repost

I did an even poorer job of proofreading that usual on my recent post so here's a readable version.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> Hi, Roger,
>
>
> Genesis 1:1 is not only a strategically-placed, powerful and fundamental
> assertion but is, in the original Hebrew, a numerical goldmine - its 7
words
> and 28 letters revealing significant features of coordinated numerical
> geometries and strong links with the Creator's name, with the intriguing
> number 666 (Rev.13:18), with 2 of the primary fundamental constants (pi
and
> alpha), with the metric dimensions of the A4 size of cut paper, and much
> else. Without doubt, this concise verse is a miracle 'set in stone', and
> intended to convey a serious message - particularly to those of us
involved
> in this debate on origins.
>
>
>
> These facts convince me that what follows must be _revealed truth_ - for
why
> would a Creator, capable of such wonders, wish to mislead us!? In
> particular, therefore, the Creation and Flood narratives must be taken as
> read, along with the antediluvian genealogies. But, of course, the
> implications of Genesis 1:1 don't just end there; they must extend to the
> remainder of the Book.
>
>
>
> That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a YEC and
a
> Christian.

    One more into the breach. OK Vernon, assume for the sake of argument
that your conclusions about the numerical patterns in Gen.1:1 are correct and that they
prove that what follows is revealed truth. What is the form of that truth?
Is it an accurate historical narrative of creation events? Is it true in a
concordist sense - i.e., the type of interpretation that Glenn has argued
for that includes an old earth and evolution? Is it true as theological
statements about God's creation of the world and humanity which refer to the
real world but are not to be read as historical narratives?

    Those possible interpretations can be debated but the point now is that,
even if one accepts your conclusions about Gen.1:1 they do not imply (in the strict sense) a YEC conclusion.
In fact they add absolutely zero to the whole discussion for those - like the great majority
on this list - who already believe that scripture is true and authoritative.
& they are useless for helping us to understand what types of texts we're
dealing with in early Genesis or what types of truth they express.
Received on Wed Jun 23 21:20:23 2004