As a lawyer you must know that the presenting of a watertight case demands the
recognition and assessment of _all_
relevant evidence. My point is that the correct reading of the 'Book of Life'
rests on the acceptance of certain fundamentals that the Bible alone
I refer, of course, to man's inherent stance as an _enemy_ of God, and thus of
his extreme reluctance to accept that the supernatural is able to play any part
in the normal activities of life. I believe you have failed to take
into account.and that your argument is thereby neutralized.. Further,
what of the
empirical evidence (provided on my website) that the Bible is a
And concerning the suggestion that we are perhaps deceived by God, you must
surely be aware of the biblical principle that God 'hardens' the
hearts of those
intent on going their own way (eg Ex.9:12, Ps.81:12).
Shuan Rose wrote:
> I regard the Bible as a body of revealed truth, too, Vernon. I also
> regard Nature as a body of revealed truth, discoverable by the God-given
> activity of science.Both books, rightly interpreted, reveal Gods truth.To be
> a YEC, you must believe that God is telling the literal truth in one book
> and lying the other. For example, a YEC interpretation of Genesis says that
> the earth is less than 10, 00 years old. The book of nature, read by
> science, says that's wrong.So the book of nature must be a lie. I refuse to
> believe that God is lying in either book.Rather, the YEC interpretation must
> be wrong.
> You can call that following the word of man if you want, Vernon.I will
> take comfort in the fact that at least I am not making God out to be a liar.
> More reasonable, and far safer in my view, to accept God's Word as it has
> come down to us; certainly more assuring, and far less complicated!
> I agree its less complicated.The YEC stance is simple, and assuring.Like
> most simple, assuring answers to complicated questions, however, it is
> wrong. Too bad.
> Take care.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Jenkins [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:49 PM
> To: Shuan Rose
> Cc: Asa
> Subject: Re: In Defence of my beliefs.doc
> Hi Shuan,
> I go along with your view that there are essentially 'two kinds of
> Christian'. Here are my observations on the core of the divide:
> Category A :- Those who accept the divine strictures concerning man and,
> accepting their helplessness, regard the Bible as a body of revealed truth -
> therefore taking its contents seriously, in particular, its warnings
> regarding unbelief (eg Lk.16:19-31; 2Pe.3:16,17). For them, the undermining
> of the Scriptures by the claims of the scientist is seen as but one
> inevitable consequence of man's essential nature; they respond by 'putting
> on the whole armour of God' (Eph.6:11-18) - which includes 'the sword of the
> Spirit, which is the word of God'. In this manner they exercise true reason
> and are thereby enabled to distinguish between 'fact' and 'contention'.
> Category B :- Those who blatantly disregard, (a) the foundational
> information that God has imparted concerning man, (b) the scriptural
> warnings in regard to unbelief, and (c) the possibility that events in this
> world might rest on supernatural (hence, unpredictable) considerations (eg
> 1Sam.18:10,11; 1Ki.22). Joining forces with the materialists, they prefer to
> follow the word of man rather than the Word of God, and thus having in their
> own minds broken that 'which shall stand forever' (Is.40:8), pick up and
> assemble those pieces that take their fancy.
> Like your YEC friends, I am unashamedly a 'Category A' man who regards the
> 'scoring of points' in this life as having little eternal merit. More
> reasonable, and far safer in my view, to accept God's Word as it has come
> down to us; certainly more assuring, and far less complicated!
> Sincerely, and with regards,
> Shuan Rose wrote:
> I sent this to a couple of YEC brothers who doubted my faith because I
> them I believed in evolution and rejected a literal interpretation of
> Genesis 1-11.Below is my response. I included some excerpts from Mike,
> and Terry to illustrate my points
> Because of my belief in evolution and my rejection of a literalistic
> interpretation of Genesis, some have questioned whether I am a
> The implication is that I am a skeptic, a heretic, or someone who is
> searching for God.
> For the record, I am a Christian who affirms the Apostles and Nicene
> and that God in Christ through the Holy Spirit has come to save Man.
> However, there are in my opinion two kinds of Christian. There is the
> who pretends that the last 200 years of scientific and historical
> investigation did not happen and that modern science poses no problems
> for a
> literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Such people are quite happy to
> accept and even use astronomy and physics, -when it shows that the
> must have had a beginning-but not where it shows that the earth is very
> and part of an older universe. They accept geology, when geologists find
> oil that they can put into their cars. But they reject it when
> use the same techniques to show that the earth is 4.6 billion years old
> that life appeared on earth in stages and not all at once 6,000 years
> They accept biology, when it creates new crops and medicines and sends
> criminals to jail through DNA evidence. But they reject biology when
> biologists use the same analysis to show that modern forms of life
> from earlier forms of life and that in particular, humans and modern
> share a common ancestor.
> I believe that such a Christian is best deluded and at worst a
> One cannot simply accept the parts of modern science that he or she
> and reject the rest, simply because it conflicts with your
> interpretation of
> the Bible. This attitude may win acceptance among like-minded
> But the outside world will think that you are living in a fool's
> and will think you no different from the person who asserts that the
> is flat and immovable on the basis of Ps 96:10 and Isa. 11:12.
> The second Christian understands that modern science has come to
> about the physical world that make a simple, literal interpretation of
> Genesis 1-11 impossible, and understands that new interpretations are
> necessary, just as in the sixteenth century when it became clear through
> science that the earth revolved around the sun and that Gen. 11:7, Josh.
> 10:13, Eccl. 5:1, and other passages could not be interpreted literally,
> indeed they were before Copernicus and Galileo. The ASA list serv is one
> group where Christian scientists and nonscientists are trying to work
> such a new interpretation. Unfortunately, the first type of Christian
> continually accused quite a few of them of apostasy and worse. I would
> that you consider the evidence and join the dialogue and help us on the
> serv work on these problems before rendering judgment.
> Her are few excerpts from this dialogue that express the point more
> than I have.
> (Good Stuff snipped)
> These are not atheists or scoffers, but sincere, Bible believing
> who are truly concerned with wrestling with a difficult problem.
> If this be skepticism or heresy, let there be more of it. We honor the
> of truth by dealing with it, not covering it up or by preferring the
> that comfort us.
> Shuan Rose, Attorney at Law
> 2632 N Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 17:36:10 EDT