Re: [asa] Re: design and the nature of science

From: Merv Bitikofer <>
Date: Tue Jun 16 2009 - 20:17:33 EDT

Ah well! It seemed like a great poetic possibility. Thanks for the
clarification, though. I hadn't been aware that Strong was the source
of that thought. I think my point still stands with the general thrust
of that passage even in its more limited sense. Even a sparrow's death
would probably have been deemed pretty trivial to the audience both then
and now, let alone the hairs on my head.


dfsiemensjr wrote:
> Merv,
> The word in Matthew 10:29 is Greek, /pipto/, and has meanings of falling
> or failing. You are thinking of Strong's comment that the word may be
> associated with /petomai/, to fly. I don't see how this would justify an
> interpretation of alighting. It is probable that the original statement
> by Jesus was Aramaic, but it would be only a guess that Matthew got the
> wrong synonym, and a stupid guess at that.
> Dave (ASA)
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:39:41 -0500 Merv Bitikofer <>
> writes:
>> Responding just to your first objection shown below: What about
>> Matthew 5:45 or 10:29? When God sends the rain on both the just
>> and
>> the unjust, does that mean that this rain cannot have been caused by
>> normal means of adiabatic cooling, condensation, and gravity? You
>> would probably agree that this is silly. So does that then mean
>> that
>> Jesus was wrong to say that God ever sends the rain since these laws
>> are
>> always in play? I think we also all should see Jesus' point here
>> as
>> well. God is involved even where we have observed what we think of
>> as
>> "rigid laws" (even if we can't specify exactly physically how). Our
>> theological (not physical) observation is that God is not removed
>> from
>> the picture. Or in the second verse, we are told that not a sparrow
>> alights on the ground apart from the Father's will. Such is the
>> intimacy of His involvement that nothing is so insignificant that it
>> is
>> "beneath" His will. Incidentally, I was told by somebody that
>> where
>> our English translations say "fall to the ground" potentially giving
>> an
>> image of a sparrow dying, that the Hebrew phrase was more to the
>> effect: Not a sparrow "lands" or "alights" ... which would render
>> the
>> passage even more meaningful or poignant. Are there Hebrew scholars
>> here that can confirm this?
>> --Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 16 20:18:01 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 16 2009 - 20:18:01 EDT