Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Vernon,

It is time you gave substance to your arrogant assertions, whether on your
so-called standing miracle or the falsity of historical science.

You views never progress beyond risible nonsense.
Michael.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle
>
> Gary,
>
> Please find my responses to your comments appended.
>
>
> > Vernon,
> > Just a few comments on your comments...
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 00:32:40 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > >Gary,
> > >
> > >Just a few comments re the points you have raised:
> > >
> > >> _EVERYTHING_ we read we must interpret in order to understand it.
> > >> In doing this, we bring our past experience of reading, linguistics,
as
> > >> well as our experience of life in general, in order to ascertain what
> the
> > >> intent of the author is/was, and with our experiences we also bring
> > >> our presuppositions and prejudices.
> > >
> > >You are, of course, correct in _this_ understanding of the word
> > >'interpretation'. What I had in mind was the 'interpretation' that is
> > >sometimes used in attempts to overturn simple statements of fact, such
as
> > >the one now before us, viz God's making of Eve.
> >
> > Here I see you are bringing your presuppositions to your interpretation.
> > You are assuming that this is intended as a literal account. Your
> > assumption may not be correct.
>
> Gary, you speak as one who approaches these verses with _no
> presuppositions_. I suggest that, faced with a portion of text - from
> whatever source, a _literal_ acceptance of the words is the norm. Those
who
> wish to read another meaning into them must surely provide a convincing
> reason for so doing. I simply point to the character of the Creator - as
> revealed by the intricate structure of Genesis 1:1 - and suggest that you
> have no authority for taking such liberties.
>
> >
> > >
> > >You continue:
> > >
> > >> You have presented an oversimplistic dichotomy. You have not
> > >> allowed the possibility that the author was using figurative
> > >> language to convey spiritual truth. (That is just one possibility.
> > >> There are many others, I'm sure).
> > >
> > >I am interested to know what 'spiritual truth' you believe is conveyed
by
> > >Gen.2:21-24.
> >
> > There is a great wealth of spiritual - or perhaps better, theological -
> > truth in this passage, especially concerning man's relationship to
> > woman, which remains the same regardless of whether the passage
> > in question is literal or figurative. See Blocher for more details.
>
> I don't have ready access to the writings of Blocher - nor would I regard
> them as authoritative, anyway, because (a) he would have been unaware of
the
> additional data that are now before us, and (b) as a TE, I assume, he
would
> be anxious to _interpret_ these awkward verses.
>
>
> >
> > It sounds very much like fact to me. How can you be so sure it
> > >wasn't? And what of the anomaly concerning evolution's placing insects,
> > >amphibians, and land reptiles all before the birds that Genesis says
were
> > >made the day before? Did the Creator somehow lose track of the order in
> > >which he had created living things? Or was it done purposely to
bewilder
> us
> > >with more 'spiritual truths'?
> >
> > Here again, you are presupposing that Genesis 1 is intended to be
> > straightforward history. Once again, your presupposition may not be
> > correct. I have already pointed out that Gen. 2:5 indicates that it's
> > highly unlikely that the author of Genesis intended that the 6 days
> > should be taken literally. You have chosen to ignore this. But I can't
> > say I'm surprised. Blocher, who takes this point from Meredith G.
> > Kline, says that this argument has never been adequately answered.
>
> But, as noted above, you are presupposing Genesis 1 _not_ to be literal
> history - despite the new evidence concerning the nature of the Creator.
>
>
> >
> > And if the days of Genesis 1 are not literal, then it is quite possible
> > that other parts of the origins accounts also contain non-literal
> > elements.
>
> Regarding the "days" of Genesis 1: perhaps you have forgotten Exodus
> 20:8-11, where we read the words of God (also the Author of Genesis 1:1):
>
> "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour,
and
> do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God:
in
> it thou shalt not do any work,...For in six days the Lord made heaven and
> earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:..."
>
> The Hebrew word 'yom' - meaning 'day' - is used throughout. Do you really
> suppose that God (Author of Genesis 1:1), in choosing to use this word,
> would have intended it to mean one thing here, and another thing there? -
> and without qualification? Hardly the stuff of _revelation_, surely.
>
> >
> > >
> > >> Interpretation of Scripture is often far from straightforward.
> > >> You have only to pick up a good commentary to see the different
> > >> possibilities that present themselves. Often, commentators - godly
> > >> men who have a desire for the truth - arrive at radically different
> > >> conclusions, yet in each case basing their conclusions on what they
> > >> claim to be a 'straightforward reading' of the text. If you believe
> that
> > >> literal history (in the modern western sense) is the only possible
way
> to
> > >> convey such truth, then you are very much mistaken.
> > >
> > >But you surely must agree that 'calling a spade a spade' is the normal
> > >method of conveying a vital truth! And I believe it is reasonable to
> accept
> > >that that is the chief method used by the Author of Genesis 1:1.
> >
> > Why? The only argument you have given essentially boils down to:
> > 'Because I can't imagine it to be otherwise.'
>
> No, not really. I believe that my views are based upon the sound
application
> of reason.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >>There are many
> > >> different literary styles used in the Bible, and they may all be used
> to
> > >> convey truth - without necessarily being literal. Do you believe that
> > >> 'the mountais skipped like rams', to give just one example? Yet the
> > >> Psalms convey truth just as much as Genesis does. Or don't you
believe
> > >> that? If you are so blinkered that you can't see the issue here, then
> > >there
> > >> is little point continuing any conversation on this subject.
> > >
> > >Yes, I accept that figurative, poetic and other linguistic devices are
> > >occasionally used - but for most of the time I believe biblical truths
> are
> > >conveyed more directly. Gary, I can assure you that I'm not blinkered;
> > >indeed, I am very much aware of the issues exposed by the standing
> miracle.
> >
> > Again I ask: Why should the finding of patterns in one verse have
> > any effect on the literary genre of any subsequent verses?
>
> Because I believe that the character of the Creator - now revealed in the
> structure of the Bible's first verse - strongly points to the whole Book
> being a body of revealed truth.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >My hope is that this exchange of views may continue in a robust, yet
> > >Christ-honouring, spirit.
> >
> > Well, you need to address the points raised, and provide some good
> > arguments for your viewpoints, and not just go off into sidelines
> > which, whilst not necessarily uninteresting in and of themselves,
> > are of little direct relevance to the issues in hand.
>
> Gary, I believe that _real_ science is limited to what has been _observed_
> by humans. So real science can tell us nothing positive about origins: it
> can tell us only that we know nothing. I hope you would accept that your
> philosophy is largely based upon a series of hopeful assumptions. I
believe
> my logic to be stronger; we should accept God's revelation.
>
> Shalom,
>
> Vernon
>
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 16 09:18:10 2004