--------------3C35B87DEBF23624B5F4F0CA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Vernon;
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> But you are surely not suggesting that Genesis 1 is merely an edited
> version of the Enuma Elish! Concerning the facts you present, isn't
> there a simpler explanation, viz that the truth concerning the creation
> was communicated intact to the patriarchs, and on to Moses, while its
> parody - the Enuma Elish (generated from the same tradition) - came
> through those who had lost contact with their Creator?
Actually I am suggesting just that. Why not? The revelation of God is always
limited by the human receiver's capabilities of comprehension. I think of
when - according to Jesus - God "winked" in terms of the issue of divorce
due to the "unbelief" of the Old Testament peoples. God, evidently, allowed
a moral issue to go unchecked for hundreds (thousands?) of years!
Is it not so, that whenever revelation exceeded human comprehension, e.g.
the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel and John on the isle of Patmos, the record
resulted in fantastic and wonderful imagery; e.g. seven headed serpents,
giants, etc.; all of which were images already present in the receivers
"vocabulary"? Furthermore, a secondary revelation concerning the meaning
of these images was often required and given; else the revelation would
remain shrouded in the mystery of the inadequacy of the images - as is still
the case for some of the biblical imagery to this today!
As you know, the Bible is a record of God's covenant with Israel and by
extension to the rest of Adam's seed; not a detailed account of creation; it
is sacred and ancient history revealed in the language of the science of the
day - not modern science.
I refer you to the excellent post by Paul S. under the "Genesis factor
thread" for discussion on enuma elish.
>
> You seem to imply that 'science' is, somehow, an essential component of
> 'truth'. Generations of scientists who were also men of faith had no
> problem with Genesis 1. They accepted it as revealed truth.
>
I must not understand your point here; of course science is an essential
method by which we ascertain physical reality (you can read this as "truth"
in this context); it is precisely science's exclusive ability - via the
empirical method - to make conclusive statements about the universe that -
theory ladeness aside (we know atoms exist and how they behave - even though
they are misnamed!) can be tested.
I agree with you regarding the progeny of scientists but my understanding is
that they did not take Geneses 1 as having anything other to say to their
scientific practice except "God did it".
>
> > It is my opinion, that taking Genesis "literally" (i.e. in a wooden
> > sense as many do) does not do justice to the truth it does reveal. and
> > is only causing confusion and misapplication of Christian faith.
>
> I am intrigued by this statement! In my view, the unopposed claims of
> evolution have created many problems for Christians. For example, a real
> Adam who fell appears to be an essential component of Paul's theology.
> Again, the genealogy provided by Dr.Luke (Lk.3) takes us back through
> Adam directly to God (Lk.3:38)! How are you TEs to explain these
> away?
> >
To clarify, I am regularly labeled as a "heretic" worthy of a "millstone
necklace" et.. because I do not believe in a young earth! This is
preposterous and worthy of outrage by all Christians! I believe in the blood
of Christ which cleanses me from all Sin! This is the proper place for human
faith: the cross; I know you agree.
I'll invite the theologians in here, but I don't see why a real Adam
couldn't have existed and evolution still be true? Adam is simply a clear
demarcation in human evolution. In fact, the co-existence of other species
of hominids explains some difficulties with Cain, Abel, giants, etc.
referred to in the Old Testament. Again, being a physicist / applied
mathematician, I eagerly defer to others on this; but did not modern man
appear about (to within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude) the same time as the
genealogies purport?
>
> > Honestly, I have been practicing science professionally for over 16
> > years and I have not met anyone who would claim science to be a "god"
> > (however, I did meet an undergraduate while at Wesleyan, CT. who
> > rejected her Judaism to embrace a metaphysics based on quantum
> > mechanics as her "religion"). I think you mean that many people
> > subscribe to a metaphysical naturalistic philosophy which implies or
> > states atheism; but this is a philosophy not a science.
> >
> No, I am reasonably happy with my original statement. Encouraged by its
> practitioners, by the media, and by the multitude of technical wonders
> it has spawned, science has become a hallowed thing in the minds of the
> people.
>
Well, I admit to some hair splitting here, but definitions are important for
communication; science is a method not a being. I still think you mean to
say to some, science is a religion.
> Yes, I am aware of such a translation, but - because in the view of many
> scholars, it is forced - regard it as a sop to the TE. Does Speiser
> elaborate on the matter of an ex-nihilo creation?
>
No, Speiser's focus was on the Genesis manuscripts. I checked Speiser's work
with some friends that I have who are also Bible Scholars (at places like
Trinity Seminary, LeTourneau University, and one retired Wheaten Prof.);
they do not see it as forced but valid.
I again refer you to the excellent post by Paul S. under the "Genesis factor
thread."
>
> Let me first address the matter of how we categorize the phenomena
> referred to. The term 'numerological' suggests something that no
> self-respecting scientist would want to get mixed up with. Indeed,
> 'ignoring the dubious nature of such a field', sums things up precisely!
> But, surely facts are facts - whatever we decide to call them! I am
> disappointed you haven't checked them out; they are really quite
> remarkable and provide us with a more elevated view of our Creator!
The problem here is that you consider these musings as "facts"; I do not. At
most, they are a curiosity in that apparently these exhibit number patterns.
Please indulge an anecdote: When I was a more ambitious youth, I wanted to
understand quantum mechanics. But being a macroscopic entity I could not;
so I - like all other humans in my field - accepted and mastered the math.
and went about my business. However, I still harbored a suspicion that we
needed a "new math" which would describe the microscopic world in terms more
palatable to our understanding; so, I thought about number theory since this
is the field our mathematics evolved from but could not get past one of its
axioms that the sequence of numbers (to be defined!) must include 1! But
what does 1 mean? I was pleased to hear from the brilliant philosopher /
theologian: Diaganies (Spelling?) Allan of Princeton, that many philosophers
have asked and continue to wrestle with that very question! The only answer
I've come up with is ("Hear oh Israel, the Lord out God is echad"; a unity
of plurality!)
The point: even if you succeed in showing Hebrew/Greek/Arabic/.........
symbols contain mathematical regularities, as they are found in sequence,
you now have to deal with why numbers behave the way they do inherently;
i.e. math is still a science and as such is not at all well understood
philosophically let alone theologically!
Besides, my research involves the generation of information from
stochastic, and chaotic processes. The random processes of nature can and
do generate complexity and information content. For example, the information
content in this sentence is enormous - because I am following rules of
grammar (at least I try!). Hence, if you discover information content in the
form of number patterns in sequences of Hebrew symbols, you are merely
translating - and evidently reducing (i.e. losing information) the inherent
information content of Hebrew grammar to numbers. In other words, it is not
necessarily a supernatural divine code; just a consequence of Hebrew rules
of grammar.
An honest question: why do we need such epiphenomenal support of the Bible?
Is not the messages of Moses and the Prophets enough? I am very concerned
with the American christian community trying to "prove the Bible" by some
other means; scientific or otherwise! It stands on its own.
>
> In attempting to interpret everything in terms of modern science, I
> believe you are forgetting the capabilities of the Creator.
>
I do not know the capabilities of the creator outside of scientific
investigation and grace - for the secret things of God are made manifest in
the world around us; and according to Paul in Romans, God's grace in Christ
Jesus alone has opened our eyes to these mysteries - leaving others to their
fates; hence it is in this sense that the Christian alone has reason to do
science! Besides, it is our collective calling in Adam - along with
procreation :-).
What other mode of thought than science do you suggest we use for
interpretation of our world? The alternatives to science include magic,
spiritualism, animism, ect. Science has even done much to shed light on
biblical text! (here I include the sciences of history, archeology,
linguistic analysis to name a few). Science is fallible; but it is the
only testable mode of inquiry that we can use to amass collective - as
opposed to private - knowledge.
> I have already drawn David's attention to the fact that our Lord (and
> Creator) appeared to believe (and taught) that what was written in the
> early chapters of Genesis was to be accepted as true.
The literal truth of Genesis' message of the creation is not in question;
only the wooden interpretation of the details. Does Jesus address these
details?
> Have you not
> considered that, from the beginning, he has foreseen the current efforts
> to discredit the Gospel, and has taken the appropriate action?
I do not see your point here. Are TE's discrediting the Gospel or do you
mean the enlightenment philosophers attacks of the past century?
> Don't you
> find it interesting that every word of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is also
> fairly interpretable as a number? These phenomena surely serve to
> elevate rather than depress. I really think you should examine them
> carefully before coming to erroneous conclusions.
>
See above.
Thanks for responding, this is too much fun for my schedule! :-)
George
--------------3C35B87DEBF23624B5F4F0CA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Vernon;
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
Actually I am suggesting just that. Why not? The revelation of God is always limited by the human receiver's capabilities of comprehension. I think of when - according to Jesus - God "winked" in terms of the issue of divorce due to the "unbelief" of the Old Testament peoples. God, evidently, allowed a moral issue to go unchecked for hundreds (thousands?) of years!
But you are surely not suggesting that Genesis 1 is merely an edited
version of the Enuma Elish! Concerning the facts you present, isn't
there a simpler explanation, viz that the truth concerning the creation
was communicated intact to the patriarchs, and on to Moses, while its
parody - the Enuma Elish (generated from the same tradition) - came
through those who had lost contact with their Creator?
Is it not so, that whenever revelation exceeded human comprehension, e.g. the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel and John on the isle of Patmos, the record resulted in fantastic and wonderful imagery; e.g. seven headed serpents, giants, etc.; all of which were images already present in the receivers "vocabulary"? Furthermore, a secondary revelation concerning the meaning of these images was often required and given; else the revelation would remain shrouded in the mystery of the inadequacy of the images - as is still the case for some of the biblical imagery to this today!
As you know, the Bible is a record of God's covenant with Israel and by extension to the rest of Adam's seed; not a detailed account of creation; it is sacred and ancient history revealed in the language of the science of the day - not modern science.
I refer you to the excellent post by Paul S. under the "Genesis factor thread" for discussion on enuma elish.
I must not understand your point here; of course science is an essential method by which we ascertain physical reality (you can read this as "truth" in this context); it is precisely science's exclusive ability - via the empirical method - to make conclusive statements about the universe that - theory ladeness aside (we know atoms exist and how they behave - even though they are misnamed!) can be tested.
You seem to imply that 'science' is, somehow, an essential component of
'truth'. Generations of scientists who were also men of faith had no
problem with Genesis 1. They accepted it as revealed truth.
I agree with you regarding the progeny of scientists but my understanding is that they did not take Geneses 1 as having anything other to say to their scientific practice except "God did it".
To clarify, I am regularly labeled as a "heretic" worthy of a "millstone necklace" et.. because I do not believe in a young earth! This is preposterous and worthy of outrage by all Christians! I believe in the blood of Christ which cleanses me from all Sin! This is the proper place for human faith: the cross; I know you agree.
> It is my opinion, that taking Genesis "literally" (i.e. in a wooden
> sense as many do) does not do justice to the truth it does reveal. and
> is only causing confusion and misapplication of Christian faith.I am intrigued by this statement! In my view, the unopposed claims of
evolution have created many problems for Christians. For example, a real
Adam who fell appears to be an essential component of Paul's theology.
Again, the genealogy provided by Dr.Luke (Lk.3) takes us back through
Adam directly to God (Lk.3:38)! How are you TEs to explain these
away?
>
I'll invite the theologians in here, but I don't see why a real Adam couldn't have existed and evolution still be true? Adam is simply a clear demarcation in human evolution. In fact, the co-existence of other species of hominids explains some difficulties with Cain, Abel, giants, etc. referred to in the Old Testament. Again, being a physicist / applied mathematician, I eagerly defer to others on this; but did not modern man appear about (to within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude) the same time as the genealogies purport?
Well, I admit to some hair splitting here, but definitions are important for communication; science is a method not a being. I still think you mean to say to some, science is a religion.
> Honestly, I have been practicing science professionally for over 16
> years and I have not met anyone who would claim science to be a "god"
> (however, I did meet an undergraduate while at Wesleyan, CT. who
> rejected her Judaism to embrace a metaphysics based on quantum
> mechanics as her "religion"). I think you mean that many people
> subscribe to a metaphysical naturalistic philosophy which implies or
> states atheism; but this is a philosophy not a science.
>
No, I am reasonably happy with my original statement. Encouraged by its
practitioners, by the media, and by the multitude of technical wonders
it has spawned, science has become a hallowed thing in the minds of the
people.
Yes, I am aware of such a translation, but - because in the view of manyNo, Speiser's focus was on the Genesis manuscripts. I checked Speiser's work with some friends that I have who are also Bible Scholars (at places like Trinity Seminary, LeTourneau University, and one retired Wheaten Prof.); they do not see it as forced but valid.
scholars, it is forced - regard it as a sop to the TE. Does Speiser
elaborate on the matter of an ex-nihilo creation?
I again refer you to the excellent post by Paul S. under the "Genesis factor thread."
The problem here is that you consider these musings as "facts"; I do not. At most, they are a curiosity in that apparently these exhibit number patterns.
Let me first address the matter of how we categorize the phenomena
referred to. The term 'numerological' suggests something that no
self-respecting scientist would want to get mixed up with. Indeed,
'ignoring the dubious nature of such a field', sums things up precisely!
But, surely facts are facts - whatever we decide to call them! I am
disappointed you haven't checked them out; they are really quite
remarkable and provide us with a more elevated view of our Creator!
Please indulge an anecdote: When I was a more ambitious youth, I wanted to understand quantum mechanics. But being a macroscopic entity I could not; so I - like all other humans in my field - accepted and mastered the math. and went about my business. However, I still harbored a suspicion that we needed a "new math" which would describe the microscopic world in terms more palatable to our understanding; so, I thought about number theory since this is the field our mathematics evolved from but could not get past one of its axioms that the sequence of numbers (to be defined!) must include 1! But what does 1 mean? I was pleased to hear from the brilliant philosopher / theologian: Diaganies (Spelling?) Allan of Princeton, that many philosophers have asked and continue to wrestle with that very question! The only answer I've come up with is ("Hear oh Israel, the Lord out God is echad"; a unity of plurality!)
The point: even if you succeed in showing Hebrew/Greek/Arabic/......... symbols contain mathematical regularities, as they are found in sequence, you now have to deal with why numbers behave the way they do inherently; i.e. math is still a science and as such is not at all well understood philosophically let alone theologically!
Besides, my research involves the generation of information from stochastic, and chaotic processes. The random processes of nature can and do generate complexity and information content. For example, the information content in this sentence is enormous - because I am following rules of grammar (at least I try!). Hence, if you discover information content in the form of number patterns in sequences of Hebrew symbols, you are merely translating - and evidently reducing (i.e. losing information) the inherent information content of Hebrew grammar to numbers. In other words, it is not necessarily a supernatural divine code; just a consequence of Hebrew rules of grammar.
An honest question: why do we need such epiphenomenal support of the Bible? Is not the messages of Moses and the Prophets enough? I am very concerned with the American christian community trying to "prove the Bible" by some other means; scientific or otherwise! It stands on its own.
I do not know the capabilities of the creator outside of scientific investigation and grace - for the secret things of God are made manifest in the world around us; and according to Paul in Romans, God's grace in Christ Jesus alone has opened our eyes to these mysteries - leaving others to their fates; hence it is in this sense that the Christian alone has reason to do science! Besides, it is our collective calling in Adam - along with procreation :-).
In attempting to interpret everything in terms of modern science, I
believe you are forgetting the capabilities of the Creator.
What other mode of thought than science do you suggest we use for interpretation of our world? The alternatives to science include magic, spiritualism, animism, ect. Science has even done much to shed light on biblical text! (here I include the sciences of history, archeology, linguistic analysis to name a few). Science is fallible; but it is the only testable mode of inquiry that we can use to amass collective - as opposed to private - knowledge.
I have already drawn David's attention to the fact that our Lord (andThe literal truth of Genesis' message of the creation is not in question; only the wooden interpretation of the details. Does Jesus address these details?
Creator) appeared to believe (and taught) that what was written in the
early chapters of Genesis was to be accepted as true.
Have you notI do not see your point here. Are TE's discrediting the Gospel or do you mean the enlightenment philosophers attacks of the past century?
considered that, from the beginning, he has foreseen the current efforts
to discredit the Gospel, and has taken the appropriate action?
Don't youSee above.
find it interesting that every word of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is also
fairly interpretable as a number? These phenomena surely serve to
elevate rather than depress. I really think you should examine them
carefully before coming to erroneous conclusions.
Thanks for responding, this is too much fun for my schedule! :-)
George
--------------3C35B87DEBF23624B5F4F0CA--
--------------FD93860B5E227BF63FB8A3EB
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------FD93860B5E227BF63FB8A3EB--