Re: Another heresy

Vernon

I note you value robust argument and plain speaking. I am not inclined to
use the former in this case and what I write is from very serious concern at
your attitudes.

1. Those who, like me, do not see the divine watermark in Genesis One, do
not insist on reading our own meaning into Scripture. All who do not see
this watermark follow recognisable readings on scripture whether Glenn's or
George's to give two rather different approaches. Neither are lone rangers
in biblical interpretation. Nor am I and my interpretation as with others
on this list fall in the consensus of conservative interpretation.
I am afraid it is you, and you alone, who force their own meaning onto
Scripture, and in a more bizarre way than John Mackay!

2. If Gen 1vs1 is numerical as you claim that does not make it a miracle at
all. It is difficult to see any value in it whatsoever.
I probably speak for most Christians on this list and see that our faith is
based on Jesus Christ crucified and risen and not some recently discovered
numbers in Genesis.
May I ask you if you disregard Jesus Christ in favour of this numerical
watermark.
If it is so central to our faith how can I as a minister teach it to my
congregation?

3. All evangelicals myself included recognise the Bible as a unique body of
> _divine revelation_

4 As for evolution you have never given one reason why it is wrong and have
ignored my requests to explain why geological time is wrong.

5. How come you are RIGHT and everyone else over the last 2000 years has
been wrong?

6. Finally I have never come across such a bizarre interpretation of
Scripture as yours and regard it as not even Christian and extremely
damaging to the Gospel.

I hope this is put over plainly

Michael

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: Another heresy

> John,
>
> It disappoints me that the 'divine watermark' - to which I repeatedly draw
> attention - has, so far, signally failed to deter those who insist on
> reading their own meaning into the words of the J-C Scriptures. However,
> those few who correctly perceive the implications of this miraculous event
> (encountered in the opening Hebrew words) realise that such practice is
> now no longer reasonable; that the Bible is confirmed as a unique body of
> _divine revelation_ - and an implacable foe of evolution.
>
> By the way, robust argument should not be interpreted as incivility,
> impertinence or personal malice. ASA, surely, is a forum for grown-ups -
> and one in which plain speaking is encouraged.
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
> To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:25 PM
> Subject: Another heresy
>
>
>> Vernon wrote, in part, replying to Bob:
>>
>> .. (1) Apparently you doubt the Lord's veracity and sincerity in respect
>> of the
>> parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. ... As a person 'like that' what,
>> precisely, don't I get?"
>>
>> Among the many things I perceive you "not getting" is a civil tongue. Bob
>> may be incorrect in his position (I seriously doubt that he is) but in no
>> way would that incorrectness (if it were so) imply that he doubts the
>> Lord's veracity. For you to imply this is simply being impolite.
>>
>> JB
>>
>> What does Michael Ruse say about C vs E in his latest book.
>>
>> See www.burgy.50megs.ruse.htm for a review.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Dec 11 14:38:30 2005