David:
Along with so many intellectual Christians these days you are attempting
to make the Bible say what you want it to say, rather than allowing it
to inform you! I therefore reject your view concerning the significance
of 7. On what possible basis can you believe it to be symbolic rather
than chronological? Isn't it obvious from our reading of the scriptures
that certain numbers have an eternal significance that we can only guess
at! For example, consider 12. Why an inner company of 12 disciples? Why
had that complement to be restored following the death of Judas
Iscariot? Why, in the OT, was it necessary to have Joseph represented by
his two sons following the separation of the tribe of Levi for priestly
duties? Surely, these are matters that should inform us that certain
numbers are being used not just as symbols, but as objects which are
important to God!
David, the phenomena to which I refer in my latest page are real enough
- as you may easily discover for yourself! The implication is that
someone has laced the opening Hebrew words of Genesis and Greek form of
the Creator's name with information that closely maps onto an
extrabiblical structure that our own eyes and minds inform us to be
rather special. Who could have done such a thing? and left us with some
explicit clues in the Bible's last book? The circumstances demand a
supernatural hand - the hand of God!
These are matters that no follower of Christ should want to duck! -
particularly bearing in mind that our foremost defining characteristic
is that we love truth (Jn.18:37). The promise of the riddle of Rv.13:18
is 'Here is wisdom.'. Why not accept this gracious offer? You can have
nothing to lose, and much to gain!
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
David Campbell wrote:
>
> > [the numerological evidences] function as a seal that (a) confirms God's
> >being and
> >sovereignty, (b) speaks of his abiding interest in us, and (c)
> >establishes the self-authenticating credentials of his word."
> >
> >I suggest that such knowledge should cause all who are actively engaged
> >in discussing the matter of origins to theorise no more - but rather to
> >accept, and build upon, this solid foundation. Are we now really to
> >believe that this God is incapable of doing precisely what he tells us
> >he did at the beginning? [And besides, where do we find solid empirical
> >evidence to the contrary? Let's be honest, hasn't it all so far been a
> >matter of naturalistic interpretation and conjecture?]
>
> I do not doubt that God's Word is authoritative but do doubt that there is
> any intent in Genesis to establish a chronological or methodological
> framework for creation. The use of day in 2:4 does not mesh with its use
> in chapter 1 if both are taken to refer to a twenty-four hour period, for
> example. When and how God created things is not particularly important
> theologically; rather, what is important is Who created and why. In
> addition, because God created rationally and because He created us to be
> stewards over creation, we are able to figure out a good deal about the
> when and how from physical observations. Only revelation can tell us what
> we need to know about God and what our responsibilities are to Him.
>
> The evidence contrary to YEC is not a matter of naturalistic interpretation
> and conjecture, as many theists recognize the evidence for the great age of
> creation. Taking that as disproof of God's involvement is naturalistic
> interpretation; ironically, this naturalistic interpretation is frequent in
> YEC and ID.
>
> >Regarding your reference to 'the symbolic nature of 7', I fail to see
> >how it can 'weaken the case for mandatory YEC'. Can you please explain?
>
> The use of 7 as symbolic of perfection and its significance for numerous
> time intervals suggests that seven days in Gen. 1-2:3 is likely to be
> symbolic rather than chronological. To take Ron Number's example of
> something still present in today's western culture, creation taking 13 days
> would not be good symbolism. This emphasis on the symbolism rather than
> chronology of 7 suggests that Genesis does not provide a chronological
> framework. This then leaves the question of young, middle aged, or old
> earth open.
>
> David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 16:58:33 EST