Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle (was Re: Standing miracle?)

As John McEnroe used to say at Wimbledon, "You must be joking"!!

Please answer our questions

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>; "George Murphy"
<gmurphy@raex.com>; "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>; "Michael
Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:33 PM
Subject: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle (was Re: Standing miracle?)

> Gentlemen,
>
> Thanks for your readiness to grant me 'my miracle' - no questions asked; I
> have modified the thread title accordingly. While I now consider how best
to
> meet your questions and comments regarding the implications of this
> remarkable event (which I will do in due course), allow me to quote a
little
> from the writings of C.S.Lewis:
>
> "The Christians say that God has done miracles. The modern world, even
when
> it believes in God, and even when it has seen the defencelessness of
Nature,
> does not. It thinks God would not do that sort of thing. Have we any
reason
> for supposing that the modern world is right? I agree that the sort of God
> conceived by the popular 'religion' of our own times would almost
certainly
> work no miracles. The question is whether that popular religion is at all
> likely to be true.
>
> "I call it 'religion' advisedly. We who defend Christianity find ourselves
> constantly opposed not by the irreligion of our hearers but by their real
> religion. Speak about beauty, truth and goodness, or a God who is simply
the
> indwelling principle of these three, speak about a great spiritual force
> pervading all things, a common mind of which we are all parts, a pool of
> generalised spirituality to which we can all flow, and you will command
> friendly interest. But the temperature drops as soon as you mention a God
> who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and
not
> another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a
> determinate character. People become embarrassed or angry. Such a
conception
> seems to them primitive and crude and even irreverent. The popular
> 'religion' excludes miracles because it excludes the 'living God' of
> Christianity and believes instead in a kind of God who obviously would do
no
> miracles, or indeed anything else." (taken from Chapter xi of 'Miracles')
>
> So, fellow members of the ASA forum, it is pertinent that I ask whether
our
> Christianity is such as can readily accomodate and adjust to the emergence
> of miracle in our day. If we resist the very idea, we thereby deny God the
> ability to act independently of human opinion, wish or desire- surely, an
> indefensible position!
>
> But assuming a positive response to the above, what, then, might be the
> purpose of this particular miracle which, uniquely, now and hereafter,
> offers itself for close inspection?
>
> Shalom
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:33 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 29 02:51:39 2004