- Aug 15, 2014Chuck, you are right that Changing Earth is based on a different translation of the Hebrew creation and Earth history texts.
I do indeed, use verb tenses to translate a language that had no tenses, because that is how we communicate, with a fundamental concept of time (verb tenses). However, I try to place helper words such as "continues" or "continues in unbroken continuity" to show the grammatical statements of the Hebrew. For example, God continues to command light to continue to be rather than the Catholic ex nihilo translation that he merely said once, let there be light.
Hermeneutics means accepting the text in its grammatical and cultural context. It is not legitimate to force the text to fit the western concept of time, a philosophy that had not even been invented when Moses and the prophets wrote.
Cultural context, does involve contemporary literature (especially in the areas of earth history) to show how the ancients would have understood the text.
For example, every ancient society that left records (even those who passed down verbal accounts) focused on the shattering of a planet about 4500 years ago. The pagans interpreted this as wars among the planet gods. The Bible prohibits the worship of planet gods in the strongest terms. Yet it records similar stories as the pagans for a day when the Sun and Moon remained in the sky, a close planet passage that affected a battle on Earth and the crushing of a great watery planet. We should accept the text as a contemporary would, not tailor it to fit the western way of thinking.
The Catholics adjusted the Bible for hundreds of years to make every part of it fit their philosophy about time. For example, they changed the text for plural eons to "worlds" in Hebrews 11:3. Western traditions are powerful. They can affect even fundamental preachers who teach salvation by faith alone in the death of Jesus for sins. I read a sermon by a great fundamentalist who is an expert in Greek and has taught for decades. He reverted to the Catholic traditions and said it was the worlds that God commanded to appear from things not seen (implying ex nihilo creation) even though the Greek agrees with the Hebrew. The Hebrew uses imperfect verbs for God continuing to form the stars and continuing to make them into things that spread (noun raqiya).
God commanded the plural eons to passively be fitted out, arranged, formed - appearing (shining forth - blepo) from things not seen. Please examine the history of how the galaxies formed. Billions of galaxies grew from point sources, things not seen as the eons passively formed. The atomic clocks and the star stream orbits in billions of galaxies (at many ranges) continues to accelerate as billions fo galaxies grew out from what is not seen, the unformed matter God created on the first day.
To get a biblical world view.1. One must abandon the Dominican metaphysic upon which science was contrived - why because the Bible predicted it and exposes it as a false idea.
2. One must take the Bible literally in the areas of change. When it says the creation is enslaved to cahnge that is an orderly submission and acts together (relationally) we must accept that rather than the metaphysics of the medieval scholastics.
3. One should question the definitions, measuring methods and mathematical formulas that were historically contrived on the assumption the Bible predicted for the last days. The western concept of time is not only at odds with the biblical text, but with the way orbits accelerate outward in countless spiral galaxies.
Changing Earth Creationists expect that God will get great glory when his justice will be revealed, when he reduces science to folly, a system that was built on the very idea the Bible predicted for the last days.
I am sorry, but there is no way to have it both ways. You cannot have the literal text of the Bible and science both be right. I vote for the actual text, not amalgums.
Victor, Changing Earth Creationist
- Next post in topic >>