Dear Jan,
Testing what a liquid is and determining it to be wine has nothing to do
with Scripture. Once the nature of the liquid is determined, then the
question of the age of the wine can be similarly determined in a purely
scientific fashion. This has nothing to do with Scripture. You seem to
constantly insist that we mix the two in every activity of our life. I am
baffled at that.
>The other question, What is the scientific basis? is a question, I believe,
>that is out of place, because of what I already wrote above. Again, a
>question like that places Science on too high a pedestal. One of the big
>quarrels I have with N.American scholarship is that Science appears to be a
>god, which has to have a separate existence. Then, after the "World" does
>that, many christians buy into it and look up to Science. But if you see
>scholarship in general ( that includes Theology, Psychology, Chemistry,
>Mathematics, Ethics etc.) as human endeavours, you become more carefull in
>saying, (in effect) that my way of doing (studying) things is the only way.
> Basically we need to learn to listen carefully. Then I say of the YEC in
>general, they want to serve the Lord totally. I have the fullest respct
>for that. However, they often talk about things they have not studied. I
>leave it at that at the moment.
>
>Jan de Koning
>Willowdale, Ont.
The question was rhetorical in order to establish that there is no
scientific test that can determine that the wine was brought into existence
by material water alone. Science will establish that it is indeed wine and
its age. If the wine came into existence, say miraculously the day before,
then how old is the wine? I do not place science in a high pedestal; in
fact, quite the contrary. I just want to make clear that some of these
questions are not as easy as they seem and that in answering them we make
all sorts of assumptions. I want to bring attention to all those assumptions.
Take care,
Moorad