Some comments about an editorial in the latest Acts and

From: allenroy (
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 13:28:48 EST

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?"

    Facts (jan 2003) from ICR
    Precedence: bulk

    Henry Morris has written a defense of his ideas in the "Back to Genesis"
    section of the January 2003 Acts and Facts from the Institute for
    Creation Research. I agree with him that "the Bible should govern our
    interpretation of the geological data." however, I find that I don't
    agree with some of the other points he makes. For instance when dealing
    with 2 Timothy 3:16 Morris notes (in brackets) "All Scripture [not just
    those parts dealing with religious matters, and not just the 'thoughts'
    but the actual words written, for that is the very meaning of the word
    'Scripture'] is given by inspiration of God [literally 'God-breatherd,'
    not the product of human reasoning] ."

    I agree with him concerning the idea that the entire Bible is inspired,
    not just parts we think deal with religious topics. However, I have
    grave reservations with the idea that the individual words are inspired
    and that the Bible is not the product of human reasoning. This would
    make the writers merely mechanical 'court recorders' mindlessly
    scribbling away on blanks of paper. I don't believe that this is what
    the Bible means by inspiration. To me, biblical inspiration very much
    involves human reasoning as the Holy Spirit moves on the thoughts of
    intelligent believers to explain what they know of God. If the very
    individual words are so important, why bother with human agents at all?
    Why not just hand down His words on golden plates engraved by his own

    Dr. Morris then tries to defend his position that the 2nd Law of
    Thermodynamics (2LoT) began with the fall of man. He states, "to assume
    that the decay aspects of the entropy law were operating before the
    Curse seems to be a tacit admission (perhaps unintentional) that death
    was also operating before the Fall, and this clearly contradicts
    Scripture (e.g., Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)." I believe that
    Morris is mixing apples and oranges here. The Fall involved the
    breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4 "sin is the transgression of the law")
    which Jesus tells us is the Law of Love (Matt 22:36-39 "love the Lord
    thy God with all thy heart"). The results of breaking the law is Death
    (Romans 6:23 23 "For the wages of sin is death") As long as an
    intelligent being has a loving relationship with God, they will live
    forever. When they break that loving relationship with God, they will
    die. This has nothing to do with physics.

    We are told that everything was created by God-- i.e. nothing can exist
    on its own without God. If anything could exist without God's support,
    it would be as immortal and unending as He, but we are told it is God
    "who only hath immortality" (1 Timothy 6:16). Since nothing else can
    exist forever, then it follows that even though God created it, it would
    eventually come to an end, unless God continually keeps it from ending.
    It seems to me that this is where the 2LoT fits in. The Universe and
    all creation functions from the very beginning according to the 2LoT; --
    Heat flows to cold, light into darkness, complexity into simplicity. It
    has nothing to do with the fall of man except for when mankind chooses
    to reject God's love and thereby shut themselves off from God's
    sustaining power and they then die and decay according to the ever
    present 2LoT.

    So, is this a "tacit admission that death was operating before the
    Fall?" No. Death can only happen through a personal choice to reject
    God love. Since Adam and Eve did not exist before the Creation week,
    and they did not choose to reject God before the Creation week, then
    their death (and the curse of death on the animals) could not exist
    before the Creation week.

    Dr. Morris then continues to promote a heavy vapor canopy as the source
    of the flood rain waters. Such a source for the flood waters is no
    longer modeled in most creationary circles because other, better sources
    are easy to be had. Although a comparatively lighter canopy is often
    proposed that would modify the weather and environment of the world.

    It is true that scientific challenges are not insuperable to models
    build upon a Biblical base. However, it is another thing to adopt and
    cling to models based on ideas read into the Biblical description which
    clearly violate basic scientific principles. I agree with Dr. Morris
    that there is nothing wrong with simply believing what God as revealed
    in His word, even when we don't yet have a scientific explanation for a
    particular problem. As long as we believe what God did reveal and not
    what we read into the Word.

    Allen Roy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 02:25:43 EST