From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 18:28:12 EDT
George,
Thanks for your latest comments. I'll address these in the order given.
GM:
The story of the Good Samaritan is a true and authoritative answer to the
question "Who is my neighbor?" made by Jesus Christ. Whether or not a
series of events actually happened that way - i.e., that a man really was
going down from Jerusalem to Jericho &c - is utterly irrelevant to the truth
of the story for the purpose for which
it was intended.
The relevance of this is that it shows that it is not necessary for a text
to describe historical events as they actually happened (even though the
text may be in the form of a narrative of events) in order for the text to
be true and authoritative. This is the case even if the text is spoken by,
or inspired by, God. Thus if God did indeed inspire the Genesis creation
stories, it does not follow that they are accurate accounts of a series of
events which actually happened in the history of the world. They are true,
but they may be true in other ways, just as Jesus' parables were.
Of course this does not show that the Genesis texts are _not_ accurate
history. Having opened up the range of possibilities for their
interpretation, we must now look at the internal evidence (the texts
themselves and their context) and the external evidence (/inter alia/,
scientific knowledge of the world) to decide how to understand them. An
intepreter may decide that they are indeed accurate historical accounts, but
is not justified in asserting /a priori/ that they are.
You will note that your mathematical arguments don't come in here. They
have, in fact, been taken out of play by my willingness to accept them for
the sake of the argument. I am agreeing that the biblical texts are
divinely inspired & true. But that doesn't determine what kind of texts
they are.
VJ:
I am disappointed that you merely accept the numerical phenomena 'for the
sake of argument'. Do you thereby infer that there is not enough here to
interest the _serious_ scientist? To cause him to inquire who their author
might be? And what the purpose of this display of extreme ingenuity
(particularly in respect of the Bible's first verse)?
But to return to your earlier point: why should we believe Gen.1 to be in
the nature of a parable? Is it intended to convey an important biblical
principle, or pattern for living? Surely not. It is rather to reveal how the
universe, the world and ourselves came to be. And how does what you believe
harmonise with the time scales provided in Gen.5 and 11, and Lk.3 - which
clearly provide the basis for Bishop Ussher's calculations and (in respect
of the two former) the Jews' assigning the figure 5763 AM to the current
year? Are these data also to be classed as 'parable'.
GM:
If "miracle" means phenomena which are beyond the capacities of created
agents even with divine cooperation, then (almost by definition) science
can't explain them. But are the processes by which the universe came to its
present state and life developed
miraculous in that sense? Certainly science can't answer the question "Why
is there something rather than nothing?" but beyond that I see no reason in
principle why anything in the developmental history of the world can't be
dealt with by science. In
particular, scripture gives no justification for the view that the origin of
life was miraculous. If anything, the picture of mediated creation of life
in Genesis 1 points in the opposite direction.
Notes: 1. I think the above definition of "miracle" too restrictive but I
gather that this is more or less what you mean.
2. It's not clear to me that YECs would have to reject your
mathematical arguments, but that's not to the point here. I put you in the
YEC camp simply because you believe in a young earth.
VJ:
But don't the sentences beginning "Let...." clearly indicate divine fiat?
As, for example, in "Let the earth bring forth grass..." (Gen.1:11). Isn't
that a description of 'miracle' ? And why should we find reference to the
Creation week of 7 days among the Ten Commandments (Ex.20:8-11) if these
were not actual 'days' as we normally understand the term?
GM:
One of the founders of modern scientific cosmology, who developed an early
version of big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest.
Do you imagine that he was attempting to "overturn revelation"? Numerous
other examples could be given. When science practiced in what you call a
neutral manner is pursued in certain directions one naturally comes up with
evidence which supports the view of an old and evolving universe. In the
great majority of cases this is not the result of any attempt to eliminate
God but simply a matter of honestly following a trail of
observational and theoretical research.
Moreover, one does not "overturn revelation" by presenting evidence that the
earth is old. One overturns a particular interpretation of revelation.
Again the discussion above on the nature of the Genesis texts is germane.
VJ:
I thought you might agree that no one is immune from God's strictures
concerning the essential man - not even Roman Catholic priests.
Shalom.
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > George,
> >
> > I greatly appreciate your calm and logical approach to the matters under
> > discussion. You chose to address my three points in reverse order, and I
> > will do likewise.
> >
> > VJ had said:
> >
> > (3) You've twice used the phrase 'what kind of texts we're dealing
with'.
> > When I point out that the 7 Hebrew words of the Bible's first verse
conceal
> > a _standing miracle_ of numerical geometry and many other
incontrovertible
> > wonders - including an accurate estimate of pi - surely that should
alert us
> > to the kind of text that follows. Such clear evidence of His being and
> > sovereignty must remove all doubts about the literal truth of a recent
> > ex-nihilo creation.
> >
> > GM replies:
> >
> > (3) Grant (as I said) for the sake of argument that there are numerical
> > patterns in Genesis which prove that God is its author. This
emphatically
> > does _not_ prove that the text which God has authored is a literal
(i.e.,
> > historically and scientifically accurate) account of how and when
creation
> > took place. To imagine that this is so is like claiming (to use this
> > example once again) that the story of the Good Samaritan "really
happened"
> > because Jesus told it as a true statement of who one's neighbor is.
> >
> > VJ's response:
> >
> > Please accept my assurance that the phenomena I describe are real
enough,
> > and cannot reasonably be attributed to chance or human agency - facts
you
> > may readily confirm for yourself. This inevitably invites the questions,
Who
> > is responsible? and Why are they there? Because they are found in
> > particularly high concentration in the foundational and
strategically-placed
> > Genesis 1:1 - the equilateral triangle (an obvious symbol of the
Godhead)
> > being a recurring feature - we infer _divine authorship_ and _serious
> > intent_. I therefore suggest these are good reasons for believing the
> > observed geometries - and their many other numerical associations - are
> > intended to bring home to intellectual man that what He has caused to be
> > written in His name is to be believed - rather than challenged, as
hitherto.
> > [I fail to see that your reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan
is
> > relevant in this context.]
>
> The story of the Good Samaritan is a true and authoritative answer to the
> question "Who is my neighbor?" made by Jesus Christ. Whether or not a
series of events
> actually happened that way - i.e., that a man really was going down from
Jerusalem to
> Jericho &c - is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the story for the
purpose for which
> it was intended.
> The relevance of this is that it shows that it is not necessary for a text
to
> describe historical events as they actually happened (even though the text
may be in the
> form of a narrative of events) in order for the text to be true and
authoritative. This
> is the case even if the text is spoken by, or inspired by, God. Thus if
God did indeed
> inspire the Genesis creation stories, it does not follow that they are
accurate accounts
> of a series of events which actually happened in the history of the world.
They are
> true, but they may be true in other ways, just as Jesus' parables were.
> Of course this does not show that the Genesis texts are _not_ accurate
history.
> Having opened up the range of possibilities for their interpretation, we
must now look
> at the internal evidence (the texts themselves and their context) and the
external
> evidence (/inter alia/, scientific knowledge of the world) to decide how
to understand
> them. An intepreter may decide that they are indeed accurate historical
accounts, but
> is not justified in asserting /a priori/ that they are.
> You will note that your mathematical arguments don't come in here. They
have,
> in fact, been taken out of play by my willingness to accept them for the
sake of the
> argument. I am agreeing that the biblical texts are divinely inspired &
true. But that
> doesn't determine what kind of texts they are.
>
> > VJ had further said:
> >
> > (2) You fail to distinguish between science as normally and legitimately
> > practised (with God's revelation and blessing) and its misuse in
attempts to
> > analyse/question the _miracle_ outlined in the Creation narrative. Is it
> > your general view that any supernatural event is, (a) open to such
> > investigation and, (b) then capable of being completely explained in
> > scientific terms?
> >
> > GM replies:
> >
> > (2) There is no sharp qualitative difference between the 2 types of
science
> > which you try to distinguish here. E.g., the types of arguments used to
> > determine the distance to the galaxy in Andromeda are based on quite
routine
> > observations (properties of certain types of stars) and well-known laws
> > (inverse square law for light propagation &c). No one has any objection
> > when these are used to find that a cluster of stars in our galaxy is
~1000
> > LY away. But when they show that M31 is a couple of million LY away,
YECs
> > immediately start objecting. There is no difference in the procedures,
the
> > underlying assumptions, or the beliefs of the astronomers. But the
results
> > conflict with the YECs preconceptions - preconceptions traceable to the
> > unwarranted assumption noted under (3).
> >
> > VJ's response:
> >
> > But you haven't addressed the points I raised under this heading, viz to
> > what extent is science able to make sense of _miracle_? When the
> > supernatural is arbitrarily dismissed as _non-existent_ or _irrelevant_
how
> > can the Christian be completely satisfied with the pontifications of
> > scientists in respect of the Creation?
> > [Concernng YEC, I'd like to clarify my own position. It must be clear to
all
> > that the numerical disclosures are as repugnant to proponents of YEC and
ID
> > as they are to evolutionists - a contingent phenomenon which, I suggest,
> > confirms the biblical strictures referred to under (1).]
>
> If "miracle" means phenomena which are beyond the capacities of created
agents
> even with divine cooperation, then (almost by definition) science can't
explain them.
> But are the processes by which the universe came to its present state and
life developed
> miraculous in that sense? Certainly science can't answer the question
"Why is there
> something rather than nothing?" but beyond that I see no reason in
principle why
> anything in the developmental history of the world can't be dealt with by
science. In
> particular, scripture gives no justification for the view that the origin
of life was
> miraculous. If anything, the picture of mediated creation of life in
Genesis 1 points
> in the opposite direction.
> Notes: 1. I think the above definition of "miracle" too restrictive but I
> gather that this is more or less what you mean.
> 2. It's not clear to me that YECs would have to reject your
mathematical
> arguments, but that's not to the point here. I put you in the YEC camp
simply because
> you believe in a young earth.
>
> > VJ had again said:
> >
> > (1) I seem to recall that we have argued before on the true nature of
sin.
> > When you say "Sin is primarily a distortion of the human relationship
with
> > God." you are, of course, correct. But I suggest your words do not
> > adequately capture the true nature of our problem. Sin, as the
scriptures
> > inform us - and as I understand it - is not a _negative_ or a _neutral_
> > thing, but rather a very _positive_ anti-God attitude which can lead us
into
> > all kinds of error. Jesus was well aware of it (Jn.2:25) - and it surely
> > follows that all who profess to follow him should be also. The words of
the
> > Lord as spoken by Jeremiah can hardly be more damaging to our
self-esteem:
> > "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
can
> > know it?" (Jer.17:9). If that indeed be true - and I suggest experience
> > confirms it - then we are surely on sticky ground if we insist on
> > challenging the biblical account of how and when things began.
> >
> > GM replies:
> >
> > (1) I don't disagree about the seriousness of sin. But if you follow
your
> > argument here to its logical conclusion, you end up unable to have any
> > confidence in any knowledge about the world. If our knowledge of the
world
> > is that severely distorted by sin then maybe the earth is flat. Maybe
heat
> > really flows from cold to hot. Who knows? But in fact the accurate
> > correlations between our theories and observations can give us a great
deal
> > of confidence that scientific investigation - _without_ "God's
revelation" -
> > works quite well. And since (as I noted under (2)) there is no division
> > between the type of science that raises no religious objections from
YECs
> > and that which does, YECs need to take a hard look at their
presuppositions.
> > Again, see (1).
> >
> > VJ's response:
> >
> > No, you miss the point I was attempting to make. When man's scientific
> > endeavours are _neutral_, ie not involved in trying to prove God wrong,
or
> > non-existent, then all is well. That is science as it is properly
> > practised - and as you describe. On the other hand its use as an aid in
> > formulating a history of the earth which attempts to overturn revelation
is
> > a completely different matter.
>
> One of the founders of modern scientific cosmology, who developed an early
> version of big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest.
Do you
> imagine that he was attempting to "overturn revelation"? Numerous other
examples could
> be given. When science practiced in what you call a neutral manner is
pursued in
> certain directions one naturally comes up with evidence which supports the
view of an
> old and evolving universe. In the great majority of cases this is not the
result of any
> attempt to eliminate God but simply a matter of honestly following a trail
of
> observational and theoretical research.
> Moreover, one does not "overturn revelation" by presenting evidence that
the
> earth is old. One overturns a particular interpretation of revelation.
Again the
> discussion above on the nature of the Genesis texts is germane.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 18:29:51 EDT