Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>For me, as a Bible believer and YEC, the term 'evolution' means any
>doctrine or concept that requires its adherents to ignore, selectively
>'interpret', or otherwise do violence to the Scriptures.
Mormons and other cults "do violence to the Scriptures," and "evolution"
has nothing to do with it.
>An early paragraph in the Introduction to your book begins "In Scripture
>we are shown the truth and told the truth..." That sounds clear enough.
>But you then proceed to treat it as a malleable text where - in a
>process of 'rolling revelation' - the findings of science are given
>pre-eminence in establishing the true meaning of key passages -
>particularly those that impinge on origins.
I attended a seminar once where the speaker asked: When you are putting a
jigsaw puzzle together, what is the most important piece? His answer: the
box. It's a lot easier to figure out where the pieces go when you see the
big picture. And that has been the problem all along. Translators and
interpreters operated in a vacuum. The King James translators knew nothing
of the history of southern Mesopotamia, nothing about genetics, nothing
about anthropology, nothing about geology, nothing about cosmology, and
ignored the Septuagint version altogether. The Septuagint would have kept
them out a few pratfalls. The miracle to me is that they did as well as
Where we have gone wrong in the science-Bible debate is that we have
formulated a biblical picture, a scientific picture, and a historical
picture. And although the scientific and historical pictures may look
similar, neither of them look like the biblical picture. YECs hold up a
biblical picture, borne in ignorance, and disavow the scientific and
historical pictures. What I have tried to do is to bring together the
relevant data and evidence necessary to present one picture with three
viewpoints - biblical, historical and scientific. But it's a lot easier
when you have seen "the box."
For example, the whole "earth" was not of one "language," there was one
prevalent topic of conversation. The tower builders used bitumin to seal
the bricks and stick them together, not "slime." The ground was not
watered by "mist," the water came from a "fountain" (Septuagint). The
"mountains" were not covered by water during the flood, only the
"hills." (The word is the same in Hebrew.) And so on. Everything fits
into one harmonious picture when the entirety of Genesis 2 -11 is viewed as
Mesopotamian history from about 7,000 years ago to about 4,000 years ago,
and nothing fits if you try to take it elsewhere, or slide it into some
other time frame.
>Clearly, it is essential as Christians that we make no foolish mistakes
>in respect of what God is actually telling us. Through the apostle
>Peter, he warns as follows: "His (Paul's) letters contain some things
>that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
>as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."(2 Pet.3:16,
>NIV). Dick, I suggest this must be a stumbling block for people like
>yourself; perhaps you can explain how you surmount this truth - and
>demonstrate your wisdom in doing so!
One of us seems to have a vision problem. Is the log in your eye or mine?
>In my last post I had occasion to draw your attention to Isaiah 29:14 -
>God's promise to 'destroy the wisdom of the wise' - a prophecy that you
>will no doubt agree must come to pass. It has since occurred to me that
>this is undoubtedly linked with that of 2Thess.2:11 (to which I also
>referred) - for how is 'worldly wisdom' to be destroyed except by the
>strong compulsion (1)that it believe and propagate a lie? and (2) that
>the lie is, ultimately, unmasked publicly? The matter of God sending
>'strong delusion', I suggest, contains a message for us all. Clearly, it
>must involve a deception! However, on closer analysis this turns out to
>be a self-deception on the part of those who have refused to believe the
>truth that God has provided in his special revelation - the
>Judeo-Christian Scriptures! We only need consider the preamble to Job's
>trials to appreciate this. Of course, you touch on these things when you
>ask (Ch.3) "Would God implant false evidence to lead us to erroneous
>conclusions?" I say, No - but he might well allow Satan to do so! You
>add the rider "If so, to what purpose?" In Job's case it was to prove
>his faith and glorify God; similarly in ours; but additionally, to
>encourage unbelievers in their unbelief!
>Finally, let me comment on your view of Adam. You say, "We assumed Adam
>was presented in Genesis as the first of our species where it is far
>more probable that Moses was telling the children of Israel the history
>of their people beginning with Adam who lived in southern Mesopotamia
>about 7000 years ago. Adam was not the first of the human race, he was
>the first of the Jewish race and their offshoots. A small difference
>perhaps, but it makes a lot of difference how we understand certain
>For a self-confessed Bible-believer you appear to be intent on rewriting
>large portions of the script.
Rewriting not allowed. Placing the existing writing within historical
context has been long overdue.
> It's really breathtaking! Were not the
>promises re the Jews as God's chosen people given to Abraham, Isaac and
>Jacob (Gen.12:2,3; 26:24; 35:10-12)? On your understanding they should
>surely have first come to Adam, and then to each of the ante-diluvian
Surely God must have placed authority in Adam as his chosen man. Had sin
not intervened, Adam would have been the only messenger needed. The
covenant, the embodiment of the moral law was with Adam, but reestablished
and redefined with Abraham after the Fall. Christ was the "second
Adam." He was not the second Abraham.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 23:21:18 EDT