Although you did not include me on the list, Vernon, I wish to respond that you
are making a very serious error in logic. Allow me to run you through it.
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I gather from your various responses that it was foolish of me to believe
> that _conventional_ creationist scientists had an effective answer to the
> claims of isochron dating. Having examined the underlying rationale of the
> technique I am satisfied that you are indeed correct - and I therefore
> withdraw my assertion. However, it follows that there must be some other
> assumption that you, collectively, fail to take into account concerning
> scientific investigation - particularly that concerning earth history. Allow
> me then to retrace my steps a little to determine what this might be.
O.K.
>
>
> You will recollect that I have presented empirical evidence concerning the
> remarkable structure of the Bible's first verse - and have claimed it to be
> an example of _supernatural intelligent design_ - its author, more likely
> than not, our Creator - the Lord Jesus Christ. As no one on this list has
> offered an effective challenge to this claim, we must therefore assume it to
> be correct. Certain implications follow; these include
I for one concede that what you say may well be true and I wonder with others
-- what could the significance be?
>
>
> (1) Whereas we Christians have walked largely by faith hitherto, we may now
> walk in the full confidence inspired by this gratuitous sign of His being
> and sovereignty. Clearly, this is a God who is actively involved with His
> creation - and with man, in particular..
It is a sign that many do not require, I certainly do not.
>
>
> (2) That this event has been timed to coincide with a period of great and
> gathering apostasy and confusion concerning what is true, and what is not,
> can hardly be accidental. We therefore infer that the sign has a serious
> purpose over and above that of making our confidence sure.
Vernon, you would focus on one little area that is of interest to you. Confusion
reigns on many fronts. YEC beliefs are the hidden agenda for you. I would say
that YEC generates confusion and does not clarify anything.
>
>
> (3) One significant purpose, undoubtedly, is to rekindle trust in the Bible
> as the Word of God and as a body of revealed truth. Thus, I suggest, it is
> no longer sensible to edit out those teachings which we find difficult and
> hard to accept.
I don't think that anyone has suggested "editing out" anything in the Bible. It
is very ungracious of you to suggest that. the
>
>
> (4) The supernatural activity which, we infer, must have preceded the
> writing of Genesis 1:1 - and the design of the A4 sheet of cut paper -
> raises the wider question of the extent to which our lives are subject to
> influences of which we are probably unaware, and over which we have no
> control.
The above says nothing of substance.
>
>
> It is on the basis of (3) above that I believe the days of creation to be
> literal days; and the subsequent genealogies to be true.
That does not follow at all. It is false reasoning and you are just contriving a
specious argument to satisfy a conclusion that comes from elsewhere. You
certainly do not require that that literal interpretations apply to other parts
of the Bible. How about
Deuteronomy 28
49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the
earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not
understand,
Deuteronomy 33
17 In majesty he is like a firstborn bull;
his horns are the horns of a wild ox.
With them he will gore the nations,
even those at the ends of the earth.
Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim;
such are the thousands of Manasseh."
1 Samuel 2
10 those who oppose the LORD will be shattered.
He will thunder against them from heaven;
the LORD will judge the ends of the earth.
"He will give strength to his king
and exalt the horn of his anointed."
If you insist on literal interpretations then the earth is not a sphere because
it has "ends" and indeed most Christians probably believed that for a long time.
One could come up with several other examples.
> I invite those who
> believe otherwise to consider the possible implications of (4) -
> particularly with respect to Eph.6:10-18; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7; and 1Kings 22 -
> bearing in mind that The Theory of Evolution is no friend of the Scriptures.
The theory of evolution strikes fear into the hearts of weak Christians who
demand a god like the old greeks had. String Christians are not afraid to
recognize that God defines how he created the universe by putting the
information into the physical record. It is shameful IMO to belittle God with a
contrived YEC philosophy ---- force fit into the Bible.
>
> I suggest the foregoing passages can no longer be regarded as mere fables -
> to be believed, or not, as one chooses. The opportunities for deception, and
> self-deception, in this life are clearly immense.
True enough. satan is clever and YECism is one of his best ploys to drive the
non-believer away from Christianity.
>
>
> In a nutshell, gentlemen, you are all making the assumption that the
> supernatural is neutral with respect to man and his activities.
No, Vernon, you are the one attributing that to others.
Shame on you for doing it!.
Walt
===================================
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)
===================================
Received on Tue Jul 27 22:42:58 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 22:42:59 EDT