Re: Inconsistency on Shroud vs. Genesis.

Bill Hamilton (
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:01:11 -0400

George wrote

>> Instead (as noted later) God apparently made use of the near-eastern
>science of
>>~1000 B.C., adapting it for theological purposes because it's primarily a
>>rather than a scientific, statement.

>Glenn replied

>And I think this makes God look like he has no foresight to know that we
>would someday view that as silly.
Alternatively, He knew (foreknew, as we Presbyterians like to say) exactly
what would happen. Still He did it because it is necessary for Christians
to learn to trust Him in spite of the real and apparent challenges to their
faith from the world. Frankly I'd rather be tested in this way than, say,
by facing lions in a Roman arena. The young-earth creationists have passed
the test in the easy way: reject worldly thinking. I submit though that
when God created men and told them to subdue the earth (Gen 1:28), that
includes striving for understanding of nature and how it works. The
creationists in my opinion have passed the test of faith by rejecting the
mandate of Gen 1:28.
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
Staff Research Engineer
Electrical and Controls Integration MC 480-106-390
GM R&D Center
30500 Mound Road
Warren, MI / (home)