Question for the theistic evolutionists on this board

Dr. Northrup is respected by Bible translators around the world. He taught Hebrew for years. He is an expert.

It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement, Elena. It is a matter of the fact that he is an expert. I prefer to talk to people who are experienced in their fields and do know what they are talking about. That is his field and I appreciate his knowledge and expertise, as do the many others who know him.

Joshua, I don't care how many agree or disagree with him! Truth is not the province of the majority. You are acquainted with liberal scholars of the rather extreme sort from what I can tell of your material. Dr. Northrup is not handicapped by that. He is, as I said, quite respected in his field.

And yes, it is important to know the more ancient Hebrew as well as the modern Hebrew. Part of what has happened is that when the Masoretic was translated, about 100 A.D., the vowel points were all omitted. They were not even included for several hundred years! Then they were put in on the basis of traditional understanding.

So it really is very necessary to have the education, knowledge, and expertise to go back a bit further, which Dr. Northrup has done.

In short, again, Genesis 1 and 2 are not is disagreement with each other.

 

Are you a Hebrew or Greek scholar?

 

In other words, Helen, you like using experts; but only ones who agree with you.

If you can find one Hebrew scholar at one Ivy League university who agrees with you, I'll be surprised.

It's a plain old Qal perfect verb. The clear context of the sentence in which it is located leads it to be translated as "made/created/formed." The only people who would take the illogical step of translating it otherwise are those with a theological agenda. (The Northrop article linked above makes it clear that temporal references are vague in Hebrew verbs, and that context is necessary for clear translation. He just chooses the context of his simple biblicism, whereas most translators choose the context of the passage.)

Joshua

 

So all those scholars about 100 of them who contributed to the NIV Bible were wrong? With the exception of the fundamental churches I've visited all use the NIV, except one Methodist church that used "The Message" in the pulpit. So I guess they all have a theological agenda, huh?

 

John,

The NIV has a very clear and well-known theological bias towards inerrancy. (There's an excellent critique of it by Alan Culpepper in an old Review & Expositor that I have somewhere.) Any time there is even a small amount of ambiguity, the NIV translators choose the translation that will best support claims of inerrancy.

The classic example of this is Isaiah 7:14, where the NIV translators went against the plain reading of the text to translate "young girl" as "virgin." They did so because Matthew, working off the LXX, had used "virgin" in his gospel - and they wanted to smooth over any apparent conflict.

Joshua

 

Yeah, and Matthew didn't know what he was talking about either, right? He didn't know his own Sciptures well enough to convince his own people who also knew them, so he invented a few things and switched things around and hoped no one would notice, right?

Ivy League is a euphemism for worldly, Joshua -- I would not expect them to be so far removed from all that as to admit or certainly not to hire, someone who was not of their camp!

 

Helen,

I just noticed a new article in this month's Journal of Biblical Literature that addresses Matthew's unfamiliarity with the Jewish scriptures. There are a couple of cases where, yes, Matthew probably didn't know what he was talking about.

Joshua

 

C'mon, Helen, Matthew, writing to the the diaspora, would use the scriptures being used by the diaspora, which would be the septuagint

 

To start out,I point out that creationism is not a Christian doctrine. And I show him how evolution is consistent with Christian belief.

I point out that there is no evidence, except for what God will reveal to him if he asks.

Sometimes they actually think that's the case. So one thing that's important is to clear up the notion that you can mix science and theology. We accept God on faith, and science on evidence. Most of them already know this, however.

The Cartoon Theory of Evolution tends to do that. If you had known the real one, it wouldn't have been a problem for you. The real one doesn't "prove" anything about God. Indeed, it can't. There are atheists today, who became atheists for the same reason you stopped being an atheist; they assumed that creationism was an essential Christian belief, and so rejected Christianity when they realized that creationism was false.

And none of them told you that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Sigh...

I'm glad you found God. If you also accept His creation as it is, you would have an even more satisfying relationship with Him.

Mostly, it's getting them to learn the difference between the Cartoon Theory and the real one. And (of course) making them aware that creationism is not Christianity.

 

Let's be more specific. To date, I've knowingly spoken to 8 atheists about my faith. Of those 8, 6 eventually became deist. Of those 6, 4 became Christians.

I have never, I repeat, NEVER, had a non-believer revile those statements, nor any statement I have ever made about my faith. However, I've had a few believers question my interpretations. On this board, I have been reviled a few times, but only by believers.

Thankfully, my faith is secure enough not to be shaken by the views of others. However, some of my interpretations of scripture have changed due to healthy and open discussions with other believers.

[ July 24, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Joshua – OK, let’s pretend Matthew didn’t know what he was talking about in a few cases. Now let’s pretend none of the people he was writing to did, either. And let’s pretend that those who accept his Gospel through the first centuries (it was one of the first to be known and accepted) didn’t catch any of his mistakes.

Gee, this could go on for a long, long time, couldn’t it? Everybody was stupid and ignorant but the liberal scholars of today…

Please excuse me, but I have a hard time with that.

Paul – of COURSE Matthew was using the Alexandrian LXX. That is also the version quoted by Christ and the New Testament authors. What is your point?

Galatian – Creation is absolutely Christian, and biblical, doctrine. Your ways of squirreling around that are repetitious, tiresome, and deceitful. I have linked research regarding the beliefs of the early church fathers for you which I doubt you read. The creation is referred to repeatedly throughout the Bible. To get away from it you have to allegorize a good part of the Bible in its entirety. I know that’s what you do, but that is not what believing Christians do.

Nor do we need to ask God what He has already plainly and clearly told us in His Word.

In addition, the origin of life has everything to do with evolutionary theory, as the recent article in Evolutionary Biology pointed out. I guess you disagree with them, too!