Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Gordon Brown wrote:

> Vernon,
>
> What bothers me about your comments on this thread is the non sequiturs.
I
> think that all the regular contributors to this forum accept the truth of
> Genesis 1:1. The numerical patterns in it are totally unnecessary to
reach
> that conclusion. To say that it implies YEC seems like quite a stretch.
If
> that verse gives any indication at all about the length of time involved,
> it is not supportive of YEC. The author chose to use the word *reshit*,
> which means a first part of something, not a first point. See what this
> word means in Gen. 10:10, Job 42:12, and Jeremiah 28:1.
>
> What would really be impressive would be if you could come up with a way
> based on numerical patterns to test any text, not just Gen. 1:1, to tell
> for sure whether or not it is Scripture. That would be a great boon to
> textual criticism.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395

To which Vernon Responded:

Gordon,

I have little doubt that you are correct in claiming that all the regular
contributors to this forum accept the truth of Genesis 1:1, and should
require no further proof of its veracity. However, it now turns out that
this verse is _bigger_ than we can ever have imagined. Its component of
unique numbers, coordinated geometries and apposite symbolisms serve to
augment its already substantial prominence as first and most important
verse
of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures. So it is appropriate that we ask
(correctly deducing that there must be some serious purpose behind this!),
What are we expected to learn from this gratuitous 'sign'? As a minimum, I
suggest a completely new and fuller understanding of the character of our
Creator - in particular, His exceptional abilities, His interest in us, and
His dependability and truthfulness. Thus, for example, is it any longer
reasonable for us to suppose that His making of Eve was other than from a
rib of Adam (Gen.2:21-24). But how can this statement live alongside a
belief in theistic evolution?

To which I (Doug) respond:

Vernon,

Assuming that one accepts the supernaturalness (the miracle) of Gen 1:1
(i.e., that the specific wording of this verse was specially orchestrated
by God, working by his Spirit through the original human scribe), that has
no relevance to the semantic literalness of its meaning, and therefore it
has no bearing on the semantic literalness of any other verses in
scripture. Suppose that a similar conjunction of geometries existed for
parts of Psalm 19, where figurative language is used to describe the
orderliness of God's creation and moral law. Would that mean that the sun
is literally a champion running its course across the sky? Indeed not! One
must ask what God's purpose is in the miracle you have revealed. It is not
to prove Young Earth Creationism and disprove evolution; rather, it is AT
MOST to act as a sign to reassure the believer (and possibly to bear fruit
of faith in the seeker) that the scriptures are a reliable source of
knowledge about God - that the scriptures are His revelation.

You seem to be getting in the way of God's purpose in this alleged miracle,
in that you are inscripting (as in kidnapping) it into service for the YE
cause. That is presumptuous on your part. Please let the evidence of the
miracle stand on its own. Indeed, your tying of the alleged miracle to your
YEC only serves to lessen the impact of what God might wish to communicate
by the revealing of it, since many will blow it off with the rest of your
YEC.

You want to use this miracle as evidence for YEC. You must understand that
the group of us who accept evolution as a correct description of the
formational history of the universe do so because of positive evidence in
its favor. Would you have us deny "...the character of our Creator - in
particular, His exceptional abilities, His interest in us, and
His dependability and truthfulness" by brushing aside all the physical
evidence he has given us in his Creation?

No Christian participant on this discussion list disagrees with the
theological statement of Gen 1:1 because that verse says nothing about
evolution or YEC or any other theory about how creation was manifest.

Sincerely,
Douglas
Received on Thu Jul 1 10:01:05 2004