Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:17:06 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

>Hi, Gary
>
>I suppose we could go on and on - and at great length - discussing these
>matters with little ground being given, either way. And all the time we
>would be missing the main issue, viz that Genesis 1:1, as we find it in the
>original Hebrew, is a remarkable example of non-biotic ID - more likely than
>not, a gratuitous 'sign' provided by an ever present and purposeful Creator.
>So the big question is, How are today's searchers for truth to interpret
>this sign?
>
>I have already expressed some of my own views. But what of yours, Gary? And
>what of those of the other interested parties on this list?
>
>Shalom,
>
>Vernon
>www.otherbiblecode.com

Hi Vernon,
Well, my maths is extremely rusty, and stats never was a strong point of mine
even in those days when my maths was better. Also, I know next to nothing
of any textual variants. All in all, I don't feel qualified to pronounce a judgement
on this. But even if it is a 'sign' what does it add to the rest of the Bibles's message?
What does it tell us about our condition before Almighty God, or our need for a
Saviour? This is _THE_ important issue, and the finding of mathematical patterns,
which, whilst interesting in and of itself, does nothing to add to, or subtract from,
this central issue. And even if it _IS_ there, and _IS_ a genuine sign, it would seem
to me to have no relevance to the question in hand, of the way in which we should
interpret the text of Genesis, what the author's intentions were, etc. Conversely,
rejection of the YEC interpretation would have no effect on the patterns you have
found. They remain the same, regardless of how you choose to interpret the text and
understand its meaning. This is what I find to be the most puzzling thing. To me,
the two issues are entirely unrelated.
I assume from your sign-off that you have no answer to my arguments? Think
about them. Also, check up on what the early Christians, e.g. Augustine, thought
about the 7 days, and even what Jewish commentators say - it is their Scripture
before it is ours. You will find that a rejection of the literal interpretation precedes
Darwin's theory of evolution by centuries, so it has nothing at all to do with
starting from TE presuppositions.

regards,
/Gary
Received on Mon Jul 26 06:19:08 2004