From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 14 2003 - 13:44:29 EDT
The point is well-taken Biblically, and as I
understand it in the mindset of ancient Hebrews re
causality.
For example, John the Baptist preached not in order to
bring about the coming of the Messiah (our forward
thinking view of causality), but because Jesus was
coming to preach in the future (reverse causality).
In other words, because the future event -- Jesus as
the Messiah -- was going to happen, the past event,
John preaching, occured.
Did I state that in a way that made sense?
So, I think Walter is correct in that we may conceive
of causality in a different way in order to deal with
the issue. I have not thought about whether I agree
with this particular application, i.e., entropy and
death from the get-go of the universe was due to the
future Fall of Adam, but I think that the same
reverse-causal thought existed in the ancient Hebrew
mindset (please correct me if I am wrong here,
someone) and there is at least one clear New Testament
example of this "reverse-causality" (there may be more
examples in the Bible, I have not thought about it).
--- Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I've said things like what follows in the past and
> have had my head beat in.
> Nevertheless, I'll try again.
>
> God does not exist inside of time. He does not have
> to wait for an event to take
> place before he can act on it. In other words,
> causality is not a restriction
> that we can place on God. It is perfectly reasonable
> and possible for God to
> make something happen in the past because of a
> future event which he knows
> about.
>
> Our universe is one of increasing entropy and death
> from the very "get-go".. It
> can still be "caused" by the fall of Adam. This, of
> course, would imply that the
> universe was made for man and other intelligent life
> is not likely.
>
> I'd better stop,
>
> Walt
>
>
>
> Ted Davis wrote:
>
> > Sheila's question about death before the fall, as
> I've said often here and
> > elsewhere, is IMO the *central* theological
> question concerning origins. (I
> > mean by this that theodicy in general, including
> the traditional way of
> > phrasing it in terms of the fall, is the central
> question. Others may of
> > course see this differently.)
> >
> > The question as she put it, simply won't go away.
> I note its presence in
> > just her way of stating it, on the current program
> of the European Creation
> > Sociey meeting:
> >
> > http://www.genesis-vus.se/8thecc/programme.html
> >
> > I've written some historical things about this
> question in an essay about
> > to come out in a book from Eerdmans, Perspectives
> on an Evolving Creation,
> > edited by our own Keith Miller (many thanks for
> the tireless effort,
> > Keith).
> >
> > Some other essays also deal partly with that
> question, and other related
> > questions. For details on the book, go here:
> >
>
http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802805124
> >
> > ted
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 14 2003 - 13:44:36 EDT