tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post325687024173228400..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Genesis versus Dr. Tim Kellerjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-26696181953059460942013-08-28T05:23:15.083-07:002013-08-28T05:23:15.083-07:00There does seem to be a contradiction in the order...There does seem to be a contradiction in the order in most modern translations because they start v5 as a new sentence whereas in the KJV v5 is a continuation of verse 4. If the KJV is correct and verse 5 does not begin a new sentence, there is no contradiction in the order because there is no implication that man is created before vegetation. The KJV text simply of chapter 2 says God created man and he created vegetation but does not state an order. I have no idea of what the Hebrew text says and whether the KJV text is more accurate here than the ESV text. Can anyone shed any light on this?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04393690764399363208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-26916576064429666562011-05-24T20:42:01.259-07:002011-05-24T20:42:01.259-07:00I was pointed to your blog this evening and have e...I was pointed to your blog this evening and have enjoyed perusing your posts. I look forward to reading more from you Dr. Byl. I will be putting you in my RSS reader.<br /><br />I appreciate your post here a great deal.defectivebithttp://defectivebit.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-57020658704080963152011-02-10T13:04:52.445-08:002011-02-10T13:04:52.445-08:00Thank you for directing me here Dr. Byl!Thank you for directing me here Dr. Byl!Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064538128810623156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-68208738439123447512011-02-08T12:03:34.781-08:002011-02-08T12:03:34.781-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064538128810623156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-4589190600155089592010-03-29T15:46:12.749-07:002010-03-29T15:46:12.749-07:00I don't know if this thread is still being rea...I don't know if this thread is still being read, but here goes... in Keller's book Reason for God, he even goes so far as to describe Genesis 1 as poetry. I too am surprised at this, given the rest of his theology. It seems really strange that a Westminster graduate can support many passages of Scripture as literal, just not Genesis 1. Jesus really did rise from the grave, but something else happened in time past, different than the normal reading of Genesis 1? Its inconsistent in the least, and it denies the message of Genesis in the worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-23952272461743519282010-02-20T20:09:09.279-08:002010-02-20T20:09:09.279-08:00Hi Rory
Thanks for your comment and your link, wh...Hi Rory<br /><br />Thanks for your comment and your link, where you make some excellent observations regarding miracles of God versus evolutionary claims.<br /><br />Regarding the qualifications for "true" science, these will no doubt depend on one's prior worldview. No science can be done without making some philosophical assumptions about epistemology, metaphysics, values, etc. Such assumptions will inevitably reflect one's worldview, particularly when it comes to interpreting the data.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-14365830195894820792010-02-20T02:03:45.253-08:002010-02-20T02:03:45.253-08:00We are told evolution is science and creation is r...We are told evolution is science and creation is religion, but this is false. Neither are science, since both views can't be observed, tested, repeated or falsified as as required for proof by the scientific method. Since both views require faith to believe, they are both philosophies or religions, but do not meet the qualifications for true science. See the real story <a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/christianity-articles/miracles-of-god-evolution-or-false-prophets-1460044.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Rory Roybalhttp://www.miraclesormagic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-54398050153386083672010-02-11T14:46:44.221-08:002010-02-11T14:46:44.221-08:00Scientific pressures are not a huge factor here, T...Scientific pressures are not a huge factor here, The first rule of interpretation is how it (Genesis) looks forward and points to the Gospel ... protology looks forward to eschatology. this pinciple seems to be overpassed in every critique of the framework view. This question needs to be answered before the literal 24 hour question, ir else every side is being pressured by scientific factors , both 24 hour and non 24 hour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-79725643919681985712010-02-11T14:07:03.315-08:002010-02-11T14:07:03.315-08:00For Kline, Day 4 is a recapitulation (days 4-6 rec...For Kline, Day 4 is a recapitulation (days 4-6 recapitulate and superimpose and parallel days 1-3), so there is no "before day 4"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-36790601515016034462010-02-11T13:27:15.521-08:002010-02-11T13:27:15.521-08:00Hi Ruberad
Thanks for your comment. Yes, Kline &a...Hi Ruberad<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. Yes, Kline & Futato argue along very similar lines. James Jordan (Creation in Six Days) gives a good rebuttal to both. <br /><br />However, Keller cites Kline only with reference to Genesis 2 having the more natural order. As I recall, not even Kline goes so far as to assert that, according to Genesis 1, there was no atmosphere before Day 4.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-66215878846287235812010-02-11T12:52:01.298-08:002010-02-11T12:52:01.298-08:00More seriously...
Keller didn't "invent&...More seriously...<br /><br />Keller didn't "invent" this view. His analysis of Gen 2:5 is (footnotedly) based on Kline's "Because it had not rained", and possibly also on an article by Mark Futato (a Kline student, I believe) called "Because it had rained". Blogspot won't let me link them in the combox, but both articles can be found among the top links by googling "kline because it had not rained"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-62956002682220539662010-02-11T12:14:13.086-08:002010-02-11T12:14:13.086-08:00It is thus disappointing that Keller has recently ...<i>It is thus disappointing that Keller has recently posted an article “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” at biologos,</i><br /><br />Maybe he wanted to post it at bylogos, but had a typo?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com