Re: Non-truths that do not transform

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 13:52:53 EDT

Hi Christopher,

As promised, some observations on the 'apparent age' issue:

You will know that, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "All
(Judaeo-Christian) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness..." (AV, 2Tm.3:16). Putting this another way, the Bible
represents a body of _divine revelation_ which (as Paul says in Eph.6:17) is
intended to function as the "sword of the (Holy) Spirit". However, it is
clear that this becomes a blunt (hence, useless) weapon in the hand of the
Christian who allows wordly wisdom to question the Authority of this unique
Book. Such people apparently believe that no one should be _deceived_ by
its claims - particularly as these relate to ultimate origins and earth
history. But, in resisting these 'deceptions', do they not imply that God
himself is a would-be _deceiver_? - saying one thing, but meaning another?
Not wishing to put too fine a point on it, Christian evolutionists and
'old-earthers' believe in a God who occasionally seeks to deceive - they
themselves being wise to the attempted deceptions. It's a bit rich, then,
that when I come along with a reasoned defence of 'apparent age' and a young
earth you immediately step in with the accusation that the Creator must,
therefore, be a Deceiver!

In the Creator's hands, those markers which convince you and others that
certain entities must indeed be very old, are not necessarily there to
deceive, but may serve another purpose of which we are completely ignorant.
For who are we to claim that the divine parameters within which the creation
was accomplished are, to us, an open book? But aside from this, I have
already drawn attention to scriptural information which warns that mankind
faces a _spiritual antagonist_ -and _real_ deceiver - who, clearly, has a
considerable interest in seeing the Word of God rubbished and our minds
diverted from the truths revealed therein. We are first introduced to this
powerful being in Gen.3:1-15; further details appear in Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7
where he is revealed as a petitioner and, even more remarkably, as God's
'hatchet man'! This last observation strongly suggests that the outworking
of God's agenda contains elements (like the crucifixion) that we cannot
possibly understand - indeed, were never intended to understand;
nevertheless, because they are clearly recorded they cannot, sensibly, be
ignored.

So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the biblical account of
creation and of earth history (having, in effect, already judged God, and
found him wanting) are being tested by these 'wonders in the heavens'. Such
'theatricals' are clearly within the scope of a being who delights to
deceive - and, for reasons which are completely beyond our understanding, is
being _allowed_ to deceive. As Christians, it is wise that we always
remember that His thoughts and ways are completely beyond our own. He has an
_agenda_; whether we like it or not, its fulfilment inevitably involves us!

Vernon

---- Original Message -----
From: <CMSharp01@aol.com>
To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: Non-truths that do not transform

> In a message dated 4/26/05 4:18:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:
>
>> Vernon
>>
>> PS I shall be addressing the vexed question of 'apparent age' in a
> separate
>> posting.
>>
>> V
>
> I await your views on this with interest. In the Solar System
> there are a number of observations based on celestial
> mechanics and tidal forces that show quite clearly that it
> is much much more than about 10,000 years old. Although
> unlike radiometric dating these processes may not give
> very accurate ages, they are good enough to show that a
> young Solar System is not possible, and they are quite
> independent on radiometric dating as follows:
>
> 1) Our moon and most of the moons of the other planets keep
> the same face to their parent planets. With the exception of
> the very irregular moon Hyperion of Saturn, as far as I know,
> the only moons that do not show synchronous rotation are outer
> small moons of several of the planets.
>
> 2) Jupiter and the inner three of the four Galilean moons, Io,
> Europe and Ganymede, are old enough for these moons to
> be in exact resonance orbits, but not old enough for the
> outermost moon Callisto. Several of the moons of Saturn and
> Uranus are also in resonance orbits.
>
> 3) Both Pluto and its moon Charon are tidally locked, i.e. each
> shows one face to the other.
>
> 4) Mercury is in a 2:3 spin orbit resonance, i.e. for every two
> orbits it makes around the sun it turns on its axis three times
> relative to the distant stars. If Mercury were in a circular orbit,
> it would probably be locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance like
> the moon, but the orbit is appreciably eccentric.
>
> 5) There is a 3:2 orbital period radio of Neptune and Pluto.
>
> 6) The asteroids in the main belt are not distributed smoothly,
> but certain exact orbital resonances with Jupiter are avoided.
>
> All these depend on celestial mechanics and in some cases
> tidal forces, and the time scales are much too long to be
> possible if the Solar System were only about 10,000, unless
> you propose that God deliberately placed the planets, moons
> and asteroids in such configurations as a part of a deceptive
> plan. What fully functional purpose would such orbital
> resonances have?
>
> Christopher Sharp
>
Received on Thu Apr 28 13:54:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 13:54:54 EDT