Wayne -
Of course, the problem with those who insist on a "literal," yet inerrant,
reading of scripture is that they sometime seem rather untrained in either
literature, or the Bible. Genesis is, of course, not meant to be all that
"historic," let alone "scientific." It is the first of the books referred
to as the Torah, or Law, and serves to provide the rationale for believing
that, while inherently weak, humanity is especially favored among God's
creatures, and the Hebrews had become the most favored of the human race.
Having said that, I would advise not keep advocating that Chapters 1 and 2
describe two "Creations;" it is rather playing into the creationists'
hands.
If we agree that the language clearly indicates that God created animals
before mankind, and again after the advent of mankind, then you have given
credence to the argument that this "special creation" could have occurred at
several more occasions ("from scratch") in history, providing more
ammunition against the "punk eek" explanation certain phenomena, and for the
special creation of HIV.
Moreover, the use of Ecclesiastics, or any of the other poetic books, as a
basis ANY doctrine, such as establishing "born in sin" using Psalms 51:5,
displays a basic ignorance of "poetic license." In fact, I could pull a
number of verses from Ecclesiastics which contradict several basic tenets of
Christian or Judaic doctrine. But, again, knowing what poetic literature is
about eliminates this disparity.
Since, according to that well known poll, 99 times more scientists believe
in a flat earth than a young earth, I am hardly one to buck the crowd. But
since science (?) has seemed to have established over ten different
dimensions to our universe, perhaps we are ill-equipped to define the shape
of anything. 8^)
Yours in Christ,
Norm Woodward
-----Original Message-----
From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com [mailto:Dawsonzhu@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:05 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: geocentricism (was: ASA Perspective)
Norm Woodward wrote:
Using Eccl 1:5 would imply that anyone using the terms sunrise or
sunset, including most almanacs editors, TV weathermen, and, I dare
say, astronomers, must be a geocentrist at heart. That would be a hard
contention to support.
But Alan Harvey's point is that a literal reading of scripture and any
discussion about the meaning of word usage at that time (as our fellow
YEC brothers in Christ insist upon in reading the word YOM) would in
fact require us to also insist on a geocentric universe if we are
consistent.
Indeed, we should also insist on a flat earth.
What you _chose_ to believe in the end is your own decision, but at least
let's be fair with one another. Consider that those of us who see
ourselves
to be serious scientist (AND Christians) have also given considerable
thought
to this issue. If in the end you don't agree with scientists who think
evolution
is a viable means through which God can act in the world for your own
personal
reasons, then fine, we don't insist that you do. We do however insist that
if you
claim that this decision is based on _scientific evidence_ that you provide
convincing support for your position and you show careful and thoughtful
consideration of the opposing views.
By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 12:34:18 EST