Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth

Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:20:00 +0100

David Campbell wrote:
>
> >Let me first address your closing remarks. The inherent power of miracle
> >to convince and convict unbelievers is clearly demonstrated (a) in the
> >Mount Carmel experience (1Ki.18:19-40), and (b) in our Lord's appeal to
> >the Jews (Jn.10:37,38). To make others aware of the standing miracle
> >embodied in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is, therefore, hardly to take
> >Christianity 'in the wrong direction'.
>
> Ultimately, nothing but the Spirit can convince and convict unbelievers.
> He can use the evidence of miracles, but they seem of limited value in that
> role (as opposed to convicting or strengthening the faith of believers).
> I'm not sure that your examples are very good. Although the Israelites
> were impressed by Baal's failure and God's success, and killed the prophets
> of Baal, Jezebel retained her influence as well. Though all Israel was
> notified (18:20), God says there are 7000 who will be protected. A lot
> more than one, which Elijah was claiming, but a lot fewer than the total
> who knew what happened. Likewise, the response of the Jewish leaders to
> Jesus's appeal to His works is to seek again to seize Him (10:39). Again,
> the many miracles of the Exodus demonstrated the hardness of most Egyptians
> and Hebrews alike, whereas I cannot think of anyone mentioned as converted
> as a result. The feeding of the 5000 did not prompt faith but rather greed
> and ambition in the crowd (Jn. 6:15). Jesus did more wondrous things than
> seemed possible to write down (Jn. 21:25), yet unbelievers kept demanding
> signs from Him. John 2:23-25 and 20:29 likewise suggest that a faith based
> on amazement from miracles is not reliable.

I agree with much of what you have to say here; the witnessing of a
miracle is never to guarantee conversion. However, that said, if
completely useless, why did the Lord bother to mention the possibility?

>
> As to the issue of whether the number patterns are significant, the problem
> is that many different numbers could produce interesting patterns. Several
> numbers have symbolic significance in Biblical useage, and there are an
> infinite number of ways to combine them to generate other numbers. Also,
> some numbers may be particularly likely to be generated by Hebrew due to
> the grammatical and linguistic structure (I do not know for sure, but this
> needs to be tested). As the Bible does not say "Calculate the number in
> this particular way and you'll get a big surprise!", it is necessary to try
> various possible scenarios. However, the more scenarios you try, the more
> likely you are to find one that works just by mathematical chance.

Though sympathetic to what you have to say, the fact that so much of
numerical interest converges in Genesis 1:1 - this centred around the
unique number 37 (which is also a factor of each component of the
Creator's Name) - confirms this opening verse to be 'the most remarkable
combination of words ever written'! In fairness, perhaps something more
than a cursory reading of my papers is needed to be convinced of this.

> Certainly, if the presence of these patterns leads someone to greater trust
> in the authority of Scripture, they are producing a good result. However,
> the trust should be in Scripture, not in the pattern.

David, I couldn't agree with you more! In themselves, the patterns -
though interesting - are clearly not intended to replace, but rather to
enhance, the words they underpin.

Sincerely,

Vernon

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm

http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm