Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Hi Walt,

Let me first apologise for omitting your name from the list of the recipients of my last mail. My responses to most of your latest comments are appended.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: wallyshoes
  To: Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: Bill Hamilton ; Michael Roberts ; Roger G. Olson ; Don Winterstein ; Glenn Morton ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:18 AM
  Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

  Although you did not include me on the list, Vernon, I wish to respond that you are making a very serious error in logic. Allow me to run you through it.
  Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    Gentlemen,
    I gather from your various responses that it was foolish of me to believe
    that _conventional_ creationist scientists had an effective answer to the
    claims of isochron dating. Having examined the underlying rationale of the
    technique I am satisfied that you are indeed correct - and I therefore
    withdraw my assertion. However, it follows that there must be some other
    assumption that you, collectively, fail to take into account concerning
    scientific investigation - particularly that concerning earth history. Allow
    me then to retrace my steps a little to determine what this might be.

  O.K.

      
    You will recollect that I have presented empirical evidence concerning the
    remarkable structure of the Bible's first verse - and have claimed it to be
    an example of _supernatural intelligent design_ - its author, more likely
    than not, our Creator - the Lord Jesus Christ. As no one on this list has
    offered an effective challenge to this claim, we must therefore assume it to
    be correct. Certain implications follow; these include

  I for one concede that what you say may well be true and I wonder with others -- what could the significance be?

  I'm sure you would agree therefore that the matter should be urgently, thoroughly and widely advertised and debated.

          (1) Whereas we Christians have walked largely by faith hitherto, we may now
          walk in the full confidence inspired by this gratuitous sign of His being
          and sovereignty. Clearly, this is a God who is actively involved with His
          creation - and with man, in particular.

  It is a sign that many do not require, I certainly do not.

  No, I can appreciate that you feel your faith is already strong enough. However, that particular aspect of the message does not exhaust its information content - as I have attempted to show.
    (2) That this event has been timed to coincide with a period of great and
    gathering apostasy and confusion concerning what is true, and what is not,
    can hardly be accidental. We therefore infer that the sign has a serious
    purpose over and above that of making our confidence sure.

  Vernon, you would focus on one little area that is of interest to you. Confusion reigns on many fronts. YEC beliefs are the hidden agenda for you. I would say that YEC generates confusion and does not clarify anything.

  I suggest to you that my reading of the Creation and Flood narratives as sober revelation, i.e. as accounts of what really happened way back, is completely justified by the message of Genesis 1:1. And I am mindful of the following: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said...?...And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?... (Gen.3:1,13). Surely, one has to be careful to avoid Eve's error!
    (3) One significant purpose, undoubtedly, is to rekindle trust in the Bible
    as the Word of God and as a body of revealed truth. Thus, I suggest, it is
    no longer sensible to edit out those teachings which we find difficult and
    hard to accept.

  I don't think that anyone has suggested "editing out" anything in the Bible. It is very ungracious of you to suggest that.

  My own experience as a Christian reveals that many people are inclined to do just that, i.e. to build their own cosy gospel from the scriptural fragments they find harmonise with their already rigid philosophy.
    (4) The supernatural activity which, we infer, must have preceded the
    writing of Genesis 1:1 - and the design of the A4 sheet of cut paper -
    raises the wider question of the extent to which our lives are subject to
    influences of which we are probably unaware, and over which we have no control.

  The above says nothing of substance.

  The point I am trying to make is that, whether we like it or not, our lives can never be immune to supernatural influence. I believe my findings confirm that.
    It is on the basis of (3) above that I believe the days of creation to be
    literal days; and the subsequent genealogies to be true.

  That does not follow at all. It is false reasoning and you are just contriving a specious argument to satisfy a conclusion that comes from elsewhere. You certainly do not require that that literal interpretations apply to other parts of the Bible. How about
  Deuteronomy 28
  49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand,
  Deuteronomy 33
  17 In majesty he is like a firstborn bull;
  his horns are the horns of a wild ox.
  With them he will gore the nations,
  even those at the ends of the earth.
  Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim;
  such are the thousands of Manasseh."
    

  1 Samuel 2
  10 those who oppose the LORD will be shattered.
  He will thunder against them from heaven;
  the LORD will judge the ends of the earth.

  "He will give strength to his king
  and exalt the horn of his anointed."

  These are surely of a different genre from the Genesis narratives.

  If you insist on literal interpretations then the earth is not a sphere because it has "ends" and indeed most Christians probably believed that for a long time. One could come up with several other examples.
    

          I invite those who believe otherwise to consider the possible implications of (4) -
          particularly with respect to Eph.6:10-18; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7; and 1Kings 22 -
          bearing in mind that The Theory of Evolution is no friend of the Scriptures.

  The theory of evolution strikes fear into the hearts of weak Christians who demand a god like the old greeks had. String Christians are not afraid to recognize that God defines how he created the universe by putting the information into the physical record. It is shameful IMO to belittle God with a contrived YEC philosophy ---- force fit into the Bible.

          
          I suggest the foregoing passages can no longer be regarded as mere fables - to be believed, or not, as one chooses. The opportunities for deception, and self- deception, in this life are clearly immense.

  True enough. satan is clever and YECism is one of his best ploys to drive the non-believer away from Christianity.

    In a nutshell, gentlemen, you are all making the assumption that the
    supernatural is neutral with respect to man and his activities.

  No, Vernon, you are the one attributing that to others.

  Shame on you for doing it!.

  Walt

  I'm sorry that my words upset you, Walt. Nevertheles, I believe them to be true.

  Shalom,

  Vernon

  www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Wed Jul 28 17:36:04 2004