Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

OFF LIST:

On the 2d point below, it occurs to me that you may only mean that theological stories are untrue. In that case of course Jesus' use of parables still refutes your claim.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Vernon Jenkins ; Don Nield
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

  My comments below are in red.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Vernon Jenkins
    To: George Murphy ; Don Nield
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:09 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

    George,

    I'm disappointed with your latest response under this heading on two counts:

    (1) You fail to address my claim that accepting Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6 as events that _actually happened_ makes sense of a number of 'problem' scriptural passages; as you may remember, I cited 1Sam.16:14, 19:9 in particular - but there are others, most famously the prayer request (offered by the Lord Jesus himself) that our heavenly Father "lead us not into temptation..." (Mt.6:13). Perhaps you are able to offer an alternative scenario which better accomodates these 'difficulties'. Alternatively, of course, you may consider they are all best _ignored_.

    You're right - I didn't address those points directly. I never intended to. What I intended to do was what I did: Refute the equation of "story" with "untrue" (see below) & point out that your argument against MN was wrong. MN is a statement about the range of applicability of science, not an assertion that everything can be explained in terms of natural processes.
        
    (2) I am unable to make sense of your opening sentence, "Your previous post implied (I use the word in the strict sense) that if biblical texts were 'stories' then they would be 'untrue'." Kindly indicate the statement which, to you, conveys this peculiar implication.

    From your post of 11 July: "However, when you state that "The passages are theological stories about Satan.", does that mean you believe them to be
    untrue? If so, are you not surprised that God has allowed them to appear in His Revealed Word?"

    Though you've posed this in the form of rhetorical questions, it seems pretty clear from the whole course of your argument that you do think "story" = "untrue" in this context. But I don't want to impute to you anything you don't believe. If you think that biblical texts (& Job in particular) could be "stories" & still be "true," please say so clearly. & if you don't, please state that clearly.
    George, if my thesis be true, and satanic deception be allowed free rein, then those deceived will know nothing about it - believing that MN, yet again, has delivered further scientific 'truth'.

    If Satan is so much in control of the world that all the apparent regularities which MN-based science claims to discern are really due to his operation then Satan is the real creator of the world in which we live. This is tantamount to heresy, Manichaeanism to be specific.

    So again Vernon, don't be coy. Do you think all the regularities that science thinks it discovers are really due to the workings of Satan? & it really is a kind of all or nothing matter. You can't just pick out the age of the earth or evolution as Satanic lies because the evidence for those things is so intertwined with a lot of other science.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 14 20:10:58 2006