Comments on: “Beyond the Firmament” (Review) - Introduction

by: Mike

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:34:13 +0000

>> I also want to say this, I don’t think anything I said in BTF invalidates
>> the hard work you have done. When we say that the original intent of
>> the scriptures was not reveal scientific truths, it does not mean that
>> there won’t be any cordance whatsoever between the two sources of
>> revelation — only that we need not look solely to the scriptures for this
>> information, as some Christians do.
I agree. The trick for me will be to recast these observations as being part of God’s divine intent, while not falling into the traps that you have outlined. For example, I used Genesis to conclude that there must have been a world-wide fully formed ocean 3.9 billion years ago, even though everything I’d read said that oceans were only starting to form at that time. So I dug around a bit, and found out about zircon crystals, and their suggestion that the oceans actually began 4.4 billion years ago. I dug around more, and found peer-reviews that didn’t bash the research, but hypothesized on how to reconcile the research with current observation, and it told a story… the story told by the first few verses of Genesis 1. To me, it was divine guidance that led me to this, but now God is showing me (through your book) that my presentation needs to be done with more care. After all, this simultaneously validated both scripture and science for me, potentially blurring faith with science in some people’s eyes, and quite possibly presenting something that makes the scripture appear falsifiable. After all, what if my interpretation of what I’ve read is not what the scientific community accepts in the long run? It won’t shake my faith, but I wouldn’t want it to shake anyone else’s. In meantime, I continue on, in faith.

>> Keep up the great work!
You too! Thank you for the encouragement.

by: GJG

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:58:42 +0000

Thanks for the honest review of BTF! I just wanted to let you and your readers know that the 2nd printing of BTF is now available. The manuscript was carefully re-edited for typos/grammar/colloquialisms and I evem softened a few criticisms that came off as unecessarily harsh.

I agree with you that these things were a distraction, and it was unfortunate that more care was not put into the original manuscript (it’s a long story), but I am very pleased that the publisher was willing to put the effort into a second printing, and we now have a “polished” version available.

I also want to say this, I don’t think anything I said in BTF invalidates the hard work you have done. When we say that the original intent of the scriptures was not reveal scientific truths, it does not mean that there won’t be any cordance whatsoever between the two sources of revelation — only that we need not look solely to the scriptures for this information, as some Christians do.

For instance, the New Testament authors, especially the apostle Paul, interpret every OT passage in light of Christ. Even though not every OT text was probably written for that purpose, we still see Christ in everything. Genesis 1:1 is often cited as proof-text for creation ex-nihilo. However, the tohu/bohu (formless and emptiness) would not have been understood as empty space for the Hebrews. They would have identified this with the primordial chaos that every other creation story began with. However, we know from other passages of scripture, like Colossians 1, that God did bring forth the cosmos from nothing, and even Physics tells us this. So it can be appropriate to interpret Genesis 1:1 as teaching a creation ex-nihilo, even though it was not originally intended to convey that information.

Keep up the great work!