RE: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

My point is, assume it is written exactly as intended. Assume it was written
yesterday by a great mind known to be inspired. We know that the sun is
required for 'day'. Why would anybody possibly claim that there was day
without the sun? We know that the sun is required for plant growth - ditto.
Why would anyone possibly claim something contrary to knowledge? Precisely
to emphasize that God is not bounded by our knowledge!? 'God could not have
made the sun after plants!' is not an assertion bounded by our day and age.
That assertion has most likely been made since the first time the passage
was told. (Not by those who live by blind faith, but by those who think and
question.)

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty;

I am not missing the point that God did not foresee that we would question
it. My point is that all people from all times should have questioned it. It
isn't just intuitively obviously false for our generation - it is
intuitively obviously false for all times.

As far as God's motives, you are correct in that I donot have the authority
to interpret them. However, I claim that the 'error' is so totally and
utterly obvious that it must be intentional. I've had elementary school
Sunday school students identify it.

The person who first told it; the person who first penned it knew that it
was contradictory to human experience. So, why did they write it? To
emphasize that God alone is the light? To emphasize that God alone can fill
any need, even that as enormous as that of the sun?
  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:32 PM
  To: glennmorton@entouch.net; 'Asa'; 'Beth Zimmerman'; 'Wil Whitlark';
'Debbie Mann'
  Subject: RE: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

  For Debbie Mann and Burgy:

  Hi Debbie,

  On Tue May 30 11:48 , "Debbie Mann" sent:

    I claim, that there is a reason for each Biblical account on the tough
list.
    I just spent a while on Genesis 1. First, the fact that the sun and the
moon
    were not created on the first day indicates that God's days and nights
are
    not our days and nights. With the evolution of the computer and computer
    aided design - the idea of God speaking something into existence takes
on
    new meaning. We could be a computer game for all we know.

    Given that the days and nights are not our days and nights - God's ways
are
    not our ways - the rest of the sequence is pretty logical. Except for
the
    sun and moon thing. But, even ancient man knew that the sun was life.
Other
    ancient men worshipped the sun. They knew that plants couldn't live
without
    the light of the sun. They knew that the sun gave the light of day and
that
    the sun's departure caused night. They may have thought the sun was a
fiery
    chariot or that it travelled across the sky in some other way - but they
    knew it was day, and it was life.

    So, why pull the sun and moon out of creation sequence?

    In the beginning God.
    Without God the earth was without form and void.
    God said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.'

    John 1
    The Word Became Flesh
    1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was
    God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
    3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
    been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The
light
    shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    I believe the sun and moon are intentionally out of sequence, defying
even
    the logic of ancient man, in order to emphasize that God is the light of
    men. God is life. God is day.

    And, I believe that if you pray and look at other illogical situations
in
    the Bible, that you will find similar literary motives for them being
thus.<<<<

    Debbie,

    There are 2 things wrong with this approach. First, it means that God
didn't
    foresee that we moderns would question the order of Genesis events. Does
    that mean God couldn't foresee? Secondly, you are assuming you know the
    motivation for pulling the moon and sun out of sequence. You may be
right
    or you may be wrong, but you have to realize that just because you
assume
    something doesn't make it so. There is no place in the bible where
God's
    (or man's) motivation for doing things is discussed.

>>>
    Consider modern art, modern literature. We suppose that ancient writers
    could not, would not, use our 'sophisticated' methods of making points.
    Let's step back and look at it differently. Take away your
presuppositions
    on a piece.

    I am reading this for the first time. But, I have read the New
Testament.
    What strikes me? What seems powerful? What seems out of place? Why would
an
    author have done this? Ignorance? As I said, in this case, I say, 'No!'
This
    is too basic for ignorance. Then why would this be written thus?

    This is literature - written for a purpose. All we know is that it is
    literature, powerful enough to have survived millenium. Read it as such.
    Where is its power?<<<

    I guess I don't understand your point on this.

    BURGY:

    I have Larry Witham's book "Design". It is a history of the design
movement. I tried
    reading it, but it is so boring that I stopped. It is now in a box
headed for the
    port of Tianjin port on its way to Houston where it will still remain
unread.

  =
Received on Tue May 30 20:41:15 2006