The Genesis Flood: Perbedaan antara revisi
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
JohnThorne (bicara | kontrib) Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan |
k Bot: +{{Authority control}} |
||
| (22 revisi perantara oleh 12 pengguna tidak ditampilkan) | |||
Baris 1:
{{Infobox Book
| name = The Genesis Flood
| image =
| author = [[John C. Whitcomb]] dan [[Henry M. Morris]]
| cover_artist =
Baris 8:
| media_type = Paperback
| pages =
| size_weight = 1,38
| isbn =
| oclc= 9199761
}}
'''''The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications''''' ("Air Bah Kitab Kejadian: Catatan Alkitab dan Implikasi Ilmiahnya"; disingkat '''The Genesis Flood''') adalah buku yang diterbitkan pada tahun 1961 oleh [[John C. Whitcomb]] dan [[Henry M. Morris]], para pakar [[Kreasionisme]] Bumi Muda (''Young Earth'') yang "menghasilkan kebangkitan kembali (''renaissance'') [[geologi air bah]] yang mencengangkan,"<ref>Witham(2002) p33</ref> mengemukakan
<!--
== Latar belakang ==
Di akhir abad ke-19, evolusi organik diadopsi oleh adopted by most European and American scientists, and evolutionary notions "were infiltrating even the ranks of [[evangelical Christians]]."<ref>Numbers(2006) p6</ref> Although some conservative Christians continued to support a traditional reading of Genesis, most "readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life."<ref>Numbers(2006) p7</ref> With very few exceptions they accommodated the new geological theories either with [[Day-Age creationism]], the belief that the six days of Genesis represented vast ages, or by separating the original creation from a later Edenic creation: the so-called [[gap theory]].<ref>Numbers(2006) pp7-8. For instance, [[William Jennings Bryan]] of [[Scopes Trial]] fame, believed that the days of Genesis were geological ages and even "allowed for the possibility of organic evolution—so long as it did not impinge on the supernatural origin of Adam and Eve." (p7) [[Harry Rimmer]], the best-known creationist before World War II, asserted that millions of years might be accommodated in the hypothetical "gap" of [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] 1. (pp7-8)</ref> The primary promoter of "[[flood geology]]" during the early twentieth century was [[George McCready Price]], but he had comparatively little influence among evangelicals because he was a [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventist]], a sect treated warily by many conservative Protestants.<ref>Numbers(2006) pp8, 223, 241, 260; Barry Hankins, ''American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement'' (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008):"the Religious and Science Association and the Deluge Geology Society were part of the bitter fundamentalist battle that took place in theological circles as well....These organizations were often top heavy with Seventh-day Adventists, and the fighting often pitted the Adventists against fundamentalists who thought Adventism was cultish with its reverence for prophet Ellen White." (72-73)
<br />To Seventh-day Adventists, "the saints who greeted Christ as his [[Second Coming]] would be observing the seventh-day Sabbath in harmony with the Fourth Commandment....The Sabbath doctrine seemed to demand a literal creation week, for as Price cogently argued, if a person does not believe that there ever was a real Creation at some definite time in the past, how can we expect him to observe the Sabbath as a memorial of that event, which in his view never occurred?'" Numbers (2006),p104.</ref>
Baris 29:
As the manuscript neared completion, [[Moody Press]], which had expressed initial interest, now hesitated. The proposed book was a long work, insisting on six literal days of creation, certain to be criticized by segments of Moody's constituency.<ref>Numbers(2006) p224</ref> Whitcomb and Morris instead published with the small Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, whose owner Charles H. Craig had long wanted to acquire a manuscript that supported [[catastrophism]].<ref>Numbers(2006) pp224-25. Craig had majored in geology at Princeton, but he "had always preferred catastrophism to uniformitarianism." By the following year, a second printing had been issued by the much larger [[Baker Book House]].</ref>
-->
== Isi ==
Dibuka dengan deklarasi bahwa "Alkitab adalah Firman Allah yang tak pernah gagal,"<ref>Whitcomb and Morris, 1.</ref> bagian karya Whitcomb memberikan argumen alkitabiah mengenai [[Air bah (Nuh)|air bah universal]]. Ini meliputi argumen bahwa
Morris membuka bagiannya mengenai geologi dengan pernyataan terbuka bahwa orang-orang Kristen yang mempercayai Alkitab menghadapi "dilema serius" karena geolog pada zamannya memberikan "keputusan yang hampir bulat" melawan catatan Alkitab mengenai penciptaan dan Air bah. Namun, Morris meyakinkan orang-orang percaya bahwa "bukti-bukti inspirasi ilahi kudus dari kitab-kitab Suci lebih meyakinkan daripada bukti-bukti fakta ilmiah manapun."<ref>Whitcomb and Morris, 117-18.</ref> Morris berargumen bahwa "strata yang mengandung fosil
== Daftar Isi ==
<!--▼
Dibagi atas 7 bab dengan 2 lampiran:
== Tanggapan ==▼
* ''Chapter'' (Bab) 1 ''Basic Arguments for a Universal Flood'' (Argumen dasar untuk suatu air bah universal/sejagad)
Several dozen Christian magazines reviewed the book and generally praised its defense of the scriptural account of the Flood, although few seemed to understand that accepting Whitcomb and Morris meant rejecting the day-age and gap theories. ''[[Christianity Today]]'', the most important evangelical magazine of the period, published a tepid review that did not address issues raised by the book but instead criticized the authors for using secondary sources and taking arguments out of context.<ref>Numbers(2006) 230; Donald C. Boardman, "Review," ''Christianity Today'' (September 11, 1961), 39-40</ref> The [[American Scientific Affiliation]] featured two hostile reviews, and in 1969, the ASA ''Journal'' published a highly critical commentary by J. R. van der Fliert, a [[Dutch Reformed]] geologist at the [[Free University of Amsterdam]], who called Whitcomb and Morris "pseudo-scientific" pretenders. "To ensure that no readers missed his point," the journal "ran boldfaced sidebars by evangelical geologists applauding van de Fliert's bare-knuckled approach."<ref>Numbers(2006) 231-33; J. R. van de Fliert, "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology," ''Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation'', 21 (September 1969): 69-81.</ref> ▼
* Bab 2 ''Basic Arguments Against an Anthropological Universal Flood'' (Argumen dasar menentang suatu air bah antropologis universal)
* Bab 3 ''Basic Non-geological Arguments Against a Universal Flood'' (Argumen dasar non-geologis menentang suatu air bah universal/sejagad)
* Bab 4 ''Uniformitarianism and the Flood: A Study Of Attempted Harmonizatons'' (Uniformitarianisme dan Air Bah: suatu studi upaya harmonisasi)
* Bab 5 ''Modern Geology and The Deluge'' (Geologi modern dan air bah)
* Bab 6 ''A Scriptural Framework for Historical Geology'' (Kerangka kitab suci untuk geologi bersejarah)
* Bab 7 ''Problems in Biblical Geology'' (Masalah-masalah dalam geologi Alkitabiah)
* ''Appendix'' (Lampiran) 1 ''Paleontology and The Edenic Curse'' (Paleontologi dan kutukan taman [[Eden]])
* Lampiran 2 ''Genesis 11 and The Date Of The Flood'' ([[Kejadian 11]] dan tarikh air bah)
* Daftar 28 gambar dan diagram
▲== Tanggapan ==
Outside conservative religious circles, ''The Genesis Flood'' created "hardly a ripple of recognition."<ref>Numbers(2006) 235.</ref> It was ignored by mainstream geology journals; less accountably, it also remained unreviewed in any of the dozens of periodicals covered by ''Book Review Digest''. At a talk given to the large Houston Geological Society, Morris was ridiculed by the president in his introduction, and Morris's call for questions at the conclusion produced none, because as one member said, the audience was "too stunned to speak."<ref>Numbers(2006) 236. When mainstream scientists did eventually critique Whitcomb and Morris, they usually wrote for quite a different audience. For instance, Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ''Scientists Confront Creationism'' (New York: Norton, 1983) attacked the Whitcomb and Morris theory of a quick dispersal of animals from [[Noah's Ark|the Ark]] with the following sentence: "During the last decade biogeographers have come to realize that when the postulated phylogenetic relationships of organisms—both plants and animals—are examined relative to their distributions, many highly congruent, nonrandom patterns emerge."</ref> Nevertheless, the [[National Center for Science Education]] criticized the ''The Genesis Flood'' for misquoting scientists and taking their remarks out of context.<ref>Brian Witzke, "''The Genesis Flood'', review" in ''Reviews of Creationist Books'', ed. Liz Rank Hughes, [[National Center for Science Education]], 1992), 131-132. ISBN 0-939873-52-4.</ref> ▼
▲
▲<!--
▲Outside conservative religious circles, ''The Genesis Flood'' created "hardly a ripple of recognition."<ref>Numbers(2006) 235.</ref> It was ignored by mainstream geology journals; less accountably, it also remained unreviewed in any of the dozens of periodicals covered by ''Book Review Digest''. At a talk given to the large Houston Geological Society, Morris was ridiculed by the president in his introduction, and Morris's call for questions at the conclusion produced none, because as one member said, the audience was "too stunned to speak."<ref>Numbers(2006) 236. When mainstream scientists did eventually critique Whitcomb and Morris, they usually wrote for quite a different audience. For instance, Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ''Scientists Confront Creationism'' (New York: Norton, 1983) attacked the Whitcomb and Morris theory of a quick dispersal of animals from [[Noah's Ark|the Ark]] with the following sentence: "During the last decade biogeographers have come to realize that when the postulated phylogenetic relationships of organisms—both plants and animals—are examined relative to their distributions, many highly congruent, nonrandom patterns emerge."</ref> Nevertheless, the [[National Center for Science Education]] criticized the ''The Genesis Flood'' for misquoting scientists and taking their remarks out of context.<ref>Brian Witzke, "''The Genesis Flood'', review" in ''Reviews of Creationist Books'', ed. Liz Rank Hughes, [[National Center for Science Education]], 1992), 131-132. ISBN 0-939873-52-4.</ref>
Whitcomb and Morris "attributed the impasse between themselves and their critics to competing [[cosmology|cosmologies]]."<ref>Numbers(2006) 233.</ref> They argued that the term ''science'' could refer only to "present and reproducible phenomena" and that contemporary geologists who discussed the ''history'' of the earth were thereby operating as non-scientists.<ref>Numbers(2006) 233. Whitcomb and Morris noted that like themselves, founders of mainstream geological thought were amateurs: [[Charles Lyell]] (a lawyer), [[William Smith (geologist)|William Smith]] (a surveyor), [[James Hutton]] (a doctor and gentleman farmer), [[John Playfair]] (a mathematician), as well as number of clergymen.</ref>
Baris 51 ⟶ 64:
== Lihat pula ==
* [[Air bah (mitologi)]]
* [[Air bah (Nuh)]]
* [[Bahtera Nuh]]
* [[Geologi air bah]]
* [[Kejadian 6]][[Kejadian 7|, 7]][[Kejadian 8|, 8]][[Kejadian 9|, 9]][[Kejadian 11|dan
== Referensi ==
Baris 59 ⟶ 73:
== Pustaka tambahan ==
* {{cite book
* {{cite book
== Pranala luar ==
Baris 77 ⟶ 91:
{{Italic title|force=true}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Genesis Flood}}▼
[[Category:Air bah]]▼
▲{{DEFAULTSORT:Genesis Flood}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Kategori:Buku tahun 1961]]
[[Kategori:Kreasionisme]]
| |||