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

George,

    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.
>
>
>
Man, I had assumed the ASA forum would be respite from the snarkiness I find
elsewhere on the web, but it appears that I was naive.

It seems to me you *want *it (2 Tim 3:16) to be the argument for inerrancy,
perhaps because it is such a bad argument.

David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
http://helives.blogspot.com

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 5:55 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> 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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; 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 18:20:46 2008