Re: Evolution's Imperative

Kevin O'Brien (
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 20:15:30 -0700

>There can be little doubt that the authority of
>the Bible as a whole rests, ultimately, upon the truth of its opening

If by that you mean the verse, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth", I would agree with you. But that verse alone, face-value or
interpreted, does not rule out the possibility that God used evolution as
part of the creation process. If, however, you mean the entirety of the
first chapter, then I would suggest that since the details given by the
Bible contradict what we know to be natural historical facts, then the
"opening words" of the Bible are not literally true, thus calling into
question the ultimate authority of the Bible.

As such, for those of us who do not wish to reject the ultimate authority of
the Bible, we must question the validity of a literal interpretation of
Genesis 1. So in that sense, the ultimate authority of the Bible should not
rest upon Genesis 1, at least not a literal interpretation of that chapter.

>Taken at face value, these are the received words of a Sovereign
>Being for whom nothing is impossible; a God more than capable of
>creating all things from nothing in six literal days some six thousand
>years ago.

Yet since you have shown that you will in fact abandon a face-value approach
to Scripture when it suits your purposes, such as promoting your numerology
theories or to extracate the Bible from obvious mathematical and scientific
flaws that inevitably come from a literal face-value reading, we TEs should
be allowed to use our own interpretive reading of Genesis 1. Such a reading
does not deny that God is Sovereign or that He can do anything; all it does
is allow for the possibility that God could have created the universe
exactly the way natural history tells us He did.

>Yet the sad fact is that all kinds of reasons have been
>advanced for casting doubt on this unique miracle. Our scientific and
>intellectual establishments have preferred an explanation of origins
>that does not require the involvement of a Sovereign God - nor any
>appeal to the miraculous.

On the contrary, while it is true that science has developed naturalistic
explanations since natural forces are all it can study, many scientists have
in fact used these naturalistic explanations to glorify God and His
miraculous power. Far more, in fact, than have tried to use them to deny
the existence of God.

>We read in Isaiah 29:13-24 that God has promised to do something about
>this. I believe the language of number to be His means of 'destroying
>the wisdom of the wise'. It is surely significant that, way back, both
>Jews and Greeks adopted systems of alphabetic numeration.

I'm not sure what "alphabetic numeration" is supposed to mean, but if you
mean something like our modern base-ten system, we got that from the Arabs,
not from the Greeks or the Hebrews. In fact the number system you are using
to develop your numerology theories is the Arabic system, not the Hebrew

>The words of
>the Scriptures, as originally written, are therefore, by implication,
>fairly interpretable as numbers.

That in fact does not follow at all; it is rather an interpretation you have

>As I have demonstrated in my writings,
>geometrical patterns are revealed in certain numbers, and number
>sequences, which are apposite to the accompanying text. Can you believe,
>for example, that the coordinated geometries of Genesis 1:1 and the
>Lord's Name are nothing more than flukes? Surely, it is only God who is
>capable of achieving such wonders!

In point of fact, if you can conceive of it, someone else can as well.
Perhaps someone who deliberately gave God a name that would reflect those
"geometrical patterns".

>And with good reason at this point in
>time - as I hope you'll agree. It is a typical that the evolutionist
>lobby should refer to these matters as 'numerology'. However, facts are
>facts, whatever we choose to call them!

The problem is that these are not facts; they are illusions created by an
artificial system that you have imposed upon Scripture. Once again, you are
interpreting Scripture even as you hypocritically demand that TEs not
interpret it but take a face-value approach instead.

Kevin L. O'Brien