Re: TOE or TSD: that is the question! (was Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle)

Vernon,
Thank you for your nice words, but, though I do not want to be called an
"evolutionist", I do not think that God is fooling us in His creation by
making it appear that things are different than they seem.
Besides, it is dangerous to hang one's faith on one text written in a
foreign language, when nobody can confirm in nature what God did. From
other parts of the Bible many things can be clearly found in existing
excavations and so on. But, even then it is clear that the old Hebrews did
not use language as modern North Americans do it. For one thing "truth"
has another meaning, a narrower meaning now, than it had for the old
Hebrews. For another thing, excavations prove that, for example, Jericho
was indeed destroyed around the time the Bible says, but that the total
numbers given in the Bible do not fit the size of Jericho. In other places
as well, it is clear that the people of the OT used language in a different
way than we do.
As I said I am not going to be involved in this debate, but you may find
other books, not written by what you call "evolutionists", who have only
"theological" degrees, who do not want to deny evolution, and base it on
the use of language by OT people. They stress that God wants us to know
that He made it all, and that He chose a people to represent Him on
earth. The language used is not English, the place where these things
happen is not exactly known, but it is not Europe.
If you then consider how difficult it is to read your own language as it
was spoken in the Middle ages, one should be grateful for the many
different types of people studying the Bible, studying history, studying
what God does in nature.

Jan de Koning

At 09:21 PM 31/07/2004 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Jan,
>
>I'm happy that we can at least agree the most important thing of all,
>namely that Jesus died for your sins and mine. However, regarding the
>other matters that have arisen just lately, if Genesis 1:1 is revealed as
>the most remarkable combination of words ever written [and it is, by
>virtue of its being (a) a fundamental assertion, (b) uniquely positioned
>in a large book, and (c) packed with numerical riches of one kind and
>another - some relating closely to an abundant modern-day artefact] then
>does it not follow that we should expect it to be regarded with particular
>interest by scientifically-minded, and truth-seeking, Christians and Jews?
>But the message that is coming through strongly is that you evolutionists
>would prefer to ignore any new source of scriptural information that in
>your view threatens to 'shake the boat'.
>
>Some time ago I initiated a thread on this list entitled 'Evolution's
>Imperative'. Sadly, that appears to sum things up; it's what convinces me
>that TOE = TSD.
>
>Vernon
><http://www.otherbiblecode.com>www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jan@dekoning.ca>Jan de Koning
>To: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:16 AM
>Subject: Re: TOE or TSD: that is the question! (was Genesis 1:1 - a
>standing miracle)
>
>Vernon, I have tried to stay out of the conversation about Gen. 1 you
>gave, because I totally disagree with the way you read the Bible, the book
>by which I live, since you make it a book full of secret language use. I
>do not want to discuss the way you distort its contents. I strongly
>believe, that God did not include Gen. or other books in the Bible for all
>kinds of funny gams with numbers. The numbers He mentioned are clearly
>indicating what He meant by it.
>God does not want to deceive us in nature either. You cannot assume that
>God made nature in such a way that he is deceiving all scientists. Far
>from it. God always uses a language people can understand. In the time
>of Noah, Abraham, David etc, as well. Their background was totally
>different from ours. Also, their use of language was not modern English
>with a background of modern life. People in the agricultural Old
>Testament had a totally different use of language than we in modern times
>have. That makes translating difficult, but also, it means that we should
>not try to use texts in the way you wanted. For my feeling you play games
>with the sacred Word.
>Believe in Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and admit that some things in
>the Bible, as well as in God's creation are too difficult to understand.
>
>I do not intend to reply to you, if you answer this e-mail, since from
>what I read thus far from your replies to others, we would not get any
>closer to understanding each other. I tried, but could not get in your
>frame of mind. However, I will accept that you believe that Jesus died
>for your sins and mine.
>
>Jan de Koning
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:32 PM 29/07/2004 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>>Glenn,
>>Thanks for these geological 'proofs' of an old earth and evolution. But,
>>as a Christian, I suggest your approach to these matters has been lax and
>>far too simplistic. Let me explain: you should have learned from the Book
>>of Job (1:6-12; 2:1-7), from the events leading up to the death of Ahab,
>>King of Israel (1Kings 22), and from Paul's words of warning (Eph. 6:
>>10-18) that we live our earthly lives against a backdrop of considerable
>>supernatural activity. In the wisdom of God, the deceiver - and enemy of
>>our souls - Satan, is sometimes allowed to exercise considerable power on
>>earth (such as providing those _decoys_ you have listed). Now it should
>>be clear to all believers of the Gospel that evolution sits _extremely
>>awkwardly_ with the Scriptures, and there can be little doubt that all
>>attempts to harmonise the two have resulted in serious distortions of the
>>Word of God - something that the Apostle Peter expressly warns against
>>(2Pet.3:15-16). Undoubtedly, this situation - and the confusion it has
>>engendered - represent a coup for Satan! It also explains why this
>>'Theory' is different from _all others_ in that, when challenged, its
>>adherents tend to become testy and hostile, and those unable to accept it
>>are subjected to duress of one kind or another.
>>Glenn, I put it to you that 'Theory of Evolution' is better described as
>>the 'Theory of Satanic Deception'.
>>Vernon
>><http://www.otherbiblecode.com>www.otherbiblecode.com
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>Glenn Morton
>>To: <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>'Vernon Jenkins' ;
>><mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>'Don Winterstein' ;
>><mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>'Walter Hicks'
>>Cc: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>'asa'
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:47 AM
>>Subject: RE: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle
>>
>> DW : Overwhelming scientific evidence compels us to conclude the world
>> is much older than 10,000 years.
>>VJ: If the evidence is indeed as rock-solid as you suggest then why do
>>many reputable scientists continue to think otherwise?
>>Vernon, I guess it is time to point you to some web pages which show
>>pictures of Geology. If the earth is less than 10 kyr, then the geologic
>>column must be deposited quite rapidly or created in place. That means
>>you have either a God who makes up animals who never lived and thus is
>>deceptive, or you have to beleive in a global flood. There are lots of
>>problems with that. We can't post pictures to this list so I will point
>>you to my web page on geology which has links to lots of pictures in
>>geology which show exactly why the geology was not deposited in one
>>year. The site is
>><http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm>http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm
>>
>>The reasons for this included
>>burrows in all levels of the geologic column,
>>dried out mudcracks and desert deposits on all levels of the geologic
>>column,
>>foot prints and trails on all levels of the geologic column,
>>erosion of very hard rocks (like 35 km of hard igneous rock eroded in
>>Scotland).
>>buried river channels
>>buried canyons
>>plants growing in many levels of the geologic column
>>too many animals for a single biosphere to have been killed in a flood
>>evidence of normal activities, like animals going to the bathroom over a
>>long period of time--otherwise you have to assume they all took a dump at
>>once.
>>Take a look and explain the geology, Vernon. this is the stuff which the
>>YEC leadership never wants the laity to see. And there are pictures for
>>it all. The reason why people still believe in a young earth is because
>>they won't look at geology.
Received on Sat Jul 31 18:33:36 2004