Thanks for writing.
VJ:>
> >To accomodate evolution the early chapters of Genesis have to be
> >'interpreted', ie forced to say something different from what a simple
> >reading would convey. Have you not considered the problems this creates
> >for our understanding of the Gospel? It undoubtedly invites criticism of
> >the Bible as a whole and, inevitably, leads to liberalism.
DC:>
> There are plenty of passages where a simple reading is wrong. Reading II
> Sam. 1:7-10 by itself, for example, would give a false picture of what
> happened, as is seen by reading I Sam. 31:3-6. Also, there are plenty of
> passages that, by a simple reading, would support a flat earth or a
> geocentric solar system. If we recognize that it was written in the
> language of the day and not as a scientific textbook (for which they had no
> need), these passages are not a problem. The distinction must be drawn
> between inquiring exactly what God intended for the text to convey and
> inquiring what can I get out of it and what do I want to ignore.
> Unwarranted claims that the Bible endorses some position are a threat to
> the credibility of Gospel, just as disregard for the Bible is a threat.
VJ: The example you provide is one of historical detail and, I suggest,
should present no problem to the discerning reader. By falsely claiming
to have delivered Saul the coup de grace, the Amalekite clearly expected
thanks and favourable treatment from David. The truth of the matter is
told in the events of 1Sam.31:3-6, to which the young man was probably a
witness. I would be interested to see one or two other examples from the
'plenty of passages' you claim cause problems.
VJ:>
> >You do realise that these shaky propositions rest on an even shakier
> >foundation, viz macroevolution - which all TEs assume, but no one has
> >ever observed! The truth is much more straightforward: why not believe
> >the Lord when he says 'It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,
> >but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God' (Mt.4:4)?
> >Those TEs who believe the Bible to be the Word of God surely have a
> >problem here!
DC:>
> We do not know whether we have seen the formation of a new major kind of
> organisms or not. It takes too long for major groups to differentiate. An
> observer in the Carboniferous would have had no reason to regard the
> development of novel skull configurations (especially the development of
> temporal openings) as especially exciting, but one group eventually led to
> mammals, the other to reptiles and birds. We have to wait a few tens if
> not hundreds of millions of years to find out which lineages will diversify
> into a new major group, which will die out, and which will plod along with
> little change.
VJ: But this is precisely my point! You are prepared to accept, on
trust, that such dramatic changes have occurred! In doing this, you, as
a Christian and Bible believer, have created problems which can only be
resolved by distorting the scriptures! In earlier posts I have drawn
attention to the dangers associated with such an exercise (viz Ph.2:12,
2Pet.1:10, and 2Pet.3:16-18). Further, a careful reading of the word of
God - as you must be aware - reveals that the all-too-popular notion,
'once saved, never lost', is founded on sand.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm