Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

George,

Just a few comments on your latest posting:

(1) Reading what's written, wouldn't you agree that the 'serpent' of Gen.3 is remarkably similar to the 'devil' (aka 'Satan') of Mat.4? And hasn't he therefore been a liar _from the beginning_?

(2) Your response to my observations on the Lord's words concerning 'fruits' are, I find, undecipherable - but I hesitate to request a rephrasing.

(3) You have completey ignored the second matter I raised, viz the lessons that might be learned from the widespread negative reaction to news of the numero-geometrical features of Genesis 1:1. Wouldn't you agree that these phenomena strongly challenge the view that _methodological naturalism_ is the only valid basis for the proper investigation of ultimate origins? It would be good and proper if you were to consider joining me in disabusing others of this significant error.

Shalom
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
 
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Vernon Jenkins ; CMSharp01@aol.com ; gordon brown ; Roger G. Olson
  Cc: ASA list
  Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:15 AM
  Subject: Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Vernon Jenkins
    To: George Murphy ; CMSharp01@aol.com ; gordon brown ; Roger G. Olson
    Cc: ASA list
    Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:04 PM
    Subject: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

    George, you certainly have a penchant for raising dust. So we now find ourselves confronted by _two_ Satans: a Mark1 and a Mark2, so to speak! Pray tell us how we may distinguish between them, as they are encountered in the Scriptures. But then, strange things do happen in the world of TE - as I reveal in the following two examples.

    You apparently confuse an inability to doff your blinders with a penchant of mine for raising dust. The concept of Satan develops over the course of the writing of the canon. As I pointed out, one can easily distinguish the Satan in the Book of Job from that of the NT. The former walks into the heavenly council (no hint that he had ever been cast out of heaven, as in Rev.12) & God engages him in conversation. There is no indication that he has been a liar from the beginning, a fallen angel, the one who deceives the world &c. You ask "How we may distinguish them." Just read what's written!

    I'm afraid that it will throw you into another fit but I should point out that any supposed contradiction between 2 pictures of Satan is to some extent ameliorated by the fact that the Book of Job isn't history and probably was never intended as such. It's a story told to bring out precisely the problem of how to understand why good people suffer. And no (sigh), this doesn't mean that it's not true.

    (1) In his Sermon on the Mount - following some sound logic - our Lord utters the words, "... by their fruits ye shall know them." (Mat.7:20). Later, in Galations 5:22-23, we are informed of the fruits of the Spirit, viz love, joy, peace, longsuffering,... It is therefore most instructive to contrast these with what we know of the fruits of evolution, viz the destruction of scriptural authority, the lies of Ernst Haeckel and others, the support of evil regimes,... Clearly, this doctrine is no friend of the gospel of Christ; it bears no affinity with the Scriptures whatsoever! Why, then, are some Christians persuaded it does? In view of the Lord's clear 'litmus test', cited above, one would suppose his followers would pursue an intensely rigorous and continuing assessment of the merits of this teaching. Strangely, one does not find this to be so; rather we observe Christian happily joining forces with atheist in defence of a theory of origins which, progressively, makes nonsense of the former's declared allegiance to Christ.

    In other words, Jesus didn't say "By their fruits ye shall know them" but "By the fruits of those they agree with on any issue ye shall know them." So if I agree with a physicist who proposes a theory of elementary particles and he turns out to be an adulterer, I'm guilty of adultery. You've outdone yourself Vernon.

    (2) I had confidently believed that the numero-geometrical structure of Genesis 1:1 would be instantly recognised as a powerful new tool of Christian apologetics - particularly by brethren on this list who - with their scientific expertise - would quickly recognise these phenomena for what they are, viz God-given proof of scriptural authority, and a clear denial of the self-sufficiency of methodological naturalism. Strangely, that hope has never been realised - and one is bound to ask, Why not? The one reasonable answer appears to be that awareness of the significance of this particular combination of truth and logic (normally, grist to the scientific mill) has been mysteriously suppressed.

    Having given the matter much thought, I conclude that, over the years (some 25 or more) I have - unwittingly - been conducting a scientific survey of the reactions of people to these facts. The result of this survey can now be revealed: people in general - and Christians in particular - are incapable of accepting empirical evidence of God's being and sovereignty and of the authority of His word - by which I mean an understanding unencumbered by foolish interpretations and criticism. In a word, they appear to be _spellbound_. A supernatural antagonist has entered the fray. It is Satan alone who has the motive, the power, and the influence over human minds to suppress such vital truths. Why has God granted permission for him to do this? We have no answer, for the Lord's ways are known only to Himself. Here's how Scripture itself expresses it:

    Are you completely incapable of considering the possibility that you might be wrong?

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Wed Jan 26 17:49:38 2005