Re: Standing miracle?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: Standing miracle?

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:20:01 -0400, asa-digest wrote:
>
> >Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:30:05 +0100
> >From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> >Subject: Re: Standing miracle?
> >
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> >- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8D.E9FF66F0
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >George,
> >
> >I don't believe I've missed the points made in your earlier post; it =
> >simply appeared reasonable to me that we should first take a step or two
=
> >back in order that we might begin our debate from an agreed position. =
> >Instead, you offer me the mantra "Even if everything you say above is =
> >true, & even if it proves that the Bible is absolutely true...". George,
=
> >this is hardly good enough; my claim is extraordinary and surely =
> >deserving of an informed and considered response, for its implications -
=
> >if true - are tremendous, as I'm sure you would agree.
> >
> >You chose to enter the fray with the words "Once more into the breach." =
> >- - and I greatly appreciate that. So again I ask, _in your view_, does =
> >Genesis 1:1, in the original Hebrew, warrant the accolade 'standing =
> >miracle', or not? - and if not, why not?
> >
> >Vernon
> >www.otherbiblecode.com=20
> >
>
> Vernon,
> I think what George would like to know is, once you determined
> for yourself the miraculous nature of this verse, how were you
> able to deduce from this finding that YEC is correct?
> You should be able to explain your reasoning here quite
> independently of whether or not others agree with your claims
> for the miraculous nature.
> If this is not what George meant, I am sure he can correct me,
> but in any case I would like to know the answer to that.
> In the light of Genesis 2:5 especially, it seems difficult to
> maintain that the author of Genesis intended that the
> six days of Chapter 1 should by taken literally.

    Yes, that's my point. Whatever the truth may be about Vernon's claims
for Gen.1:1, they tell us nothing about how to interpret biblical texts.
Vernon, it seems to me that you need to think about whether your primary
interest is in the content & meaning of all of scripture - not just Gen.1:1
but also 1:2 through the end of Revelation - or in the math patterns of its
1st verse. If the latter then I'm afraid you & most on this list part
company. If the former then we can move on & talk about how to understand
this witness to God's revelation.

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

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Jun 28 08:14:17 2004