Re: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but Genesis 1 and 2 are
not written in a way that they can be described as "miracles". It is
clear in the Bible when miracles occur (e.g. Jesus's miraculous
healings, the parting of the red sea etc), but the creation is not
described as a miracle. Therefore I don't see a contradiction, or a
problem with the idea that it is there to say that God is the creator;
the exact manner of creation being described in figurative language.

By contrast, it seems to me that miracles are signs and wonders that
happened subsequently to reveal God to His people; not a trick to
bring creation into existence.

Iain

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM, James Patterson
<james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or I guess you can, you have free
> will, and personal choice. But I'm not going to agree with it.
>
> So it's OK to have miracles in the NT and also in the OT, but not in G1 and
> G2? Because it seems to me that is exactly what the TE position is saying:
> "We're OK with the supernatural, we just don't like the miracles in
> Genesis." Is that incorrect? If so, then please describe how, and where
> exactly in the Bible that you think God's word becomes true, and the
> references to the supernatural actually refer to the supernatural. JP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:07 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
> Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
>
>
> At the risk of annoying James again, I feel I have to call out some errors
> in this post but I will try to be civil as requested.
>
> First I reject the definition of TE offered by James and I suspect most
> others would as well. I don't think anyone would agree that God works "only
> through natural mechanisms". So therefore the resurrection and miracles of
> Jesus are not exceptions to the rule, they are entirely consistent with it.
> This is another example of setting up a fallacious argument just to attack
> it.
>
> Further Adam is not the linchpin of supernatural intervention of God in His
> creation either. Not having him does not falsify the rest of the bible. As
> pointed out before in the below previous post to you, at least my definition
> of the TE position does not exclude intervention in creation but it does not
> depend on it either. It is simply a minimalist position that retreats back
> to faith as the frontiers of how God interacts with His creation is revealed
> through science. Even if abiogenesis and cell metabolism and information is
> reduced to just chemistry and natural law, my position still holds as God is
> the author of chemistry. The difference is this position cannot be falsified
> but insisting on a historical Adam just because "the Bible says so" can be.
>
> This was posted on 2/9:
>
>
>
>> James,
>>
>> Yes you have to believe and no one is saying that TE or any
>> other form of
>> science faith integration removes that. However in my
>> opinion you have to have a
>> belief system that cannot be falsified and therefore that
>> results in a
>> minimalist form belief. We agree that God created the
>> universe and life and
>> humans in His image and that it was beautiful. Where we
>> part company is on the
>> specifics of how He did so and whether it is provable or
>> not.
>>
>> YEC's, RTB, ID and others stretch or distort the
>> science to support theological
>> models that leave them with the last word and therein lies
>> the problem. I think
>> it may remain a mystery how exactly God DID create us but
>> it is easy enough to
>> see how He DIDN'T and to rule several theories out.
>>
>> So instead of insisting on 'Testable' theories that
>> fail the test, I think a
>> better position would be to just leave it at belief where
>> we started and defend
>> its non-falsifiability in the face of whatever science
>> reveals.
>>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/26/09, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 7:09 PM
>> Bernie says:
>> The big picture: there are only two general ways in which
>> humans were
>> biologically made: Either by fiat (a miracle from God from
>> scratch-
>> scooping/forming dirt and breathing life into it) or by
>> evolution from lower
>> animals.
>>
>> I respond:
>> This is the point at which I disagree. And it is not just a
>> specific
>> disagreement with this statement but a deep philosophical
>> disagreement with
>> what this statement represents.
>>
>> The TE position is that God works through natural
>> mechanisms, and only
>> through natural mechanisms. Yet we know this isn't
>> true, and the average TE
>> knows and accepts that it isn't true. Specific examples
>> are the creation of
>> the universe and the resurrection of Christ. I don't
>> think there is anyone
>> on this list who would disagree with me on those two
>> points. Of course, the
>> TE position is that these are exceptions to the rule. The
>> question then
>> becomes: are these the only exceptions? What about these
>> other purported
>> supernatural events?
>>
>> Matthew 1:20 - virgin birth
>> Micah 5:2 - the prophecy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem,
>> mentioned in Matthew
>> 2:6
>> Matthew 2:13 - Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a
>> dream
>> Jeremiah 31:15 - prophecy mentioned in Matthew 2:18
>> Isiah 40:3 - prophecy mentioned in Matthew 3:3
>> Matthew 3:16-17 - the Spirit of God descended and spoke
>> from heave.
>>
>> I could go on. This is from just the first few chapters of
>> Matthew. I could
>> fill up pages with examples of miracles, signs, and
>> wonders. But let's just
>> leave it here, for now.
>>
>> Your reply, sir?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.