creation statement

Originally posted on June 06, 2009 – by Andre Piet

soap

It was very much like a soap. Former EO director Andries Knevel declared on TV in February that it is a mistake that the Bible would be historically reliable*, shortly afterwards he donned the hairshirt and said that this declaration was a mistake. The notorious TV broadcast would have been made hastily and Knevel had been too busy, causing him to express himself somewhat carelessly… Whether he believed it himself is the question, but in programs such as ‘De Wereld Draait Door’ and ‘Pauw en Witteman’ this turning was, in any case, torn to pieces. And rightly so. The rather transparent reason for the hairshirt was of course the unrest that had arisen among the EO supporters, causing this broadcaster to risk losing too many members.

hot potato

In order to limit the damage it was then mainly the concern of ‘the leaders’ to appease the division. In that light perhaps also “the broadly supported creation statement” should be understood, which this week was signed by a number of Christian figureheads. The hot potato (namely whether Genesis 1–11 is historically reliable) is neatly avoided with a wide berth, but at least they can still find one another in “the triune God” who “has created everything”. Good night then…

In reality they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the supporters left behind in confusion by pretending that the belief in Genesis 1–11 as a report of hard, historical facts would not matter. But that is what the battle is about. Is Adam the first human being or do we descend from the apes? That’s the question (to put it in EO terminology).

Genesis written by eyewitnesses

In recent months the GoedBericht site has also discussed extensively the significant historical meaning of the book of Genesis**. The common thread throughout all these studies was repeatedly that Genesis was recorded directly by the patriarchs themselves. Completely new perspectives open up through this approach. For example that Genesis 1 is the report of what God made known to Adam in the garden of Eden… during six days! Rethinking the thoroughly historical character of Genesis leads to extraordinarily renewing insights! As a result not only old interpretive questions disappear like snow before the sun (for example ‘how could it already be evening and morning before day four?’), but also the unmistakable great age of the earth and the presently living nature is no longer a problem at all.

In any case, discussions about such eye-openers are (naturally) not conducted in the Christian press. There one is satisfied with ‘soaps’ and a “broadly supported creation statement” in which open doors are kicked in and fundamental differences are smoothed over…

————————————————

* In the notorious broadcast editing was done at the last moment, on the orders of the EO management. In the initial version of the program (of which fragments had earlier been shown on the internet) Knevel declared not only that he did not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, but neither in that of other Bible passages.

** On Sunday June 28 I hope to give a study in Zoetermeer under the title
‘the flood report of Shem, Ham and Japheth’.

See also:
the key to the book of Genesis
“in six days”

Delen: