Gordon,
In response to my statement:
> > Despite your assurances re the cast-iron nature of the evidence
>for evolution,
> > those of us who accept the Bible as a unique body of revealed truth find it
> > impossible to believe for the simple reason that the alleged process
> > is completely at odds with the direct teaching of the Incarnated
>Creator, Jesus
> Christ. For
> > example, how do you square "...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
>with all thy
> > heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind...and...Thou
>shalt love thy
> > neighbour as thyself." (Mt.22:37-39) with the principle 'dog eat
> > dog'? Why would our Lord - the personification of love - choose
>to use such a
> > process, declare it complete, and then pronounce it all to be
>'very good'? It is
> surely
> > an affront to common sense and to the intelligence of every
>Bible-believer to
> > equate 'creation' with 'evolution'.
You wrote:
> One need not be an evolutionist to believe that what God declares to be
> very good might not match the opinions of man. Psalm 104 praises the Lord
> for His very good creation. One of the things it praises Him for is
> predatory beasts (vs. 21).
I'm not sure that I see the point of this statement. God's 'very
good' (Gen.1:31)
surely referred to all that He
had created while in its pristine condition and, as Christians, we
would surely have
said 'amen' to that. The
psalmist, on the other hand, is describing the post-edenic situation.
Clearly, for
him - as for us - there is much
that is beautiful, and much to wonder at; indeed, much to thank and
praise Him for.
But, as believers, we
recognise that things are no longer as they once were, and therefore
look forward to
the process of
re-creation and reconciliation promised in the eventual fulfilment of
God's Purposes
(Rev.21,22).
You appear to have ignored the point I was making regarding the Christian
evolutionist's dilemma, viz that
He who said 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself' also happens to be Our
Creator, and if evolution indeed
be a reality, then how is He to be trusted when claiming to be 'the
way, the truth,
and the life...' (Jn.14:6)?!
Christianity and evolution are thus mutually exclusive.
Referring to a further statement of mine:
> > By the way, concerning your contention that the 'mabbul' was 'local':
> > are you not ignoring the powerful language of
> > the narrative, the NT evidence, and simple _common sense_. With 100
> > years at his disposal, Noah could easily
> > have walked his family and himself - along with the animals - to
> > safety! It would appear that you deny the Scriptures
> > and ignore the obvious simply because of 'evolutionary pressures'.
You write:
> Again, one need not be an evolutionist to believe that the Flood was not
> global. Rather than always relying on a translation, one should take a
> look at the Hebrew and not just the numerical values of the letters in one
> verse. What would 'erets have meant to the ancient Hebrews? Even in the
> writings of the early church fathers we can find comments about the fact
> that wind would not cause a global flood to abate. Noah was a preacher of
> righteousness (II Peter 2:5). He had a call to a particular place. If he
> had decided to escape judgment the easy way and, like Jonah, go somewhere
> else, he wouldn't have been honored for his faith in Hebrews 11.
What I am suggesting, Gordon, is that the localization of the Flood
is critical to
the success of the
'the evolutionary enterprise'. I cannot believe that God's purposes
were other than
the complete
destruction of a wicked generation followed by a new beginning. I
have suggested that
a logical
approach to the matter overwhelmingly supports that view. The early
church fathers
clearly had
an imperfect understanding of God's sovereignty - as do we, I am sure!
You have raised the matter of the interesting numerics attending this
situation.
Earth history - from a
biblical perspective - falls into 3 well-defined periods, viz Ante-diluvian,
Diluvian, and Post-diluvian.
Gen.1:1 may be considered to be a prologue to the first (represented
numerically by
2701 - 73rd
triangular number); the end of the 2nd period is described in
Gen.8:14, which also
functions as prologue
to the 3rd period - of which we are part; its numerical value is
again 2701. Those
acquainted with the
material on my website will know that these truths form but a small part of the
numerical scheme there
described.
Sincerely,
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 19:07:05 EDT