Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)

Vernon -

I know from long experience that you are impervious to argument so will keep it brief & don't intend a lengthy exchange.

1) A Christian believer should take the claims of evolution seriously because they should take the real world & the ability of our senses & minds to understand - the latter, of course, a gift of God through the evolutionary process. As Pascal said (18th Provincial Letter), when literal meaning of a biblical text disagrees with the evidence of our senses or reason,
 

            we must interpret the Scripture, and seek out therein another sense agreeable to that sensible truth ... And as Scripture may be interpreted in different ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must in these matters adopt as the true interpretation of Scripture that view which corresponds with the faithful report of the senses.

2) "How indeed can the Lord's kingdom stand?" Why shouldn't it?

     BTW, I must thank you for citing 2 Tim.3:16 here - David Heddle may note it as one more attempt to use that verse to establish the inerrancy of scripture. I've

    already explained why it doesn't.

3) All your stuff about Gen.1:1 is, as I & others have explained times without number, quite irrelevant to the issues at hand, even if true.

4) I try always to make a point of giving Wallace along with Darwin, credit for the idea of evolution via natural selection. But don't hold your breath waiting for the demise of that idea.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu ; philtill@aol.com
  Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:59 PM
  Subject: Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)

  George,

  I have a number of origin-related concerns which you - as prominent forum spokesman - may care to address.

  (1) Why should any Christian believer take the claims of evolution seriously? For if this really were the basis of God's method of creating, shouldn't we expect it to _confirm_ rather than _contradict_ the Scriptures? To draw a simple parallel with our Lord's rejoinder to the accusation that he was empowered to cast out devils by Satan (Mt.12:22-26), if ELOHIM [i.e. Jesus, the Creator (Jn.1:1-3)] be the God of evolution, then how shall his kingdom stand?

  (2) Phil recently wrote to you as follows, "...I think you are very comfortable taking some parts of the Bible account as true and other parts as literary myth. My only question was how do you determine which parts are which?...what is your guiding hermeneutic in biblical theology?...how do you decide that one particular part of Genesis can be ignored and yet another part evidences amazing correspondence to reality, if it is not merely ad hoc selection after-the-fact?"

  Your response: "As to determining which parts of the Bible are historical narrative & which aren't, it's really not the task of a general hermeneutic principle to do that. One has to look at evidence - internal and external - for particular items."

  How, indeed, can the Lord's kingdom stand when Christians follow this approach? David O puts his finger on a related matter when he writes (in response to Rich), "Have we not reached here a place where the scientific method, which properly cannot admit miracles, is incompetent to deliver to us the Truth?"

  Why, then, should you believe science to be sufficiently powerful to overturn the Apostle Paul's view of Scripture (2Tm.3:16)?

  (3) But anyway, George, your record of looking at _all_ the evidence - both internal and external - concerning the proper understanding of a particular matter affecting origins is hardly impressive! I have for some time endeavoured to interest you in the sort of thing an exceedingly able author might do to secure the integrity of his message, long term, in a society of rational beings. I refer, of course, to the numero-geometrical phenomena which inhabit the Hebrew of very first of the 32102 verses of the AV. Just recently I wrote to Iain (who, like myself, has studied these manifestations intensively) reminding him that, on this list, he had once referred to the matter - mildly in my view - as "not everyone's cup of tea". Are unexplained events in this key biblical verse to languish in a forum of scientists - either from lack of interest, or from a fear of the consequences if this particular cat is let out of the bag?

  For your interest, I suggest the manifest presence of these phenomena informs us, as follows:

    (a) our universe is open to supernatural influence - both benign and malignant; clearly, this should come as no surprise to those who have studied the course of our Lord's ministry - but people tend to forget

    (b) the observed manifestations represent the work of the Creator (witness the link with his name, Jesus Christ); clearly, nothing is too hard for him

    (c) we infer that these are not capricious adhesions to the text, but rather speak of serious intent and of a desire to accomplish some vital work in our day

    (d) they confirm the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the Word of God; in other words, the Apostle Paul was neither misguided nor a liar when he wrote 2Tm:3:16

  (4) Finally, allow me remind you that Darwin's 'goad' - Alfred Russell Wallace - was an accomplished _naturalist_ who, later, devoted his considerable gifts of observation to psychical research - eventually becoming a _supernaturalist_. It would surely be ironic if it were found that ARW had a part to play in Darwin's demise.

  Shalom,

  Vernon

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 11 17:58:47 2008