Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

George,

Just a few points in response to your final email on this topic (28 Jan).

(1) I would like to think that you have taken the trouble to closely examine the evidence upon which my case is based. However, judging by certain of your remarks, I wonder. For example, "If indeed God hid the kind of numerical pattern that you think he did... and, " Does that numerical pattern (Granted for the sake of argument)...". Really, George, no one is going to rap you over the knuckles for admitting what should be obvious to all, viz that the Bible's first verse does incorporate a substantial numero-geometrical pattern. But it is surely odd that your various pronouncements during the course of this exchange have been made, apparently, in complete ignorance of what has confronted you.

(2) I refer you to my recent posting to David which sums up my views on the viability of MN as a working principle.

(3) I observe that while we both _appear_ to agree Scripture to be 'true & authoritative', my understanding of this description is absolute whereas yours is peppered with qualifications of one kind or another.

(4) You incorrectly infer that I am no longer interested in the claims of 'apparent age'. Believing that the Genesis 1 formula, "And God said...and it was so." refers to a creation 'ex nihilo', _apparent age_ is a manifestly logical concept - wouldn't you agree?

(5) I am disappointed that you have decided to terminate this exchange. Are the issues not serious enough to cause you to change your mind?

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: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

  Vernon -
      Surely you must realize that I - & most others on this list - believe that God did indeed move a human being to write bereshith bara elohim eth hashamayim weth haaretz. Precisely how God did that I don't know, but I don't know any compelling reason to say that it must have been in some way that exceeded the capacity of natural processes. It is, after all, not so bizarre an idea that a statement about creation would begin in that way. If indeed God hid the kind of numerical pattern that you think he did - well, it certainly would be interesting but it doesn't prove that methodological naturalism has to be abandoned. & even if it had to be abandoned in the case of the inspiration of scripture, that would in no way show that it shouldn't be used in describing the natural world where it has had a tremendous amount of success.

      Does that numerical pattern (Granted for the sake of argument) prove the truth of scripture? No. But even if it did, most of the people on this list already believe scripture to be true & authoritative. The question is not whether it's true but what kind of truth it gives us - a point you seem unable to grasp. Thus your claim is of no help in dealing with issues of creation and evolution by Christians.

      I note, BTW, that you have dropped the attempt to defend yourself from the consequences of your extreme claims about apparent age. You are probably wise to do so: Having to make the choice between being a Manichaean and calling God deceptive isn't very attractive.

      This will be my last post on this matter. I have already taken up too much time with it and I have a day job.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Vernon Jenkins
    To: George Murphy ; CMSharp01@aol.com ; gordon brown ; Roger G. Olson
    Cc: ASA list
    Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:01 PM
    Subject: Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

    George,

    You concluded your last posting with the paragraph, Can you read? I did not ignore what you said and replied "Are you completely incapable of considering the possibility that you might be wrong?" Are you?

    But surely you must see that what really matters here is whether _you_ think I'm wrong - and in what respect? and why? For myself, I am incapable of believing the phenomena to be a figment of my imagination; or that they may be reasonably attributed to chance, or the work of an exceptionally gifted man; or are not intended to accomplish some significant purpose.

    In other words, I believe the phenomena are of _supernatural_ origin; indeed, of _divine_ origin - in view of the context in which they appear. So where does that leave methodological naturalism? Should it, in your view, still command the complete confidence of those involved in the scientific endeavour?

    You will no doubt agree that these are serious issues, George. If you find any flaws in what I have written above, please advise so that, together, we may proceed to uncover the truth.

    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: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:03 PM
      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: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:46 PM
        Subject: 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_?

        Of course the NT picture of Satan is rather different from that in Job. Are you really unable to read Job on its own terms?

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

        Someone who claims to decipher Gen.1:1 should have no problem with what I wrote! To rephrase it, you've confused the fruits of Haeckel with the fruits of evolution.

        (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.

        Can you read? I did not ignore what you said and replied "Are you completely incapable of considering the possibility that you might be wrong?" Are you?

        Shalom
        George
        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
          ----- 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 Sun Jan 30 17:43:55 2005