On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 19:56:30 GMT you wrote:
[...]
TJ>You wrote:
>SJ> But the "genealogies" at best could only give an age for Adam.
>Adam could be young (ie. 10,000 - 100,000 years) and yet the
>Earth be old. Ross believes this and so do I.
TJ>But Jesus didn't.
>
>Jesus said very plainly that "man was made AT THE BEGINNING OF
>CREATION". Not "millions" of years later. Mark 10:6
>
>How do you "interpret" these verses in Mark, Steve?
Matthew simply says "the beginning":
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them male and female" (Mt 19:4)
Mark says "the beginning of the creation":
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female." (Mk 10:6)
The other two evangelists don't mention it at all.
Even YEC's don't believe this was literally true, ie. they believe it
was six 24 hour days AFTER the "beginning of creation" in Gn 1:1.
The fact is that Jesus referred to a range of verses from Genesis 1-4
as "the beginning", eg.
GN 1-2 ADAM & EVE
Mt 19:4-5 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at THE BEGINNING the
Creator 'made them male and female,' (= Gn 1:27) and said, 'For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and the two will become one flesh' (=Gn 2:24) (my emphasis)
GN 3 THE FALL
Jn 8:44 "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry
out your father's desire. He was a murderer from THE BEGINNING, not
holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
(my emphasis)
GN 4 CAIN & ABEL
Lk 11:50 "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the
blood of all the prophets that has been shed since THE BEGINNING of
the world". (my emphasis) See Mt 23:35 "And so upon you will come all
the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you
murdered between the temple and the altar."
The word "beginning" was the name for the entire book of Genesis:
"The Jews designated the book according to its first word, B'reshith
(`In the Beginning')... (Young E.J., "An Introduction to the Old
Testament", 1949, Tyndale Press: London, 1958 reprint, p51).
I conclude therefore that Jesus by using the term "the beginning" (Mt
19:4) or "the beginning of the creation" (Mk 10:6), as a Scripture
reference (equivalent to us saying "Genesis"), rather than a statement
of time-frame.
>SJ> Besides, if abandoning your YEC position would cause you to
>abandon the Bible, then I don't want to have your spiritual
>blood on my hands.
TJ>Oh Steve, really!
>You don't have to worry. I'll never abandon the Bible. As they
>say, it is an Anvil that has worn out many hammers. My faith is
>in Jesus. And He will never leave me, nor forsake me.
Well in that case there is no point in debating YEC with you because
you have tied your whole Christian faith to a YEC interpretation.
>SJ> I will be interested to see how you explain how your agreement
>with "God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech
>in Scripture" with your disagreement with "The truth must be
>a conjunction of the two"
TJ>Well, as is not usual, I'm afraid I wasn't very clear. Let me try
>to be a little more specific as to exactly what I meant.
>
>It is true I absolutely believe that "God cannot contradict His
>speech in Nature by His speech in Scripture." This is obvious.
>After all, He who wrote the one, also wrote the other.
That's no clearer than what you originally said. What I want to know
is why it is "absolutely absurd" that "The truth must be a conjunction
of the two".
TJ>Let me try to explain my position with a simple example.
>
>If I look at nature and it seems to be telling me that people came
>into existence by some sort of evolutionary progression, then I
>would have to assume that I was not interpreting my observations
>correctly because I know for sure (according to my understanding
>of scripture) that God created man fully formed.
Agreed. You would be assume "The truth must be a conjunction
of the two" and therefore your *interpretation* was wrong.
TJ>I would not be inclined to try to make a "conjunction of the two".
You are now talking about a different "two". We were talking about
God's "speech in Nature" and "His speech in Scripture", *not* with
your interpretation of your "observations".
TJ>I would not try to compromise Scripture, just to make something
>fit, something that I could be wrong about. This is because I
>don't believe Scripture can be wrong (the original manuscripts),
>and I know that I can. I also have a very strong impression that
>others can also.
See above. You are confusing God's "speech in Nature" and "His
speech in Scripture" with your possibly "wrong" *interpretation* of
both. This does not explain why it was "absolutely absurd" that I
(following Ramm) said "The truth must be a conjunction of the two".
>SJ>But at least you accept in principle that nature and Scripture
>are ultimately saying the same thing.
TJ>I accept it completely, not just in principle, how could anyone do
>otherwise?
Well, you said it was "absolutely absurd" that "The truth must be a
conjunction of the two".
TJ>Of course you are just "playing" with me. You know exactly what
>I mean.
No. How could I? You have only just started on the Reflector. I
can only go by what you post, until I build up a picture of what
you believe on a wide range of issues.
TJ>It is not "nature" which is wrong, but the "conclusions"
>from scientists that study nature which are in error, if they
>contradict the Scriptures.
Well, this just confirms what Ramm said. If you "don't believe
Scripture can be wrong" and "It is not "nature" which is wrong", then
why is it "absolutely absurd" that "The truth must be a
conjunction of the two".
>SJ> How do you know how much time I spend "reading" my Bible?
TJ>Just a guess, Steve.
On what basis do you make this "guess"?
TJ>I suppose because Scripture is just too clear
>on this subject. There just isn't anything in there to support the
>"day-age" theory. It's just too clear on this.
Perhaps you have not studied either Scripture or nature deeply enough?
There is *no* statement that the days of Genesis 1 were 24-hour solar
days (the sun was not even set up as a time-keeper until Day 4), and
indeed there is strong evidence that the sixth day extended over a
long period of time: eg. Adam getting lonely (Gn 2:18-20) and his
"at last" when Eve was brought to him (Gn 2:23). And Hebrews 4 makes
it plain that the seventh day is continuing.
>SJ> Hmmm. I just did a Bible search on "days" and "24-hours".
>Guess what? "nowhere does it say the days were 24-hours long"!
> :-)
TJ>Yes it does :-)
>
>The context of Exodus 31:17 makes it obvious that the "days"
>referred to in Genesis 1 are "24 hours". Remember, this was
>inscribed by the very finger of God! See also Exodus 20:11. Same
>thing, the context makes it obvious the 6 days of creation were
>literal.
It is *not* "obvious"! The passage equally supports an analogical
interpretation. Ross says:
"The Sabbath day for man and Sabbath year for the land are analogous
to God's work week. God's fourth commandment says that the seventh
day of each week is to be honored as holy, "For in six days the LORD
made the heavens and the earth . . . but he rested on the seventh day"
(Exodus 20:10-11). This passage is often cited as proof positive for
the twenty-four-hour-day interpretation. Evangelical Hebrew scholar
Gleason Archer disagrees: "By no means does this demonstrate that
24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than
the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the
wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.' (Archer
G., "A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating
to Natural Science,", in Radmacher E.D., & Preus R.D., "Hermeneutics,
Inerrancy, and the Bible", Academic Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1986,
p329)
(Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress, Colorado Springs CO, 1994,
p59).
TJ>Surely you must admit that any other "interpretation" of these
>verses must be forced?
No. I think that YEC's 24-hour "`interpretation' of these
verses" is "forced". :-)
TJ>Why would one want to go so far out of the way to "interpret" these
>verses? So that one could "make a conjunction of the two." THIS
>is what I meant in my previous post, and the answer to the question
>you were interested in above.
You said it was "absolutely absurd" that "The truth must be a
conjunction of the two". Now you are trying to "make a conjunction of
the two"! Please make up your mind. :-)
>SJ> Fine. I have no problem if you think the "the 6 days of
>creation MUST have been 24 hours", especially if it would wreck
>your faith. I take Mt. 18:6 very seriously.
TJ>Well, I'm glad to find out that you at least take ONE part of the
>Bible seriously! :-)
I take *all* "the Bible seriously". I take the facts of nature
"seriously", also.
TJ>As I have said, my faith is strong. You have nothing to fear. It
>is not possible for you to shake my faith in either the written
>word, of the living Word.
It seems it is also "not possible" for me to shake your faith in
*your interpretation" of "the written word". Therefore, we must agree
to disagree, and our discussion of YEC is at an end. You must be
prepared to change your mind, at least in principle, for us to have
any meaningfull debate. I might as well debate with a brick wall!
It won't change its mind either! :-)
>SJ> Romans 5:12 only speaks of the "death" of *man*:
>
>SJ> "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN, and
> > death through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN,
> > because all sinned". (emphasis mine)
TJ>See? Because of your absolute commitment to make a "conjunction
>of the two", you have been forced to change the obvious meaning of
>this very plain verse to fit your philosophy.
No. I just quoted what *its words* actually say, not what you *think*
they say.
TJ>Which is OK, I guess. After all, as you have said before, what
>difference does it make how old the earth or the universe is?
That is what *I* said. Is it now what *you* are saying? If so, our
debate
over YEC is at an endt.
TJ>So let me make a proposal. Let's set a "time" to meet in the
>future. Let's make it, say, 10,000 "years" from today, whenever
>that is. Then we can sit down and have a big laugh over who was
>right! What do you think? Do you agree?
Fine. See you then! :-)
TJ>Until then, may God richly bless you, Steve.
Thanks. Same to you.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------