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

Iain

I have every intention of correcting you when you are wrong.

But this time you are right so I wont correct you.

Genesis speaks of creation by God - whatever that means beyond creating! It
is inappropriate to talk of miracles in regard of genesis one

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "James Patterson" <james000777@bellsouth.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 28 09:53:20 2009