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

Please be patient, Michael. All your questions will be answered as this
train of logic -ignited by the remarkable features of the Bible's first
verse - inevitably unfolds. In the meantime perhaps you would like to
enlarge on your most recent one-liner. Where, precisely, is the joke?

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Gary Collins"
<gwcollins@algol.co.uk>; "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "gordon brown"
<gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:47 AM
Subject: 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 18:36:32 2004