Hi Vernon,
You wrote:
> Thanks for writing. In response to my
>
> > > The Bible's last Book begins "This is a Revelation from Jesus Christ
> > > ...". Its contents, therefore, need to be taken very seriously by
> > > all who take to themselves the title 'Christian'. Let us observe a
> > > number of interesting things about this Book which make it rather
> > > special: ...
>
>
> you said
>
>
> > What on earth has all this to do with SN 1987A, or anything else like
> > that?
>
>
> Let me first say, you have given us little idea where you stand in
> respect of religious affiliation. I think it would help if you were to
My religious beliefs/affliiliations are completely irrelevant to the fact that
a star was seen to explode in 1987. I have religious beliefs and
affiliations, but they are not germane here.
> declare this. Now, regarding your question, I suggest that it is
> reasonable for all who earnestly pursue truth to critically examine data
> across the widest possible spectrum. As far as I am concerned, this
> includes biblical data which, I believe, has been placed at our disposal
> by the Creator himself. Since the deductions based upon the SN1987A
> observations have implications which are destructive to a high view of
> God's Word, I believe I was completely justified in writing as I did.
The deductions based upon SN 1987A observations are only destructive
to a particular literal interpretation of the Bible, just as Galileo's
observations of the phases of Venus or the moons of Jupiter were
destructive to a particular literal interpretation of the Bible in his day.
> Further, in response to my
>
> > > anyone, having read the narrative of Gen.6-8 and our Lord's
> > > corroboration of the matter (Mt.24:36-39), can reasonably conclude -
> > > and attempt to convince others - that this was a purely 'local'
> > > matter - selectively destroying some men and some species of animals
> > > - is surely breathtakingly arrogant.
>
>
> you write
>
> > Well in fact the Bible doesn't say the flood was global, it says it
> > was worldwide, which meant at best the KNOWN world to the author(s) or
> > the people Genesis was originally written for.
>
>
> I don't know the translation from which you draw this conclusion. The AV
> (Gen.6:7) reads "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have
> created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping
> thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made
> them." I understand this to be a fair rendering of the Hebrew. As far as
> I am concerned, therefore, when God himself says "...from the face of
> the earth ..." - all men, apart from Noah and his family, having been
> deemed "corrupt", and worthy of death - that must mean, and require, a
> global flood.
However, the fact is that the flood was not global, as there is no evidence
of such a global flood in the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps, amongst
other places.
>You conclude with the words
>
>
> > All YECs I've argued with on the light of SN 1987A, and other distant
> > objects, have so far proposed no alternative explanations as to how
> > you can see such objects in a 6000 year old "biblical" universe, other
> > than waving their arms in the air and invoking changes in the speed of
> > light, the appearance of age and other similar arguments for which no
> > shred of evidence is provided.
>
>
> You appear to have missed the points I was making - which, admittedly,
> would only be likely to carry weight with a Christian believer. In a
> nutshell, what I said was: those who are of the opinion that scientific
> observation is necessarily immune to supernatural influence are living
> in a world of make-believe. This claim I backed up with hard evidence
> drawn from the Scriptures.
Then please explain a supernatural model of SN 1987A, which has to
include the observations of neutrinos that were detected at about the time
the light was seen. Neutrinos were predicted from the theory of type II
supernovae caused by the collapse of the core of a massive star. Which
branches of science do you propose to include supernatural influences,
and which not? For example, is meteorology included on a day to day
basis (excluding the carming of the storm in the Bible)?
>
>
> I am wondering why you remain silent re my numerical observations.
Because they are completely irrelevant to the topic.
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Vernon
Sincerely
Christopher
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 14 2001 - 21:24:15 EST