SJ> and apologies for the delay in responding.
That's OK, Steve. Actually I have been quite ill with the flu and
have been in bed for a week.
Steve, let me say first that I in no way want you to think that I
am antagonistic toward you. I would like to have a discussion, but
I in no way wish for you to think it is an argument. If it ever
seems that way, I sincerely apologize! A brother is, after all, a
brother!
SJ> There are basically three ways of having a harmonious view of
reality
>3. Accept the Bible - Accept science
>It is the view that I hold.
Me too, Steve!
SJ> (Quoting Ramm) "God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by
> His speech in Scripture"
You are quite right. However, of course it is very possible that
mortal man MIGHT mis-interpret what he THINKS nature is telling
him. Also of course, science and scientists have a long history
of this.
SJ>(Still quoting Ramm) "If the Author of Nature and Scripture are
>the same God, then the two books of God must eventually recite
>the same story....WE ARE TO PAY DUE RESPECT TO BOTH SCIENCE AND
>SCRIPTURE."
I'm very sorry Steve, but here I must strongly disagree. I believe
we must ALWAYS pay MORE respect to Scripture than science. This
is because of the point I make above. Science and scientists are
not infallible, they make mistakes, just look at their history.
We must never forget 2 Corinthians 5:7!
SJ>(Still quoting Ramm) "Neither adoration of one nor bigoted
>condemnation of the other is correct."
Not adore the Holy Scriptures??? Wow. Not worship, yes. But I'm
sorry, adoration of the Bible is one of the marks of the true
Christian.
SJ>(Still quoting Ramm) "we defend a position which asserts that
>a positive relationship must exist between science and
>Christianity."
Of course I agree whole-heartedly! Don't forget, all of the
fathers of modern science were Christians. In fact, I would go so
far as to say, if it were not for Jesus Christ, there would be no
science today. After all, it was reformed Europe were modern
science had its REAL beginning, and this as a direct result of
their knowledge of Jesus Christ and His unchanging Word.
SJ>(Still quoting RAMM) "The truth must be a conjunction of the
>two."
"THE TRUTH MUST BE A CONJUNCTION OF THE TWO"!!!! I'm sorry Steve,
but this is absolutely absurd. You don't REALLY believe this, do
you? I suppose this is exactly the root of the problem. So many
people seem to feel obligated to do this. It seems to me that
this is a problem of faith. I recommend you spend more time
reading your Bible, and less time with your scientific journals!
Steve, thank you for your testimony, I always enjoy hearing them.
SJ>For example, nowhere does it say the days were 24-hours long.
Nowhere, that is, if you deliberately ignore the obvious
meaning of Genesis 1:3 - 2:3!!!
I believe either the 6 days of creation MUST have been 24 hours,
or the Bible is inaccurate. And if the Bible is inaccurate on just
one point, then we must throw the whole thing away!
For one thing, the order of events as told in Genesis 1 is very
different from the order that science speaks of.
But even FAR more important than this is the fact that the
geological ages are derived from the fossil record, and fossils
tell us without doubt that there was suffering and death in the
world, presumably, according to science, long before "man"
appeared. As Henry Morris says in "The Genesis Record" page 54:
"The day-age theory, therefore, accepts as real the existence of
death before sin, IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the Biblical teaching
that death is a divine judgment on man's dominion because of man's
sin (Romans 5:12). Thus it assumes that suffering and death
comprise an integral part of God's work of creating and preparing
the world for man; and this in effect pictures God as a sadistic
ogre, not as the Biblical God of grace and love."
Romans 5:12 is the thing Steve. Please explain to me HOW you get
past it?
TJ>>...and that this (the creation) probably occurred less than ten
>>thousand years ago.
SJ>Again, this assumes that the Biblical genealogies were intended
>to teach length, rather than line.
Who assumed this? Not me. HOWEVER, why not also use the
genealogies to get an age approximation?
SJ>although he (Phil) does concede that God could have used natural
>processes in His creating...
Well of course He COULD have, but did He? Not according to Romans
5:12. This was the question I wanted to ask Phil. How can he,
(and you, I assume) miss the plain meaning of this verse?
SJ>...the issue is not "the inerrancy of Scripture" but rather the
> *interpretation* of Scripture.
Hmmm...Sounds to me like something Joseph Smith, or Charles Taze
Russel would say.
TJ>>I am particularly interested in the old earth arguments used
>>by Christians who have training in geology.
SJ>I have no "training in geology" so I will pass.
Bummer, I have a specific reason for this question.
SJ>But for what it's worth, the following appear decisive to me as
>a layman:
>1. Evidence for ordinary rate processes 100 years before Darwin
>were sufficient to establish that the earth was millions of
>years old.
Please elaborate.
Continued in next message