Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle (was Re: Standing miracle?)

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 18:33:20 EDT


Thanks for your readiness to grant me 'my miracle' - no questions asked; I
have modified the thread title accordingly. While I now consider how best to
meet your questions and comments regarding the implications of this
remarkable event (which I will do in due course), allow me to quote a little
from the writings of C.S.Lewis:

"The Christians say that God has done miracles. The modern world, even when
it believes in God, and even when it has seen the defencelessness of Nature,
does not. It thinks God would not do that sort of thing. Have we any reason
for supposing that the modern world is right? I agree that the sort of God
conceived by the popular 'religion' of our own times would almost certainly
work no miracles. The question is whether that popular religion is at all
likely to be true.

"I call it 'religion' advisedly. We who defend Christianity find ourselves
constantly opposed not by the irreligion of our hearers but by their real
religion. Speak about beauty, truth and goodness, or a God who is simply the
indwelling principle of these three, speak about a great spiritual force
pervading all things, a common mind of which we are all parts, a pool of
generalised spirituality to which we can all flow, and you will command
friendly interest. But the temperature drops as soon as you mention a God
who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not
another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a
determinate character. People become embarrassed or angry. Such a conception
seems to them primitive and crude and even irreverent. The popular
'religion' excludes miracles because it excludes the 'living God' of
Christianity and believes instead in a kind of God who obviously would do no
miracles, or indeed anything else." (taken from Chapter xi of 'Miracles')

So, fellow members of the ASA forum, it is pertinent that I ask whether our
Christianity is such as can readily accomodate and adjust to the emergence
of miracle in our day. If we resist the very idea, we thereby deny God the
ability to act independently of human opinion, wish or desire- surely, an
indefensible position!

But assuming a positive response to the above, what, then, might be the
purpose of this particular miracle which, uniquely, now and hereafter,
offers itself for close inspection?



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Standing miracle?

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:20:01 -0400, asa-digest wrote:
> >Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:30:05 +0100
> >From: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
> >Subject: Re: Standing miracle?
> >
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> >- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8D.E9FF66F0
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >George,
> >
> >I don't believe I've missed the points made in your earlier post; it =
> >simply appeared reasonable to me that we should first take a step or two
> >back in order that we might begin our debate from an agreed position. =
> >Instead, you offer me the mantra "Even if everything you say above is =
> >true, & even if it proves that the Bible is absolutely true...". George,
> >this is hardly good enough; my claim is extraordinary and surely =
> >deserving of an informed and considered response, for its implications -
> >if true - are tremendous, as I'm sure you would agree.
> >
> >You chose to enter the fray with the words "Once more into the breach." =
> >- - and I greatly appreciate that. So again I ask, _in your view_, does =
> >Genesis 1:1, in the original Hebrew, warrant the accolade 'standing =
> >miracle', or not? - and if not, why not?
> >
> >Vernon
> >
> >
> Vernon,
> I think what George would like to know is, once you determined
> for yourself the miraculous nature of this verse, how were you
> able to deduce from this finding that YEC is correct?
> You should be able to explain your reasoning here quite
> independently of whether or not others agree with your claims
> for the miraculous nature.
> If this is not what George meant, I am sure he can correct me,
> but in any case I would like to know the answer to that.
> In the light of Genesis 2:5 especially, it seems difficult to
> maintain that the author of Genesis intended that the
> six days of Chapter 1 should by taken literally.
> Regards,
> Gary
Received on Mon Jun 28 19:03:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 19:03:50 EDT