Re: Seely's Views 2

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 11:51:14 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "'Roger Olson'"
<rogero@saintjoe.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: Seely's Views 2

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:26 AM
>
> > > Then why does it say God DID something rather than that God IS
> > > someone?
> >
> > No especially modern theology is called for: ~1600 years ago
> > Augustine said "The world was not made in time but with
> > time." (/Non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum
> > tempore/.) If Gen.1:1 is a statement about God's initial
> > creative act then it was not something that took place in the
> > time of our world because that time did not exist. & if
> > Gen.1:1 is - in Westermann's phrase - "a heading that takes
> > in everything in the narrative in one single sentence" then
> > it is perfectly consistent to say that it's true in the same
> > (non-historical) sense that the rest of the account is.
>
> I don't actually recall speaking of the need for time in my discussion
> here nor do I see it's implicit discussion. General Relativity says the
> same thing--the world was made with time. The fact that creation
> created time as well still doesn't negate the fact that God did it
> according to Genesis 1:1. That doesn't turn Genesis 1:1 into a statement
> of who God is, at least that I can see.

This is relevant if 1:1 is understood as God's 1st creative act because then
it wasn't in time & thus wasn't part of history.

> > I.e., I'm not arguing here that you're wrong but just that
> > your charge that others (including myself) are inconsistent -
> > doesn't hold up.
>
> Then answer the questions I put to Don Winterstein today. I am a bit
> surprised that no one but Roger has address the noisy communication
> channel theorem, I took note of yesterday.

I think your whole attempt to use information theory here misfires because
"information theory" in the technical sense is not about the _truth_ of the
information. The supposed "noise" in Gen.1 (e.g.) isn't noise. It is part
of what is communicated - the aspects of ancient cosmology which are used to
express the truths that God created the universe, that creation is good &c.
Or again, I'll repeat my hoary example of Jesus' parable of the Good
Samaritan. It communicated exactly what Jesus wanted to communicate - the
answer to the question "Who is my neighbor." & the question of whether or
not the events in the story ever took place are completely irrelevant to the
accuracy of his communication. I.e., the signal to noise ratio, in the
sense that is important, is exactly the same whether Jesus took that story
off the front page of the Jericho Tribune or made it up out of whole cloth.
OTOH Ham's book _Evolution - The Lie_ transmits just what he wanted to say,
though perhaps with some typos &c. In the sense of information theory, the
book transmits the information very accurately. Nevertheless, it contains a
great deal that is false.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Sep 4 12:10:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 12:10:38 EDT