Re: The forgotten verses

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:17:44 EDT

  • Next message: Sondra Brasile: "RE: Fw: Do...My "attack" on Don, last one"

    To continue Howard's argument, not only are YEC arguments open to the same
    distortion as standard science but as always, every time and without fail
    YEC arguments are not only easily shown to be fallacious but also based on
    misrepresentation, or as Ken Ham et al would put sheer fraud. Thus to apply
    Vernon's arguments to YECs we must conclude that they are hopelessly
    corrupt in the theological sense of that word.

    If this seems too harsh then I will retract every word when either YECs en
    bloc admit to misrepresentation, - fellow evangelcails having been appealing
    to them ever since The Genesis Flood was published in 1961, or individual
    YECs oppose the misrepresentation in their camp.

    I can reconcile YEC with much of Genesis but not the Ninth Commandment


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <>
    To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:00 PM
    Subject: Re: The forgotten verses

    > >From: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
    > The thinking part of me says to let this whole exercise in futility die a
    > peaceful and quiet death. The rest of me, however, finds it difficult to
    > resist one more comment.
    > > I had hoped you would consider it important that we factored in to our
    > > deliberations vis-a-vis how things began what the Scriptures have to say
    > > about the nature of those who so deliberate.
    > If the powers of human perception and deliberation are as corrupt and
    > distorted as your usual rhetoric implies, then "surely you must agree" (to
    > use one of your favorite rhetorical devices) that this corruption and
    > distortion applies to your own perception and deliberations regarding the
    > numbers that you declare to be a significant indicator of the character of
    > the biblical text.
    > > Regarding the numbers: I see them as fulfilling a complementary role in
    > > confirming the text to be divinely-inspired -....
    > The numbers to which you give so much your attention are declared (by you,
    > after the fact) to be significant on the basis of nothing other than your
    > own individual judgment (human judgment that you repeatedly disparage as
    > untrustworthy). Your whole approach is a-theoretic. You have no basis for
    > any independent theory to establish, "If the text is divinely inspired,
    > it will generate numerical qualities of the following sort....." You
    > certain numbers to be significant only after you sift through the vast
    > sandpile of numbers that can be generated from any text. You dispense
    > numerous assertions of the form, "...surely you must agree...." without
    > faintest semblance of warrant other than your own preconception of the
    > character and intentions of God. How can this be anything but manifest
    > hubris?
    > > and that, surely, can be no bad thing.
    > Surely? Bunk! On the contrary, I see the focus on numbers as a harmful
    > distraction from focusing on the life-enhancing presence of the Sacred.
    > Indeed, I believe the attention given to numbers here serves only to
    > the bibliolatry that infects millions of contemporary Christians --
    > especially in North America -- for whom the strident defense of humanly
    > crafted statements about the biblical text seems far more important than
    > living of a life enriched by the insights of the biblical text into the
    > authentic human experience of Gods presence.
    > > Indeed, I believe the numbers serve to enhance the ability of the
    > > text to stimulate awe and worship.
    > For your sake, Vernon, I hope that you find this to be true of your own
    > experience. I do not find it so in my experience. I see it as the kind of
    > enterprise that opens the door to warranted ridicule of religious beliefs.
    > Howard Van Till

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 12:40:41 EDT