> [the numerological evidences] function as a seal that (a) confirms God's
>being and
>sovereignty, (b) speaks of his abiding interest in us, and (c)
>establishes the self-authenticating credentials of his word."
>
>I suggest that such knowledge should cause all who are actively engaged
>in discussing the matter of origins to theorise no more - but rather to
>accept, and build upon, this solid foundation. Are we now really to
>believe that this God is incapable of doing precisely what he tells us
>he did at the beginning? [And besides, where do we find solid empirical
>evidence to the contrary? Let's be honest, hasn't it all so far been a
>matter of naturalistic interpretation and conjecture?]
I do not doubt that God's Word is authoritative but do doubt that there is
any intent in Genesis to establish a chronological or methodological
framework for creation. The use of day in 2:4 does not mesh with its use
in chapter 1 if both are taken to refer to a twenty-four hour period, for
example. When and how God created things is not particularly important
theologically; rather, what is important is Who created and why. In
addition, because God created rationally and because He created us to be
stewards over creation, we are able to figure out a good deal about the
when and how from physical observations. Only revelation can tell us what
we need to know about God and what our responsibilities are to Him.
The evidence contrary to YEC is not a matter of naturalistic interpretation
and conjecture, as many theists recognize the evidence for the great age of
creation. Taking that as disproof of God's involvement is naturalistic
interpretation; ironically, this naturalistic interpretation is frequent in
YEC and ID.
>Regarding your reference to 'the symbolic nature of 7', I fail to see
>how it can 'weaken the case for mandatory YEC'. Can you please explain?
The use of 7 as symbolic of perfection and its significance for numerous
time intervals suggests that seven days in Gen. 1-2:3 is likely to be
symbolic rather than chronological. To take Ron Number's example of
something still present in today's western culture, creation taking 13 days
would not be good symbolism. This emphasis on the symbolism rather than
chronology of 7 suggests that Genesis does not provide a chronological
framework. This then leaves the question of young, middle aged, or old
earth open.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 09:27:05 EST