RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

I would say that Books 1 and 2 have to read together, but the spectacles
that are appropriate in each case depend on the nature of the Book. (We do
not use a microscope to look at the heavens nor do we use a telescope to
look at the E.coli flagellum.) I agree with George to the extent that for
Christians in each case the spectacles have to be chosen in the light of
Jesus Christ.
Don N

> George Murphy said:
> " We read about nature in books but we don't read nature itself. & we
> read about what God has done in the history of Israel & in Jesus but
> that's not the same thing as reading those events themselves. Natural &
> historical phenomena are the primary things & the books are secondary."
>
>
>
> So we agree that in that way Book 1 is like Book 2; I thought your prior
> point prior was that Book 2 was different in that it couldn't be
> literally read. My point was that both books are handled the same-- you
> "read" one just as you "read" the other. So I guess we are in
> agreement.
>
>
>
> Gordon Brown said:
> "You seem to accept Ken Ham's claim that he correctly understands Book
> 1."
>
>
>
> I think Ken Ham understands Book 1 like anyone else... the difference is
> he doesn't also consider Book 2 too much when formulating his theology,
> as if it is a "compromise" with science..
>
>
>
> Gordon said:
> "Actually many of these science-faith issues were around long before the
> advent of modern science."
>
>
>
> Like what? If you are referring to Augustine's idea of instantaneous
> creation, I think that is only because Augustine is throwing in some
> Book 2 (logic and reason).
>
>
>
> Gordon said:
> "Also YEC readings of some pssages have forced
>
> them to come up with nontraditional interpretations of other passages.
> The
>
> English translations of Genesis taken literally do indeed support a
> global
>
> flood, which is evidence that that is the traditional view. However
> Hebrew
>
> uses the same word for earth and land with land the far more common
>
> translation. Even sometimes such as Gen. 41:57 and Gen. 8:9 (in light of
>
>
> Gen. 8:5) earth doesn't really mean the entire globe even though it was
>
> translated that way. Early church fathers such as Ambrose recognized
> that
>
> the fact that a wind caused the waters to recede presented a problem for
>
>
> the flood being global."
>
>
>
> Anyone who believes in a local flood has just as many problems as a YEC,
> I think. There's still a problem of where the water came from and how
> it left. I was talking to a leader at a RTB chapter last night and he
> told me the RTB position was that the rain and water for the local flood
> was a miraculous event. If you can flood that local large area for a
> year, seems to me that you'd still have the same problems as a YEC with
> a global flood... and something that major would have "left a mark"
> which I don't think anyone has spotted (just like with a global flood).
> Also RTB thinks all humans were local in that area so they could be
> wiped-out... which sounds unreasonable to me. I'm not familiar with the
> topology of the area, but I also doubt it is sufficiently bowl-shaped
> (on all sides) to contain hundreds of feet of water for a year.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of gordon brown
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:40 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>
>
>> Here are some obvious 'battles' between book 1 (God's Word) and book 2
>
>> (God's works):
>
>>
>
>> Book 1: The first man was physically made from a pile of dust
>
>> Book 2: There is no first physically-made "man" ... man was made from
>
>> lower life forms (evolution)
>
>> -> At stake here is much theology, such as the meaning of "Adam and
>
>> Eve," the fall, nature and origin of sin, etc.
>
>>
>
>> Who wins? I say Book 2.
>
>>
>
>> Book 1: There was a worldwide flood
>
>> Book 2: There was no worldwide flood
>
>>
>
>> Who wins? I say Book 2.
>
>>
>
>> Ken Ham says to either ignore Book 2 or else refuse to see the
> testimony
>
>> of Book 2. His theology comes solely for Book 1. That's why he is
> too
>
>> extreme for most of us. Most of us try to reconcile Book 1 and Book
> 2.
>
>> If you want to know what theology is like if you ignore Book 2, that
> is
>
>> YEC'ism (although they do accept some Book 2 things like
>
>> heliocentricity).
>
>>
>
>> ...Bernie
>
>>
>
>
>
> You seem to accept Ken Ham's claim that he correctly understands Book 1.
>
>
> Actually many of these science-faith issues were around long before the
>
> advent of modern science. Also YEC readings of some pssages have forced
>
> them to come up with nontraditional interpretations of other passages.
> The
>
> English translations of Genesis taken literally do indeed support a
> global
>
> flood, which is evidence that that is the traditional view. However
> Hebrew
>
> uses the same word for earth and land with land the far more common
>
> translation. Even sometimes such as Gen. 41:57 and Gen. 8:9 (in light of
>
>
> Gen. 8:5) earth doesn't really mean the entire globe even though it was
>
> translated that way. Early church fathers such as Ambrose recognized
> that
>
> the fact that a wind caused the waters to recede presented a problem for
>
>
> the flood being global.
>
>
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 25 12:14:55 2008