Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> Hi Walt,
>
> (3) Concerning the authority of the Scriptures, I think the best I can
> do is to refer you to my recent posting to Christopher, and to quote
> some words of Simon Peter, "... we have not followed cunningly devised
> fables..." (2Pet.1:16).
>
> (4) Man was never involved in contemplating the true extent of the
> Flood. As I've explained to Robert, this is a red herring that is
> frequently presented as a defence for a "local" interpretation (and
> for evolution!). No, God was in charge of the whole project, from
> beginning to end, and He certainly knew the earth was a sphere! As far
> as we know He did not discuss this with Noah; why should He? He simply
> gave His reasons for the course of action He was about to take, and
> told Noah what He had to do to be saved from the deluge, with his
> loved ones and the animals. Noah just obeyed orders. Why is it
> necessary to suggest that because Noah knew no science, the Flood had
> to be "local"? This, clearly, does not follow.
>
> (5) You said, "One only gets into trouble with the Bible by declaring
> it to be more than God intended it to be." I was hoping that the
> logical development outlined in my last posting to Christopher would
> have convinced you that the Bible is a unique body of revealed truth,
> graciously provided by a loving God (who desires that none shall
> perish!). Walt, if you - as a Christian - see any errors in my logic,
> please let me know.
Hello Vernon,
Thanks for your reply. I would like to follow up but I will be signing
off of ASA tomorrow. Perhaps you could send any pertinent posts to my
own email.
I do not have a copy of the post to Christopher so perhaps you could
forward it to me.
Let me toss out a few discussion points in the meantime.
1.) If I were to accept a logic only trail about inerrancy and the
Christian Faith, then the most plausible one is that which starts at
Jesus Christ and asks about the Church He established. Was it based on
the Bible or upon the teachings of the Apostles? Without laying it all
out, the argument is persuasive that The RC Church and the Roman Pontiff
are the ones who represent the “inerrancy” aspects of the Christian
Faith --- (If I were to accept a logic only trail about inerrancy and
the Christian Faith).
2.) Actually this is somewhat related to the above. Without a single
voice to provide the interpretation of scripture, many opinions abound.
Here on this list we have the YEC viewpoint (in theory) and then
progressively more “liberal” viewpoints spanning the range from Jim
Eisele to George Murphy (and anomalies here and there to include Glenn
Morton and others.) I do not demean any of these but just point out that
one might just as well put inerrancy aside, since it leads to no unique
conclusions. As a concept, then, it produces nothing of substance IMO.
Hence I have come to accept the ASA Statement of Faith – which is almost
identical to my own church – as one that does not put this Biblical
Infallibility constraint on one’s thinking ====> One which can easily
lead to divisiveness and conflicts between Science and the Bible. – a
sad thing indeed.
But I am just an engineer/physicist -- not a theologian and not even a
scientist with a geological or biological expertise. Therefore I look
to those like you for information and suggestions.
Meanwhile, I still think that we (both myself and ASA) should be more
focused on the Christian life than on devisive interpretations of
ancient literature.
IMHO
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 23:08:23 EDT