Thanks for your further comments.
PHS: You say "the creation was communicated intact to the patriarchs"
The word "intact" suggests you are saying the account in Gen 1 was
handed down to Abraham from an account direct from God presumably to
Adam that was given to Noah; and that his children passed it down-so
that it ended up in the hands of Abraham intact. Although this
speculative theory is possible, it is highly improbable.
The study of textual criticism indicates that if three different family
lines(such as Ham, Shem and Japheth) all began with the same story (such
as Gen 1), at the end of nine generations (Gen 11) you would have
essentially just as much corruption in the text from one family as from
the other.Further,you would have just as much similarity. If they all
came down from a pure copy of Gen 1, there would be numerous creation
stories with a splitting of the primeval water and the sequence of
events that we find in Gen 1 among all three families, Ham, Shem and
Japheth. But, the only two stories with these characteristics that we
find among all those descendants spread all over the world of Gen 10 are
Gen 1 and Enuma elish. Further, the descendants of Shem, and Abraham's
family in particular, were just as much idolaters as the
descendants of the other two sons (Josh 24:14; Gen 31:19), so there is
no biblical reason to suggest that they kept the story intact better
than the others. Both the empirical evidence and the Bible suggest that
your explanation is ad hoc, resting upon bare possibility rather than
probability.
VJ: One thing that worries me about textual criticism is this: even
though God has indicated at the very outset that his capabilities are
boundless, the critics are able to convince themselves (and others) that
their pronouncements are conclusive. Wouldn't you agree that in every
generation God has provided 'his men' - a 'seed', or 'remnant' of
believers - people divorced from the general body of idolaters? This is
surely implied by the 'her seed' and 'thy seed' of Gn.3:15. I believe
the genealogy of Luke 3 defines such a line, and suggest that this is
the 'channel' through which his word has ever been faithfully
transmitted.
PHS: I fully agree that man's natural bent is to oppose God and line up
with the forces of darkness. I think you need to ask yourself, however,
if you are any less likely to be opposing God and lining up with the
forces of darkness than those Christians who believe in an ancient
earth, a non-global flood and macroevolution. Your assumption that God
did not accommodate his revelation of himself in Genesis to the science
of the times, but was interested in revealing science, is, I believe,
rooted ultimately in human Reason, unprovable from Scripture and
falsified by empirical evidence. The fruit of this assumption as we see
it in creation science and elsewhere has been to cause Christians to
choose interpretations of both scientific and biblical data which are
based on bare possibility rather than probability.
VJ: Agreeing that it is in man's unregenerate nature to downgrade or
deny his creator, isn't it reasonable to believe that his whole approach
to the word of God must be one of skepticism or downright opposition?
Until his eyes are opened by a miracle of grace will he not, therefore,
seek to destroy the foundations of the Gospel? Will he not tend to
accept evolution as fact - the reason for his being here?!
PHS: I would point out that making a habit of choosing interpretations
of data on the basis of bare possibility rather than probability is both
intellectually and spiritually dangerous in that it constitutes turning
one's back on the light in favor of a darker road. A person invites
becoming totally aligned with darkness by choosing this path.
VJ: I couldn't agree with you more! But are you sure your proposition is
correctly put? For the Christian, it is surely the word of God that
'...is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.' (Ps.119:105). Why
prefer the foreign 'light' of the unregenerate, viz evolution?
PHS: You say, "you and others appear to recognize no truth unless it is
'scientific truth.'" Is this really fair? Have I not indicated that I
believe the God of the Bible created the entire universe, a truth which
cannot be proven by science and does not rest upon scientific discovery?
Theological truths, such as monotheism or the supernatural creation of
the universe cannot be tested or proven by science; and I don't know of
anyone who believes these truths who thinks they are based on science
rather than revelation.
VJ: Yes, I agree it was unfair of me to put it as bluntly as that.
PHS: But, when the Bible speaks of the natural world, it is referring to
data which can be tested by science. So, for example, the creation of
the firmament is a miracle which, as you say, defies scientific
analysis; but the firmament is a natural part of the natural world and
is subject to analysis by science. According to standard Hebrew
dictionaries, the firmament is a solid dome over the earth. That
definition fits the anthropological, historical and biblical contexts.
There is NO evidence of any kind from any realm which would lead to a
definition of the firmament as non-solid. You can only avoid the
solidity of the firmament in Gen 1 by opting for a definition
of the underlying Hebrew word raqia' which is based on bare possibility
and rejects probability. So, if you really accept the science in Gen 1
as a divine revelation, you must believe that the sky is rock-solid and
could fall. Or, as in the story of the flood, that it could open up and
the ocean above it (which is still there according to the Bible) could
pour down and flood the earth again. A scientific analysis of the sky
indicates, however, that this description of the sky in Genesis is not
scientifically sound. The solidity of the sky, which is perhaps more
evident on a star-lit night than during the day, is an illusion not a
scientific fact. Do you really believe that those who prefer
"the conclusions of men to the Scriptures" with regard to the nature of
the sky are really confirming that "the heart is deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked'?
VJ: No. But, rather than be pedantic, I think we have to allow for some
evolution in the semantics of Hebrew words like 'raqia' as our
understanding of the world and universe increases. Why should you
suppose God would fix the meaning of this word in stone?
PHS: Do you believe the sky is rock-solid with an ocean above the sun,
moon and stars that could still come down and flood the earth? Or do you
wiggle-waggle the Bible until its description of the sky with an ocean
above it is rationalized away to agree with modern science, to agree
with "the conclusions of men."?
VJ: I try not to 'wiggle-waggle' anything biblical. For example, I am
impressed by the scientific backcloth to the appearance of the first
rainbow (Gn.9:13-17). We read that before the flood '...the Lord God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth...But there went up a mist from the
earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.' (Gn.2:5,6). The
implications of these statements for a scientific understanding of
antediluvian climatic conditions are interesting, to say the least!
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm