Re: BIBLE/ORIGINS: seeking feedback

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 16:01:07 EST

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: Random from Professing evolution column"


    With respect, I suggest your intervention raises more questions than it provides answers. However, your reference to "The Ultimate Assertion" as a "kabbalistic puzzle" is clear enough. Do you imply thereby that the phenomena described must be denied a proper hearing in the arena of rational scientific debate? It surely makes little sense to find that those who acquiesce in the words "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord..." (Is.55:8,9), nevertheless seek to place Him in a straitjacket.

    I look forward to to receiving your clarification of these matters.



      ----- Original Message -----
      To: ; ;
      Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:32 PM
      Subject: Re: BIBLE/ORIGINS: seeking feedback

      In a message dated 2/11/03 6:34:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:


        As you may remember, I wrote (Jan 27) the following in response to your posting of Jan 24:

        In view of what you have written (in particular, your recommendation that we "would be better off ignoring the first ten or so chapters of Genesis"), I am wondering how you would proceed to adapt your paradigm to accomodate the hard facts that are indelibly associated with the prologue to these chapters. I have prepared an illustrated summary of these which you may find at

        The empirical evidence I have put together under the heading "The Ultimate Assertion" is no figment of my imagination - as I'm sure you would agree. Genesis 1:1 is manifestly the most remarkable combination of words ever written - and a standing miracle. It surely follows that all theories relating to origins must take account of that - otherwise they become so much 'hot air'. Are you now prepared therefore to retract your recommendation that the early chapters of Genesis be committed to the scrap heap?



      Genesis 3:6-7 establishes the nature of the religious experience itself and on that basis alone I would suggest it is far more important than a kabbalistic puzzle. I suppose it's so straightforward it's easily missed but a paper analyzing the nature of the religious experience as it is decribed in those lines is available upon request.

      rich faussette

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 16:01:43 EST