tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post6398378913761569805..comments2023-06-30T07:29:20.232-07:00Comments on Life in the Universe: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-88790345869137025582013-04-05T09:04:52.943-07:002013-04-05T09:04:52.943-07:00Dankie, Willie. Vir my kom dit daarop neer : God h...Dankie, Willie. Vir my kom dit daarop neer : God het soewerein geskep - dis 'n vaste waarheid! Wat die hoe (die proses) betref is dit deel van ons kultuuropdrag om dit via die wetenskap, maar altyd in onderdanigheid aan die Woord na te vors, al besef ons dat al ons wetenskaplike insigte tydelik en voorlopig is. JI Packer het vir my lig gebring deur die analogie met reën. Reën word deur God gegee, maar ons weet al heelwat van die prosesse wat daarby betrokke is. Die feit dat God dit skenk, maar dat oorsaaklike fisiese prosesse aangetoon kan word, bots hoegenaamd nie!<br /><br />groetnisJohannes de Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11864623542782281544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-86609349870348113322013-04-04T23:25:32.229-07:002013-04-04T23:25:32.229-07:00Johannes, dis sommer baie goed om jou stem daar ui...Johannes, dis sommer baie goed om jou stem daar uit die noorde te hoor! Ek het onlangs 'n boek oor hul siening gelees, The Language of Science and Faith (2011), deur Karl W. Giberson en Francis S Collins. Giberson is 'n prof in fisika en Collins is 'n wêreldbekende genetikus wat bekend is vir sy rol in die Menslike Geen Projek. Ek het onlangs op Stellenbosch na Dr. Lennox gaan luister en hyt nogal na Collins verwys om te toon dat daar prominente wetenskaplikes is wat Christene is (nogal in Biologie). <br /><br />Wat my siening betref, is ek nie oortuig dat Neo-Darwinistiese evolusie 'n finale model is nie. Ek sien 'n sekere problematiek in soverre dit die proses van evolusie grotendeels as willekeurig beskryf terwyl ek glo dat God 'n planmatigheid in die skepping daargestel het wat uiteindelik in enige teorie sal beslag kry. So ek dink daar sal mettertyd beter insigte kom wat die teorie in daardie opsig sal aanpas (soos ek dit sien, veral tov die invloed van gravitasie wat uiters subtiele prosesse behels). Vir Biologos is dit genoegsaam dat dit die huidige aanvaarde model is en hulle versoen dus hul geloof daarmee. Ek aanvaar dit as 'n sinvolle opsie vir Christene maar ekself sien 'n konflik met God se skeppingsorde - dit lyk bykans na 'n proses sonder God. As 'n mens Richard Dawkins lees, wat seker nie 'n goeie woordvoerder is vir evolusie nie vanweë sy fanatiese ateïsme, kry jy ook daardie indruk, maar ter selfter tyd besef jy dat daar in effek geen bekende meganisme is wat evolusie rigting gee om na groter orde te beweeg nie. Dawkins se (Genoeg) Tyd (wat in effek die rol van God oorneem) sal dit gewoon nie doen nie. So ek onderskryf dus nie hulle siening nie.<br /><br />Soos ek in die artikel noem sluit dit natuurlik nie theïstiese evolusie uit nie - wat gewoon beteken dat 'n proses van evolusie aanvaar word maar nie die Neo-Darwinistiese model nie. Dit laat gewoon die meganisme wat evolusie dryf (ie die ontvouing van een spesie in 'n ander) oop en sien God se hand in die ontvouing van orde deur evolusie. Dit sluit ook nie Goddelike ingrype in daardie proses uit nie. En dit gee 'n sinvolle antwoord aan die biologie kant wat by die Groot Knal inpas. Ek onderskryf wel die Groot Knal omdat daardie teorie baie goed deur bewyse onderlê word. As fisikus is ek natuurlik goed met die argumente daaromtrent bekend. En soos ek toon, is dit gemaklik met die Genesis 1 narratief versoenbaar.Willie Mc Loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-40770293863995522022013-04-04T08:08:08.058-07:002013-04-04T08:08:08.058-07:00Agree, but warm evangelical and balanced Biblical ...Agree, but warm evangelical and balanced Biblical Calvinism is certainly not forcing man's views on the text! :-)<br /><br />Johannes de Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11864623542782281544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-85937587920232947472013-04-04T08:02:38.681-07:002013-04-04T08:02:38.681-07:00Goeie artikel, Willie. Ek sou graag wou weet wat j...Goeie artikel, Willie. Ek sou graag wou weet wat jou opinie is oor die Biologos Foundation se sienings?<br /><br /><br />groete uit Tsumeb<br />JohannesJohannes de Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11864623542782281544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-40406924832182330352013-03-21T09:19:44.127-07:002013-03-21T09:19:44.127-07:00I really like Willie's comments 'Let's...I really like Willie's comments 'Let's keep to the text... not force our interpretation on the text.' <br />In re-visiting my eschatology recently after 4 decades in the pastorate, I again saw how damaging it is when people impose a system on the Bible, e.g. the popular dispensationalist/premillenial 'secret rapture' theory, which simply cannot stand the test of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. <br />You can do the same thing with Calvinism, even though some aspects of Reformed theology have enriched my life over the years. <br />Hence I have always preferred 'biblical theology' over 'systematic theology.' <br /><br />Christian greetings! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-27228932507509081542013-03-18T22:49:38.124-07:002013-03-18T22:49:38.124-07:00Brand, dankie vir die terugvoer. Ek beplan artikel...Brand, dankie vir die terugvoer. Ek beplan artikels oor hierdie onderwerpe as deel van die reeks oor die Boek Genesis. Die volgende artikel in die reeks sal DV op Adam fokus. Groete.Willie Mc Loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-58452786488380230112013-03-18T00:51:13.377-07:002013-03-18T00:51:13.377-07:00Dankie vir die interpretasie, ek is 'n aanhang...Dankie vir die interpretasie, ek is 'n aanhanger van die 'ou aarde' interpretasie maar was nie bewus van die Sumeriese invloede op die denke van die skrywers nie. Baie interessant.<br /><br />Nog 'n deel van Genesis wat vir my problematies is om te interpreteer en wat bitter min aandag kry is die geskiedenis van mense - Adam, Eva en daarna, Noag en sy familie en daarna. In Genesis 1 word daar genoem hoe die eerste mens geskep word, maar in Genesis 4 vlug Kain na 'n ander land waar hy skielik 'n ander vrou kry (nog 'n rede hoekom die jong aarde interpretasie nie werk nie, want volgens hierdie siening was dit sy suster!) Hoe het die ou Hebreërs hierdie gaping tussen die skepping van mense en terselfdertyd gevestigde stede oorbrug in hul denke? Sal baie interessant wees om 'n opstel daaroor te lees...<br />Groete<br />BrandAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875176014859993790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-49431660035356247492013-03-17T07:53:56.454-07:002013-03-17T07:53:56.454-07:00Louis Ackerman, thanx for your comment. From your ...Louis Ackerman, thanx for your comment. From your reaction I assume that you support the idea of a young earth. Now, I understand that you think that your interpretation is exactly what God intended ("not fallible man's interpretations"), but I cannot see how you can think that you have access to God's mind in a way that I, who am also a believer, do not have. Let's face it: we both interpret Scripture. So, the question is: what is good interpretation? It is definitely not when one have to propose all sorts of strange things like some "original light" that was "disembodied and diffused", which caused day and night. This is definitely not in the text. You try to reconstruct the narrative in such a way as to suit your interpretation. In the process you "rewrite" the whole narrative! Your hypothetical "light" that would allow for "evening and morning" seems to me a very unlikely proposal since these expressions are specified only for the sun as we know it. And the sun appeared only on the fourth day!!! And viewing that light as God's light does not work either: In God's light there is no solar days or "night" (Rev. 21:23-25). Let's keep to the text. Let's interpret it in such a way that makes sense for the readers - I assume this is why God speaks in human language (so to speak, when we talk about divine inspiration) ie that we can use the information in the text to gain a sensible understanding of the text. And such an interpretation is not that God created the earth in six solar days about six thousand years ago. We should listen to the voice in the text - not force our interpretation onto the text. Willie Mc Loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-49276132054734116622013-03-16T06:15:30.390-07:002013-03-16T06:15:30.390-07:00Willie. Just a few observations you're not awa...Willie. Just a few observations you're not aware of. As we saw on day 1, God had already created light and separated the light from the darkness. Where did that original light come from and what form was it in? We do not know because Scripture does not say. But from an earthly perspective it seems to have been an exact parallel to sunlight, separating day from night with a rhythm that continued after day 4 and was then measured from an earthly perspective by the rising and setting of the sun. The original light was most likely a disembodied and diffused light of some kind. It might have been a pure display of divine glory, much like the light that will shine in New Jerusalem, described in Rev. 21:23. "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon in it, for the glory of God illuminated it." In any case, it source was very clearly God, the Father of lights and the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). We stand on the Word of the One (and not fallible man's interpretations) who was there from the beginning, who said: " But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them..." (Ex. 29:11). There we have the beginning of history (the 6 days of creation) and that includes all God's creative acts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10816639731357283737noreply@blogger.com