Vernon,
You seem to have misunderstood my comments. I was trying to point out
errors in your logic. Just because evolutionists need to believe
Statement A does not imply that anyone who believes Statement A must be an
evolutionist, but that is what you have done repeatedly. For example,
belief in an old earth occurred well before Darwin, and even today many
who hold such a view are not Darwinists. I ignored your point about
the evolutionist's dilemma because my whole point was that much of what
you were attacking was derived independently of an evolutionary agenda and
is widely held among people who are not evolutionists. Thus although you
claim to be attacking evolution, you actually have a much wider target.
As for your claim that Psalm 104 is post-edenic, have you read the whole
psalm? Have you noticed the references to God making things? Have you
noticed the structural parallel to Genesis 1?
In discussing the flood, it appears that you make no distinction between a
geographically global flood and an anthropologically global flood.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 19:09:12 EDT