Re: Non-truths that do not transform

Vernon,

Some of the statements you want me to answer for were made by others on
this forum, not by me. My response is to those that involve the statements
that I have made, i.e. my belief in an old earth and universe and in a
nonglobal flood and my disbelief in flood geology.

Concerning II Peter 3, although when we use the word cosmos in English, we
refer to the universe, in the Greek New Testament it is not normally
something physical. That would be ge. Someone else has already discussed
this in a reply to you.

Exodus 20:8-11 gives commemorating God's creative activity as a basis for
the seven-day week of the Jewish calendar. The Bible has many memorials
from the Jewish feasts in the OT to the Lord's Supper in the NT. Are these
memorials exact replicas of what they commemorate? Did the Israelites live
in booths for only one week? (Lev. 23) Is there a tabernacle in heaven
exactly like the one that Moses had built? (Heb. 8:5). Did God rest for
only 24 hours? (Heb. 4)

The week of the Jewish calendar begins and ends at sunset on Saturday. The
days begin and end at sunset. Did God start to create at sunset on
Saturday evening? If not, how do you know that the first day was 24 hours
long?

You didn't get flood geology from the Bible. It isn't there. You didn't
get it directly from the Seventh Day Adventists, but you got it from Henry
Morris, who got it from George McCready Price, who developed it from Ellen
White's account of a vision that she claimed to have had of the Flood.

The Biblical account contradicts flood geology. The only animals that are
said to have perished in the Flood are those that would drown in a flood.
The Flood failed to strip a leaf off an olive tree, something that would
not have happened in a flood violent enough to wash away mountains. The
Bible refers to geographical features of the antediluvian earth that are
still there today.

If the Flood had totally altered the surface of the earth, it would have
been an exercise in futility to try to describe the location of the
Garden, and all the geographical references would be irrelevant. They have
no other role in the account. When the human population stood at just 1,
rivers would not have had names. Countries through which or by which these
rivers flowed would not have had names or even been considered countries.

The author expected his readers to know where the Euphrates River was. He
also figured that they would have heard of some of the other countries in
the region so that he could give them a general idea of where the other
rivers were. He even mentions the minerals present in one area and gives
an opinion of their quality.

The nonsensical YEC interpretation of this passage is an attempt to
explain away the contradiction between flood geology and the Bible.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> 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 Thu May 5 17:45:22 2005