Re: Non-truths that do not transform

Gordon,

I have interleaved my comments below.

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the biblical account of
>> creation and of earth history (having, in effect, already judged God, and
>> found him wanting) are being tested by these 'wonders in the heavens'. Such
>> 'theatricals' are clearly within the scope of a being who delights to
>> deceive - and, for reasons which are completely beyond our understanding, is
>> being _allowed_ to deceive. As Christians, it is wise that we always
>> remember that His thoughts and ways are completely beyond our own. He has an
>> _agenda_; whether we like it or not, its fulfilment inevitably involves us!
>>
>> Vernon
>
> Vernon,
>
> I find it to be very unfortunate that you accuse everyone who disagrees
> with your interpretation of some passages of Scripture of rejecting the
> authority of the Bible.

But are you not rejecting the authority of the Bible when,

(a) You deny Ex.20:11 confirms the matter of a 6-day creation, followed by a day of rest?

(b) Since evolution is an on-going process, it clearly is _never_ completed?
 (And how is one to understand the 'day of rest' in this context?)

(c) You dispute the creation of the 'fowls of the air' (Gen.1:20-22) _before_ the land fauna
 (Gen.1:24, 25) - in particular, the reptiles? (How can errors of this kind be attributed to
a Sovereign Creator who uses evolution to achieve HIs ends?)

(d) You reject the problems of logic associated with belief in a _local_ flood?
(These were aired recently and remain without effective rebuttal.)
>
> You have accepted the Seventh Day Adventist version of the Flood and
> defend it even where it conflicts with the Biblical account. On this list
> you have denied that the Bible really meant it when it told us where the
> Garden of Eden was located by listing the rivers that were the sources of
> its water.

I am swayed more by the wording of the Flood Narrative than by any supposed SDA influence.
Just recently, I drew attention to the Apostle Peter's reference to the event (2Pet.3:6) which
suggests, beyond reasonable doubt, that to translate the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than
(planet) 'earth' amounts to a distortion and a 'wresting of the scriptures' (2Pet.3:16,17).

Concerning the matter of the river courses: I believe that such was the ferocity of the Mabbul that
the physiography of the whole earth would have been changed, and a completely new system of
continental drainage established. The fact that the name of a former river might be associated with
another, following the flood, is no proof that this was a quiescent and local affair.

 You have told us that either God or Satan fixed the creation so
> that it bears false witness to God's creative activity. Can you imagine
> how the great defenders of the Scriptures during the first 18 centuries of
> Christianity would have reacted to such assertions?
>
> I think that one of the most important aspects of defending the Scriptures
> is defending it against the charge that its teachings are nonsense. For
> Christians to embrace nonsense is counterproductive to this defense.

Gordon, I look forward to hearing your comments on the matters raised above.

Vernon

           
Received on Tue May 3 12:55:37 2005