Dick,
In an earlier email I had offered my definition of 'evolution', thus:
For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution'
means any doctrine or concept that requires its adherents to
ignore, selectively 'interpret', or otherwise do violence to the
Scriptures.
As you have since correctly pointed out:
Mormons and other cults "do violence to the Scriptures," and "evolution"
has nothing to do with it.
I therefore modify my definition accordingly, thus:
For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution'
means any theory or doctrine of origins that requires its
adherents to ignore, selectively 'interpret', or otherwise do
violence to the Scriptures.
I trust this now makes my position clear.
Then, in response to my comment:
An early paragraph in the Introduction to your book begins
"In Scripture we are shown the truth and told the truth..." That
sounds clear enough. But you then proceed to treat it as a
malleable text where - in a process of 'rolling revelation' - the
findings of science are given pre-eminence in establishing the
true meaning of key passages - particularly those that impinge on
origins.
You reply:
I attended a seminar once where the speaker asked: When you are
putting a jigsaw puzzle together, what is the most important piece?
His answer: the box. It's a lot easier to figure out where the pieces
go when you see the big picture. And that has been the problem all
along. Translators and interpreters operated in a vacuum. The King
James translators knew nothing of the history of southern Mesopotamia,
nothing about genetics, nothing about anthropology, nothing about
geology, nothing about cosmology, and ignored the Septuagint version
altogether. The Septuagint would have kept them out a few pratfalls.
The miracle to me is that they did as well as they did.
Where we have gone wrong in the science-Bible debate is that we have
formulated a biblical picture, a scientific picture, and a historical
picture. And although the scientific and historical pictures may look
similar, neither of them look like the biblical picture. YECs hold up
a biblical picture, borne in ignorance, and disavow the scientific and
historical pictures. What I have tried to do is to bring together the
relevant data and evidence necessary to present one picture with three
viewpoints - biblical, historical and scientific. But it's a lot
easier when you have seen "the box."
I suggest "the box" is inevitably defined by the presuppositions
and predispositions of the individual commentator. Thus, for me,
the _untarnished_ Scriptures make perfect sense. The 'picture' on
"the box" informs me that "The heart is deceitful above all things
and desperately wicked..." (Jer.17:9), and that unregenerate man
is an enemy of God (eg Ps.2). Experience of myself and of the
world around me confirms the logic of that assessment of the
general human condition; and makes sense of the Incarnation and
all that follows. It also explains why - in the absence of
incontestable evidence - the 'theory' of evolution is so popular;
and why, for many, it has become a 'fact' to be vigorously
defended. For these reasons I cannot accept the 'imaginative'
examples you provide, viz
For example, the whole "earth" was not of one "language," there was
one prevalent topic of conversation. The tower builders used bitumin
to seal the bricks and stick them together, not "slime." The ground
was not watered by "mist," the water came from a "fountain"
(Septuagint). The "mountains" were not covered by water during the
flood, only the "hills." (The word is the same in Hebrew.) And so
on. Everything fits into one harmonious picture when the entirety of
Genesis 2 -11 is viewed as Mesopotamian history from about 7,000 years
ago to about 4,000 years ago, and nothing fits if you try to take it
elsewhere, or slide it into some other time frame.
I had then said:
Clearly, it is essential as Christians that we make no
foolish mistakes in respect of what God is actually telling us.
Through the apostle Peter, he warns as follows: "His (Paul's)
letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction."(2 Pet.3:16, NIV). Dick, I
suggest this must be a stumbling block for people like
yourself; perhaps you can explain how you surmount this
truth - and demonstrate your wisdom in doing so!
To which you replied:
One of us seems to have a vision problem. Is the log in your eye or
mine?
I suggest it does you little credit to offer so trite an answer to
a rather fundamental question! After all, on your own admission,
"In Scripture we are shown the truth and told the truth...".
Before sitting down to write your book, therefore, you must surely
have addressed this problem verse - and devised an appropriate
defence. I simply wish to know the precise nature of that defence.
If it's more sophisticated than simply scratching out the
verse, then let's hear it!
In response to my suggestion that you appear intent on rewriting key
portions of the Scriptures, you say:
Rewriting not allowed. Placing the existing writing within historical
context has been long overdue.
Finally, pursuing the notion that Adam, rather than Abraham, must be
regarded as the founder of God's 'chosen people', you say:
Surely God must have placed authority in Adam as his chosen man. Had
sin not intervened, Adam would have been the only messenger needed.
The covenant, the embodiment of the moral law was with Adam, but
reestablished and redefined with Abraham after the Fall. Christ was
the "second Adam." He was not the second Abraham.
Your imagination has really taken flight here! I get the strong
impression that you neither respect nor understand the Word of
God.
Vernon
Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution'
> means any
> doctrine or concept that requires its adherents to ignore,
> selectively
> 'interpret', or otherwise do violence to the Scriptures.
>
> Mormons and other cults "do violence to the Scriptures," and
> "evolution" has nothing to do with it.
>
> An early paragraph in the Introduction to your book begins
> "In Scripture
> we are shown the truth and told the truth..." That sounds
> clear enough.
> But you then proceed to treat it as a malleable text where -
> in a
> process of 'rolling revelation' - the findings of science
> are given
> pre-eminence in establishing the true meaning of key
> passages -
> particularly those that impinge on origins.
>
> I attended a seminar once where the speaker asked: When you are
> putting a jigsaw puzzle together, what is the most important piece?
> His answer: the box. It's a lot easier to figure out where the pieces
> go when you see the big picture. And that has been the problem all
> along. Translators and interpreters operated in a vacuum. The King
> James translators knew nothing of the history of southern Mesopotamia,
> nothing about genetics, nothing about anthropology, nothing about
> geology, nothing about cosmology, and ignored the Septuagint version
> altogether. The Septuagint would have kept them out a few pratfalls.
> The miracle to me is that they did as well as they did.
>
> Where we have gone wrong in the science-Bible debate is that we have
> formulated a biblical picture, a scientific picture, and a historical
> picture. And although the scientific and historical pictures may look
> similar, neither of them look like the biblical picture. YECs hold up
> a biblical picture, borne in ignorance, and disavow the scientific and
> historical pictures. What I have tried to do is to bring together the
> relevant data and evidence necessary to present one picture with three
> viewpoints - biblical, historical and scientific. But it's a lot
> easier when you have seen "the box."
>
> For example, the whole "earth" was not of one "language," there was
> one prevalent topic of conversation. The tower builders used bitumin
> to seal the bricks and stick them together, not "slime." The ground
> was not watered by "mist," the water came from a "fountain"
> (Septuagint). The "mountains" were not covered by water during the
> flood, only the "hills." (The word is the same in Hebrew.) And so
> on. Everything fits into one harmonious picture when the entirety of
> Genesis 2 -11 is viewed as Mesopotamian history from about 7,000 years
> ago to about 4,000 years ago, and nothing fits if you try to take it
> elsewhere, or slide it into some other time frame.
>
> Clearly, it is essential as Christians that we make no
> foolish mistakes
> in respect of what God is actually telling us. Through the
> apostle
> Peter, he warns as follows: "His (Paul's) letters contain
> some things
> that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable
> people distort,
> as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
> destruction."(2 Pet.3:16,
> NIV). Dick, I suggest this must be a stumbling block for
> people like
> yourself; perhaps you can explain how you surmount this
> truth - and
> demonstrate your wisdom in doing so!
>
> One of us seems to have a vision problem. Is the log in your eye or
> mine?
>
> In my last post I had occasion to draw your attention to
> Isaiah 29:14 -
> God's promise to 'destroy the wisdom of the wise' - a
> prophecy that you
> will no doubt agree must come to pass. It has since occurred
> to me that
> this is undoubtedly linked with that of 2Thess.2:11 (to
> which I also
> referred) - for how is 'worldly wisdom' to be destroyed
> except by the
> strong compulsion (1)that it believe and propagate a lie?
> and (2) that
> the lie is, ultimately, unmasked publicly? The matter of God
> sending
> 'strong delusion', I suggest, contains a message for us all.
> Clearly, it
> must involve a deception! However, on closer analysis this
> turns out to
> be a self-deception on the part of those who have refused to
> believe the
> truth that God has provided in his special revelation - the
> Judeo-Christian Scriptures! We only need consider the
> preamble to Job's
> trials to appreciate this. Of course, you touch on these
> things when you
> ask (Ch.3) "Would God implant false evidence to lead us to
> erroneous
> conclusions?" I say, No - but he might well allow Satan to
> do so! You
> add the rider "If so, to what purpose?" In Job's case it was
> to prove
> his faith and glorify God; similarly in ours; but
> additionally, to
> encourage unbelievers in their unbelief!
>
> Finally, let me comment on your view of Adam. You say, "We
> assumed Adam
> was presented in Genesis as the first of our species where
> it is far
> more probable that Moses was telling the children of Israel
> the history
> of their people beginning with Adam who lived in southern
> Mesopotamia
> about 7000 years ago. Adam was not the first of the human
> race, he was
> the first of the Jewish race and their offshoots. A small
> difference
> perhaps, but it makes a lot of difference how we understand
> certain
> phrases."
>
> For a self-confessed Bible-believer you appear to be intent
> on rewriting
> large portions of the script.
>
> Rewriting not allowed. Placing the existing writing within historical
> context has been long overdue.
>
> It's really breathtaking! Were not the
> promises re the Jews as God's chosen people given to
> Abraham, Isaac and
> Jacob (Gen.12:2,3; 26:24; 35:10-12)? On your understanding
> they should
> surely have first come to Adam, and then to each of the
> ante-diluvian
> patriarchs?
>
> Surely God must have placed authority in Adam as his chosen man. Had
> sin not intervened, Adam would have been the only messenger needed.
> The covenant, the embodiment of the moral law was with Adam, but
> reestablished and redefined with Abraham after the Fall. Christ was
> the "second Adam." He was not the second Abraham.
>
> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
> "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 18:18:11 EDT