Re: YEC Destroying Faith

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:30:41 EDT

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:54:08 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John W Burgeson
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:00 PM
> > To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
> >
> >
> > Glenn wrote: "So did he adjust his message to the early
> > Christians? Do we have the truth today or is it watered down
> > with compromise?"
> >
> > Binary thinking, again. Fallacy of the misplaced (overlooked)
> middle.
>
> When it comes to history, I don't really accept that there is more
> than
> one history to the universe. Thus, one set of events happened, all
> others didn't. That simple. If binary thinking is supposed to
> explain
> something I don't exactly know what it is. I see nothing wrong with
> saying that a given history is false and another is true, at least
> on
> the macroscopic scale. Thus, to exclude that all histories
> happened,
> which certainly is one of the possible middles, I find to be wrong.
> I
> am sure that it is binary thinking again, probably because I have
> only
> two hemispheres of my brain. If I had more hemispheres I could
> probably
> do what the White Queen said she could do:
>
<snip>

If history is either true or false, why did the history text I used in
Canada differ from the text I used in the States? Why do histories in the
United States written at different times differ radically in their
descriptions of the events and their causes? Indeed, why are there
differences in the descriptions of events in the gospels?

To go back to what is basic in this discussion, Genesis 1, I note that
there is water above the firmament. So we have canopy theory, which you
proved impossible. Of course, God could have miraculously maintained a
sphere of ice in spite of the Roche limit, and miraculously kept the
earth's surface cool. But then there cannot be creation science. The sun,
moon and stars were placed on the firmament, and birds fly in front of
(below) it. The firmament cannot then be the atmosphere with clouds,
especially since the firmament has sluice gates that were opened to
produce the Flood. I am persuaded that you either have to change the
meaning of "firmament" for each of its occurrences (including Ezekiel),
or you have to recognize that the notion does not fit contemporary
science. Are we to preserve the integrity of the language or to insist
that God's revelation must be true historically, scientifically,
theologically, and every other way in which truth may be claimed?

I understand the problem YECs have with the truth of scripture, an all or
none situation. On this I conclude that Satan has cleverly poisoned the
wells. I was there once, and thank God for showing me that the problem
was not with the Word, but with what people claimed the Word taught. Only
much later did I discover that this view matches that of the Westminster
divines and the other Reformation confessions, except for the Anabaptist
one.
Dave
Received on Wed Apr 21 00:34:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 21 2004 - 00:34:55 EDT