse onfeilbaarheid verdedig het. Maar hy het verval die gewone betekenis van Genesis te verwerp as gevolg van beweerde geologiese feite, wat werklik gelykmatige ("uniformitarian") interpretasies van die feite is.
“It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with the facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other.“
Dit word natuurlik erken dat as hierdie weergawe op sigself beskou word, is die mees natuurlike verstaan van die woord [dag], in sy gewone sin [dus 24-uur]; maar as hierdie siening die Mosaïese weergawe in konflik met die feite bring, en 'n ander siening sodanige konflik vermy, dan is ons verplig om die ander aan te neem.
(Met ander woorde: As die argeologie (wat historiese wetenskap is) teenstrydig is met die Bybel, dan is ons verplig om die wetenskap te glo en die Bybel te verwerp.)
[Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge, p. 571. Uit Charles Hodge rejected natural sense of Genesis because of ‘science’]
Die “feite” verander egter gedurig, maar ten spyte daarvan glo sommige Christene eerder die “feite” as die Bybel. Kyk ook The slippery slide to unbelief.
(Glo aan miljoene jare, maar weet nie hoe om die Bybel daarmee te versoen nie)
Dr James Montgomery Boice (pastoor en Bybel-geleerde) het teïstiese evolusie verwerp, maar hy het ook die Vloed as die oorsaak van die meeste van die fossielrekord verwerp. Hy het bedenkinge oor die gapingsteorie gehad en het probleme gesien met die dag-ouderdom en raamwerk hipotese. So, hy was nie seker hoe om die Bybel te harmoniseer met miljoene jare nie. Hy het gesê:
“…We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong… In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists… Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and an even older universe…”
... Ons moet hier erken dat die eksegetiese basis van die kreasioniste sterk is ... Ten spyte van die versigtig Bybelse en wetenskaplike navorsing wat opgestapel het ter ondersteuning van die kreasioniste se siening, is daar probleme wat die teorie verkeerd maak vir die meeste (insluitend baie evangeliese) wetenskaplikes ... Data uit verskeie dissiplines dui op 'n baie ou aarde en 'n nog ouer heelal ...
(Met ander woorde: Alhoewel skeppingsleerders reg is deur Genesis 1 tot 11 letterlik te verstaan, is dit teenstrydig met die (historiese) wetenskap wat op 'n ouer aarde en heelal dui.)
[James Boice, Pastor, Genesis, An Expositional Commentary, Vol 1, p. 57 – 62. Uit
Are (biblical) creationists ‘cornered’?—a response to Dr J.P. Moreland]
Hugh Ross vs Jesus
“If the time since the creation of the universe were scaled down to a single year, the whole of human history would be less than one minute.” – Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, p178 [Hugh Ross on Suffering]
“But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” – Jesus Christus, Markus 10:6 [Bybel]
[Uit: Creation and Time: A Biblical and scientific perspective on the creation date controversy]
“…The battle line has been drawn over a peripheral point – the age of the universe and our earth.” (p8)
(Die vraag wat egter die meeste gevra word deur skeptici is: Is God ’n God van liefde as Hy deur evolusie geskep het?)
[Uit Creation Magazine Live, Episode 9: Progressive creation, preposterous compromise]
In Martin Luther’s day, some of the church fathers were saying that God created everything in only one day or in an instant. Martin Luther wrote: “When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you want only to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.” (Uit Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?)
('n Christen apologeet wat die Bybel met evolusie probeer versoen. Kyk ook Christian Muslim Debates - Jamal Badawi, Hussain Morsi V.S. Gleason Archer, Anis Shorrosh.)
Dr Gleason Archer (Ou Testament professor), 'n stoere verdediger van die integriteit en die historisiteit van die Skrif, tog is hy 'n voorstander van die siening dat die dae in Genesis 1, lang tydperke is eerder as 24-uur dae:
“From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author . . . this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.”
Uit 'n oppervlakkige lees van Genesis 1, sou die indruk blyk te wees dat die hele skeppingsproses plaasgevind het in ses 24-uur dae. As dit die ware bedoeling van die Hebreeuse skrywer was ... dit blyk in stryd te wees met moderne wetenskaplike navorsing, wat daarop dui dat die planeet Aarde 'n paar miljard jaar gelede geskep is.
[Uit ‘Progressive creationist’ Gleason Archer on the obvious meaning of Genesis.]
(Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, Fellow of Harris Manchester College)
It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.
[Uit The Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.]
William D. Barrick, Th.D. sê die volgende in 2013 MacDonald Lectures, Lecture 1:
This is a recent commentary written by Reno in the Brachial theological commentaries series. It’s a theological commentary. It is not an exegetical commentary, it is not a devotional commentary, it is purposely written to deal with theological issues and it is not a commentary that I would necessarily recommend because it has the widest range of use you could possibly find and some of them very, very questionable and given total freedom and then when you go in and find out that not every passage is being talked about or covered anyway but I found it fascinating that Reno said this:
“How we treat the beginning is so fundamental to our overall interpretation of the Bible that reasons for any particular translation are almost coextensive with the articulation of a comprehensive, biblically sensitive theology.”
— R. R. Reno, Genesis, Brazos Theological Commentary, 32
Now he is talking about translation, he is talking about the use of theology. He is saying: ‘How we treat the beginning of the Bible, how we treat the beginning of human history, how we treat the beginning of world history and the history of this earth as a planet has a great bearing on what we do with the remainder.
Kyk ook www.ligonier.org.
Hy assosieer homself egter nie met skeppingsleerders nie (hoe dit sin kan maak moet jy self oor besluit).
One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
'n Mens moet 'n klomp hermeneutiese gimnastiek doen om die gewone betekenis van Genesis 1-2 te ontken. Die belydenis maak dit 'n punt van geloof dat God die wêreld in die bestek van ses dae geskep het.
[Kyk Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind vir meer.]
Laat ons dan weet dat die die natuurlike en ooglopende betekenis (van 'n teks) die ware betekenis van die Skrif weergee. Laat ons dit doelgerig omhels en daarby hou. Laat ons enige valse uiteensettings nie net as twyfelagtig afmaak nie, maar laat ons dit met beslistheid tersyde stel as dodelike korrupsie wat ons weglei van die natuurlike betekenis (van die teks).
[Uit Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galations, hoofstuk IV. Calvyn het hierdie dus oor Galasiërs gesê, maar as dit konsekwent toegepas word vir die res van die Bybel, moet 'n mens tot die gevolgtrekking kom dat Genesis 1 ook letterlik gelees moet word, dus dat God in 6x24-uur dae geskape het.]
If you acted thus with Genesis you are not facing up to the facts, and that is a cowardly thing for Evangelicals to do. Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job– and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis. So the claim that Genesis 1 is poetry is no solution to the question. The man who says, “I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account,” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry.” That latter has nothing to commend it at all. I disagree with the first man, but he is a better exegete, he is a better interpreter, because he is facing up to the facts. So I conclude that Evangelicals who want to hold to evolution as the unbeliever holds to it, and to get over the difficulties by saying that Genesis is to be interpreted as poetry or myth and not in a factual manner, cannot in my view, be honest interpreters.
[Uit E. J. Young, In the Beginning: Genesis 1-3 and the Authority of Scripture (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976), 18-19.]