From: Sondra Brasile (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:49:13 EDT
You said, "Vernon is trying to establish a valid reason for accepting the
Bible as the inspired Word of
>God[...]The real problem here is that he speaks to believers who do
>not need such proof."
I'm not convinced of this ;).
>From: Walter Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: George Murphy <email@example.com>
>CC: Vernon Jenkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
>Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
>Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:25:47 -0400
>My responses follow
>George Murphy wrote:
> > Proceeding in reverse order:
> > (3) Grant (as I said) for the sake of argument that there are numerical
> > Genesis which prove that God is its author. This emphatically does
>_not_ prove that the
> > text which God has authored is a literal (i.e., historically and
> > accurate) account of how and when creation took place. To imagine that
>this is so is
> > like claiming (to use this example once again) that the story of the
> > "really happened" because Jesus told it as a trie statement of who one's
>I would agree that most of the Parables of Jesus were "illustrations" but
>necessarily mean that Genesis was the same.
> > (2) There is no sharp qualitative difference between the 2 types of
>science which you
> > try to distinguish here. E.g., the types of arguments used to detrmine
>the distance to
> > the galaxy in Andromeda are based on quite routine observations
>(properties of certain
> > types of stars) and well-known laws (inverse square law for light
>propagation &c). No
> > one has any objection when these are used to find that a cluster of
>stars in our galaxy
> > is ~1000 LY away. But when they show that M31 is a couple of million LY
> > immediately start objecting. There is no difference in the procedures,
> > assumptions, or the beliefs of the astronomers. But the results
>conflict with the YECs
> > preconceptions - preconceptions traceable to the unwarranted assumption
>noted under (3).
>As you know, George, the YECs simply say that our science is able to see
>what happens now
>but cannot extrapolate to the past beyond a few Kilo Years.
>Andromeda is not all that far away. Your points are well taken but this
>argument is futile.
>(See next item)
> > (1) I don't disagree about the seriousness of sin. But if you follow
> > here to its logical conclusion, you end up unable to have any confidence
> > knowledge about the world. If our knowledge of the world is that
>severely distorted by
> > sin then maybe the earth is flat. Maybe heat really flows from cold to
>hot. Who knows?
> > But in fact the accurate correlations between our theories and
> > give us a great deal of confidence that scientific investigation -
> > revelation" - works quite well. And since (as I noted under (2)) there
>is no division
> > between the type of science that raises no religious objections from
>YECs and that which
> > does, YECs need to take a hard look at their presuppositions. Again,
> John MacArthur quite simply states that "science" is good for
>understanding what we observe
>--- but it is 100% invalid for past extrapolation. His position is that
>God created the
>world (with the history built in) some 10K Years ago (AND THAT "IS ALL SHE
>I don't buy it, but it is indistinguishable from your position, unless you
>can propose one
>as an alternative.
>Besides all that :
>Vernon is trying to establish a vilid reason for accepting the Bible as the
>inspired Word of
>God ---- Think.
>That is not "numerology" as others have suggested.
>If valid, then it is something that we Christians should support -------
>if he can
>demonstrate it to non believers. The real problem here is that he speaks to
>believers who do
>not need such proof.
>So Who Does?
>Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>In any consistent theory, there must
>exist true but not provable statements.
>You can only find the truth with logic
>If you have already found the truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:49:32 EDT