Re: The forgotten verses

From: Sondra Brasile (
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 23:49:13 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: Fw: Do non-U.S....My "attack" on Don"


    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 <>
    >To: George Murphy <>
    >CC: Vernon Jenkins <>,
    >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
    >patterns in
    > > 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
    >Good Samaritan
    > > "really happened" because Jesus told it as a trie statement of who one's
    >neighbor is.
    >I would agree that most of the Parables of Jesus were "illustrations" but
    >that does
    >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
    >away, YECs
    > > immediately start objecting. There is no difference in the procedures,
    >the underlying
    > > 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
    >your argument
    > > here to its logical conclusion, you end up unable to have any confidence
    >in any
    > > 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
    >observations can
    > > give us a great deal of confidence that scientific investigation -
    >_without_ "God's
    > > 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,
    >see (1).
    > 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 <>
    >In any consistent theory, there must
    >exist true but not provable statements.
    >(Godel's Theorem)
    >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