I agree with much of what you have to say. In particular,
(1) (if I may summarise your closing remarks) The fact that one's
'works' in this world - no matter how cleverly conceived - will be of
little avail when we come face to face with our heavenly Judge! It seems
to me that the Lord's words, "Verily I say unto you, except ye be
converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven." (Mt.18:3), put the matter very much in perspective.
A child innocently believes what he is told; likewise, the wise follower
of Christ believes what he reads in God's word! With the destiny of our
eternal souls in mind, can there be any safer course? Are we likely to
be condemned because we took the Lord at his word?!
(2) Concerning origins, all statements and studies based upon
naturalism, or upon non-literal interpretations of the early chapters of
Genesis, are speculative, and based on assumptions which are rarely, if
ever, declared.
(3) Clearly, we are at one in believing that Genesis 1:1 is supernatural
in origin. Can I take it that you would also agree the numerical
accretions(arising from the Hebrew scheme of alphabetic numeration,
c200BC) are there by divine intent? - and therefore must have some
significant purpose? This, of course, bears directly upon your
contention that 'it (Genesis 1:1) is out of the reach of scientific
inquiry'. I believe the numerical characteristics of this verse -
together with those of the Creator's Name - suggest otherwise! After
all, we find no scriptural guarantee that God will not provide signs and
wonders in our day!
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> The statement that God created the whole thing is certainly supernatural in
> origin and so it is out of the reach of scientific inquiry. All studies of
> origin are therefore speculative and the best they can do is to assume some
> things and logically derive something from such assumptions. But the
> assumptions will always be out of the realm of science. We ought to be
> humbled by observing nature and bow before it. I often imagine the
> encounter of a scientist with God to whom the scientist wants to prove his
> worth. Imagine a scientist going to meet God with his briefcase full of
> all the reprints of his work. As he travels the road to meet God, he opens
> the briefcase and removes some reprints, which the scientist thinks are not
> very good or not his best. As he keeps traveling, he keeps removing and
> throwing away more and more reprints. Eventually when he meets God, the
> scientists is crawling on his knees!
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> To: dfsiemensjr@juno.com <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 6:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Word order (was Powers that Be (was Year of Destiny?!))
>
> >Dave,
> >
> >Let me first assure you that I am indeed in earnest: my comment was
> >neither 'ad hoc' nor 'irrelevant'. Rather than first absorbing the
> >broader picture, you seem intent on focussing on just one of many
> >interesting details associated with the Bible's opening verse -
> >completely ignoring the rest!
> >
> >Having spent many years researching these matters, and convinced they
> >can only be of supernatural origin, I firmly believe they are intended
> >to accomplish some serious purpose in our day. Your objections
> >concerning word order, therefore - while appearing to be reasonable -
> >are, on this understanding, irrelevant.
> >
> >As I am attempting to point out on these lists, the time for debating
> >whether or not there is a God is over. He has revealed His Presence and
> >Sovereignty in terms that all but the wilfully ignorant may understand,
> >viz a body of empirical evidence - closely integrated with God's word -
> >that is completely free from evolutionary bias!
> >
> >Dave, may I suggest that you examine the complete crop of 'coincidences'
> >associated with Genesis 1:1 and Creator's Name. You may then agree that
> >comments made in my last posting makes sense.
> >
> >Vernon
> >
> >http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
> >
> >http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >> But has it not occurred to you that
> >> the English translations of these Hebrew words are undoubtedly the most
> >> widely read of all. I suggest this fact, in itself, might well be
> >> interpreted as evidence of an Omniscient and Omipotent Creator
> >> specifically targeting generations that appear to have completely lost
> >> touch with Him!
> >>
> >> This leaves me even more bothered, for it is so patently ad hoc and
> >> irrelevant that I find it hard to accept that you sent it. Is someone
> >> falsely using your name? I have heard that there is that kind of
> >> shenanigans going on.
> >>
> >> But if you are in earnest, why should we abandon the Hebrew word order
> >> for one that only became "relevant" millennia later? Would it not be
> >> better to go with the Vulgate, which dominated a wider part of
> >> Christendom from the time of Jerome until this century? It has the same
> >> word order, though with different words, as the Hebrew: "in principio
> >> creavit Deus caelum et terram." Or was Jerome outside the control of the
> >> omnipotent and omniscient Lord? 15 centuries less than 3? Why disdain the
> >> more ancient LXX? But I return to my original questions: is not any word
> >> order other than the Hebrew totally irrelevant? Do not 1+2 or 1+2+3 have
> >> numerical precedence over 1+3 and 2+4+5?
> >>
> >> Dave
> >