Don wrote: " I never said that the Bible is science. I have said that
science should not contradict the Bible. If one does not understand this
then I apologize for the lack of language skills. If God's text is not
factual, and is only a parable to express the ideas he wants us to learn,
then how can anyone say for certain by what process God created the
universe."
The obvious answer to your question is by doing the best science possible.
To say the scriptures are in perfect accord with modern science is simply
wishful thinking, asking them to do what they do not claim to do.
I highly recomment Van Till's PORTRAITS OF CREATION as an introduction to
what I am talking about.
Hoss
>From: "Don Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net>
>To: "Asa@Calvin. Edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: What are the odds?....Or, a great and Mighty God
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:36:17 -0600
>
>First of all, I did not mention science, you did. Not my error. If no one
>can speak to the question as to what extent God conveyed the truth then
>just
>don't respond. I never said that the Bible is science. I have said that
>science should not contradict the Bible. If one does not understand this
>then I apologize for the lack of language skills. If God's text is not
>factual, and is only a parable to express the ideas he wants us to learn,
>then how can anyone say for certain by what process God created the
>universe. Therefore, the belief in a Young Earth has no more foundation,
>than does an Old Earth. That is my point. Since no one but God knows by
>what
>process he created, then how can anyone say that OECs are wrong and taking
>things to factual. I would conclude that YECs take it to literal by
>claiming
>that Gen is word for word true.
>Don P
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of SteamDoc@aol.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:07 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: RE: What are the odds?....Or, a great and Mighty God
>
>
>Don, I think you are constructing a false either/or here (and didn't we
>have
>this discussion here about a week ago?).
>
>THERE ARE MORE OPTIONS than "factual" or "something God had no hand in."
>God has more ways of communicating truth than factual scientific accounts
>(look at how Jesus taught in parables). As usual, the underlying problem
>is
>the assumption that portions of the Word of God have to be scientifically
>factual in order to be "true." This isn't an issue of God "staying out" of
>the process, it's a matter of God (through the inspired author) deciding
>what form works best to communicate the truth God wants communicated. It
>only gets confusing if the form God used doesn't match the way some fallen
>humans think He should have written it -- and that isn't God's fault.
>
>Allan
>
>In a message dated Thu, 21 Mar 2002 6:43:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Don
>Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > Thanks for your quick response. While I do believe in creation through
> > evolution, I was not speaking to that issue. Regardless of what we may
>find
> > or believe to be the process of creation, my question is whether Genesis
>is
> > correct/factual or is it just something God had no hand in, as you
>stated,
> > and if so then WHY? I have still yet to receive an answer for this from
> > anyone. If you hold to the idea that God chose not to influence the
>Bible,
> > then again WHY? What evidence, Biblical or historical, is there that God
> > intentionally made the decision to stay out of such an important
>document?
> > How would this serve God? If the texts are solely written by God
>fearing
> > individuals, who I'm sure attempted to maintain truth using their own
> > knowledge and literary skills, then could it not be said that anyone who
> > writes with the intent of praising God has written something worth being
>in
> > the Bible? Many texts concerning God, both recent and ancient, have been
> > written. Correct me if I'm wrong but, is that not the purpose for the
>Canon?
> > Texts found or believed to be the word of God are included, while others
>are
> > not. Or is this a stretch on my part?
> > Insight please.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 17:24:25 EST