Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> George,
>
> Just a few points in response to your posting of 16 Mar:
>
> 1) You said, " 'Original sin' is no euphemism but a summary description of the fact that all
> human beings start life in the condition that you describe." Clearly, we shall have to agree
> to disagree re the substitution of "original sin" for "enemy of God, creature of evil
> imaginations, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked".
You can disagree if you wish but I don't see what we're disagreeing about. I am not
"substituting" original sin for "enemy of God" &c but using the term - as Christians have for
~1500 years - to speak of the fact that all human beings start out life as enemies of God &c. If
you wish I can quote all the biblical statements about the character of sin every time the phrase
is sued but that get's a little clumsy.
> However, you seem to imply
> that the situation changes when one becomes a Christian. Is it your understanding that these
> biblical strictures cease to apply when we commit ourselves to Christ?
The situation changes - cf. Ephesians 2:1-10 - though Christians continue to sin.
> 2) I had said, "...as a physicist, you will know that the step from 'observation' to
> 'interpretation' involves certain (usually unwritten) assumptions." You responded,
> "Certainly. So point out the incorrect interpretations involved in radiometric dating which
> lead to an age of ~4.5 x 10^9 years....Show what's wrong with the scientific argument." We
> were speaking of _assumptions_. And you agreed that such estimates of age rest on assumptions
> - and hence call for a degree of _faith_. You will know better than I what might be wrong
> with the scientific argument here. Is it really faultless?
Sure there are assumptions about decay rates, abundances, formation of nuclei &c. They &
the conclusions drawn from them hold together pretty well. As with any scientific theory, this
is evaluated in terms of its results, not the _a priori_ plausibility of its initial hypotheses.
But let me be blunt. Your argument that was based on humans being enemies of God &c has
turned out to be a vague generality. You're unwilling to say anything specific about the age of
the earth, just that maybe we're wrong. Maybe Caesar never lived & is just a collective illusion
produced by sin. You can prove everything and nothing that way.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
> 3) I am disappointed that you make no reference to the material in my penultimate paragraph.
> What I suggested there was that the Book of Job and 1Kings:22 hold important lessons for the
> Christian - lessons that, in my experience, are rarely discussed, or even admitted. It is as
> though we all prefer to live in a world of make-believe - listening to the comforting words
> of the preacher of our choice and accepting only those biblical passages that conform with
> our preconceived ideas of truth. The implications of these particular passages for the
> assumed integrity of the scientific enterprise are, in my opinion, profound. Would you agree?
>
> Shalom,
>
> Vernon.
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
> george murphy wrote:
>
> > Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > > Hi George,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments. Please forgive the delay in my responding.
> > >
> > > > GM: "Vernon raises a valid question here: If we take the idea of original sin
> > > seriously, how can we trust our reasoning about the world that leads to conclusions
> > > such as evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, &c?"
> > >
> > > VJ: I'm glad you see the relevance of my observations to the matters discussed in
> > > this forum. However, I believe the biblical strictures concerning man's essential
> > > nature to be more penetrative than you seem prepared to admit, and observe that you
> > > immediately confirm my thesis by introducing the euphemism _original sin_.
> >
> > > This, you
> > > must agree, severely blunts the potency of the biblical text, viz "enemy of God,
> > > creature of evil imaginations, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" -
> > > and effectively consigns them to the underside of the carpet!
> >
> > "Original sin" is no euphemism but a summary description of the fact that all
> > human beings start life in the condition that you describe.
> >
> > > So the question
> > > remains, How does it come about that a body of Christians (reliably informed of this
> > > general affliction) coolly ignore so fundamental a matter when engaging in debate on
> > > how they and the world came to be?
> > >
> > > > GM: But as an objection to those conclusions, the argument won't hold up. First,
> > > original sin has to do primarily with our relationship with God - we are unable to
> > > have "true fear of God and true faith in God." Of course that has implications for
> > > the way we deal with other people and the natural world as well. But even those who
> > > have held a very tough view of original sin have not denied that the natural human
> > > being is capable of understanding the 10 Commandments as civil law, and are able to
> > > refrain from murder, adultery, &c. I.e., even fallen humanity is capable of
> > > functioning in the world - & this requires some understanding of the world.
> > >
> > > VJ: By suggesting that man is able, of himself, to control his natural bias toward
> > > evil you are misinterpreting the clear words of Scripture. The truth is that God has
> > > done, and continues to do, much to override many of man's malevolent designs - thus
> > > preventing him from consigning himself and the world to annihilation. I believe the
> > > term 'common grace' is used to describe this divine overlay of restraining
> > > influence..
> >
> > What I have said is that that unregenerate humans are able to satisfy the second
> > table of the law. Of course that doesn't happen without God's preservation, concurrence,
> > and governance. Nothing does.
> >
> > > > GM: Secondly, no one raises the original sin objection to the results of science
> > > when they're not being related to issues of origins or age of the earth. When nuclear
> > > physicists measure decay rates of some isotopes carefully & say that half a sample
> > > _would_ decay in 4.5 x 10^9 yr or whatever, nobody says "But original sin is
> > > distorting your reason so we can't trust that result." It's then incumbent on the
> > > person raising this objection to the age of the earth to say at just what stage of
> > > applications of scientific results to radioactive dating original sin introduces an
> > > error.
> > >
> > > VJ: I was not suggesting that a scientist would blatantly lie when recording his
> > > actual observations - though he might choose to ignore those that did not meet his
> > > preconceived ideas of what they should be. But, as a physicist, you will know that
> > > the step from 'observation' to 'interpretation' involves certain (usually unwritten)
> > > assumptions.
> >
> > Certainly. So point out the incorrect interpretations involved in radiometric
> > dating which lead to an age of ~4.5 x 10^9 years.
> > Original sin, profound as you wish to make it, has disappeared from the problem.
> > Show what's wrong with the scientific argument. If you can't do that then you're reduced
> > to just saying in general terms that there _must_ be something wrong with it because of
> > sin. & that could be said about any scientific claim, leaving us with no certainty that
> > we know anything about the world.
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > George
> >
> > George L. Murphy
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > "The Science-Theology Interface"
> >
> > > I suggest that it is here that some distortions might arise if there are
> > > Bible- or God-honouring implications. Of course, one advantage that the Christian has
> > > over the unbeliever is that he is a committed _supernaturalist_, and will (hopefully)
> > > have learned much from the Book of Job and God's engineering of an enemy's (viz
> > > Ahab's) downfall (1Ki.22:1-37). He will therefore accept that what appears to be a
> > > purely _natural_ event might well incorporate a supernatural element (even a
> > > deception!). In other words, the commonly held belief among scientists that their
> > > observations are necessarily free from external intelligent interference may, on
> > > occasion at least, be a fiction.
> > >
> > > To summarise: The Bible warns us of man's essential nature; the implications being
> > > that he is, potentially, an unreliable observer/interpreter in all matters that have
> > > to do with God and His Word. Such truths are now empirically verifiable and underpin
> > > the logic of my YEC position.
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > >
> > > Vernon
> > >
> > > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
> > >
> > > george murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vernon raises a valid question here: If we take the idea of original sin
> > > > seriously, how can we trust our reasoning about the world that leads to
> > > > conclusions such as evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, &c? But as an
> > > > objection to those conclusions, the argument won't hold up.
> > > > First, original sin has to do primarily with our relationship with God -
> > > > we are unable to have "true fear of God and true faith in God." Of course that
> > > > has implications for the way we deal with other people and the natural world as
> > > > well. But even those who have held a very tough view of original sin have not
> > > > denied that the natural human being is capable of understanding the 10
> > > > Commandments as civil law, and are able to refrain from murder, adultery, &c.
> > > > I.e., even fallen humanity is capable of functioning in the world - & this
> > > > requires some understanding of the world.
> > > > Secondly, no one raises the original sin objection to the results of
> > > > science when they're not being related to issues of origins or age of the earth.
> > > > When nuclear physicists measure decay rates of some isotopes carefully & say that
> > > > half a sample _would_ decay in 4.5 x 10^9 yr or whatever, nobody says "But
> > > > original sin is distorting your reason so we can't trust that result." It's then
> > > > incumbent on the person raising this objection to the age of the earth to say at
> > > > just what stage of applications of scientific results to radioactive dating
> > > > original sin introduces an error.
> > > >
> > > > Shalom,
> > > >
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > George L. Murphy
> > > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > > > "The Science-Theology Interface"
> > > >
> > > > Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > John,
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote (10 Mar): "As you know, we have a couple (of) YECs who lurk here
> > > > > and sometimes post. They have a rough time of it because so many of us are
> > > > > quick to jump on their arguments. When you get six rebuttals to a single
> > > > > post, it does not take too long to determine that answering them is not a
> > > > > good use of time."
> > > > >
> > > > > It is possible that I am one of those you had in mind. However, the point I
> > > > > wish to make at this time has wider implications than the mere defence of
> > > > > YEC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Christians on the ASA list will know that the Scriptures paint a sorry
> > > > > picture of post-Edenic man: he is portrayed as an enemy of God and of His
> > > > > Christ (eg Ps.2); a creature of evil imagination from his youth (Gn.8:21);
> > > > > and deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer.17:9). A
> > > > > devastating indictment indeed! - and one that goes a long way toward
> > > > > explaining many of the world's ills, and the progressive undermining of God's
> > > > > Word by generations of higher critics and a largely unbelieving and powerful
> > > > > intellectual establishment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly, if the biblical strictures are to be believed (and why not? - since
> > > > > they provide the raison d'etre for Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection!) then
> > > > > they represent a fundamental barrier to our understanding of the Creator and
> > > > > a proper assessment of His work in creation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those on this list who question the sanity of the YEC position should let us
> > > > > know where they stand in respect of this foundational matter. Do they accept
> > > > > God's assessment of man's essential nature, or not? If not, then why not?
> > > > > And, if so, do they therefore proceed to accept that views so confidently
> > > > > expressed, and conclusions so stridently declared, in respect of earth and
> > > > > life history may be merely the fruits of potentially-flawed cognitive
> > > > > processes? - perhaps living examples of the 'evil imaginations' we read about
> > > > > in Gen.8:21!
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest it behooves us all to accept gracefully, and with humility, that we
> > > > > can be hopelessly wrong in our understanding of what is, and what is not
> > > > > true. That is why God has deemed it necessary to provide us with a body of
> > > > > 'revealed truth' . If we are wise, we will grasp this as does a drowning man
> > > > > the lifebelt thrown him!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely, and with regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Vernon
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 20:28:05 EST