LH>If you are suggesting that there WAS a fundamental change in the way the
LH>universe operated after the Fall, my answer is that astronomy, geology,
LH>and the other historical sciences strongly imply continuity.
This takes us back to Constance's well made point. The historical
sciences are currently incapable of synthesizing the interpretation of
the natural with the supernatural, especially in a historical sense.
Constance argues well for a new approach which in fact synthesizes
science with faith through a variety of disciplines taught and practiced
cooperatively.
LH>If you are suggesting that there WOULD HAVE BEEN a fundamental change in
LH>the way the universe operated after the Fall, except for Christ's
LH>restraining and redemptive action, my answer is that I don't see biblical
LH>support for that claim.
Perhaps verse 20 represents a good start.
LH>I can't answer that one in general, I need some examples of what you (or
LH>others) believe to be "destructive 'natural' processes" that wouldn't fit
LH>into a "good" creation.
Death is one, but as a topic it was wore out pretty well in the Death
and TE string... and the processes that contribute to physical death. I
find it hard to believe that a man dying from brain cancer is evidence
of God's "good" creation.
Interestingly, there is a contrast set up between the end of the Bible,
Revelation, and the beginning, Genesis, that places the concept of
reconciliation of the "good" creation in perspective:
Death... Gen 2:17 versus Rev 21:4
Pain... Gen 3:16 versus Rev 21:4
Curse... Gen 3:17 versus Rev 22:3
God's presence... Gen 3:24 versus Rev. 22:4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith is the evidence of things... not seen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
pdd@gcc.cc.md.us