Re: Evolution: dead man walking

Ami Chopine (
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:36:09 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Cummins <>
To: Ami Chopine <>; <>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 11:49 AM
Subject: Evolution: dead man walking

> Not only is "morning" and "evening" referred to in the Creation account,
> they are demonstrated as being literal by the reference to light and
> darkness,

If Genesis starts out creating the universe, then the reference you are
refering to is when the universe actually cooled down enough for light to
exist. At that point, were photons seperated from the rest of matter (which
is dark). So, the seperation of light and dark was not the shadow which
falls accross the earth at night.

Of course, God did name these Night and Day, but I still do not think he
meant it in the way that shadow falls accross earth to become night.
Especially since the earth had not been created yet.

> You're trying to waterdown (make worthless) the text of the Bible to the
> point that it no longer conflicts with secular myth.

Why does acceptance of scientific data make the text of the Bible worthless?
What would you say, if I propose that the very age of the universe increases
the scope of God's great Work? It actually makes God's creation larger,
more expansive, more wonderous. It makes God's creation well out of our
ability to fully comprehend. It is graceful. It assumes the beautiful
adherence of matter to God's will, without God having to manually manipulate
anything. How does this diminish God compared to the requirement by YE
creation that he physically needed to create every little aspect of the
universe. (And what is more, give it an appearance of age, which is
basically lying) Which is more consistant with the God of the Bible: A
grand, huge in both time and space, universe which, by its very nature,
follow's God's will (without God's direct intervention) , or a rather small
universe, with the backdrop of huge space, which God specially crafted and
made appear old?

Okay, day=age. Now
> what are you going to do?

I'm going to praise my Creator.

The order of creation is hopelessly different
> from the secular myth.

I have considered this, and right now, don't have a good answer. So, I will
keep on studying. I know that God is responsible for the universe, that he
created it, but I do not know the methods by which it was accomplished. I
know that the Bible was inspired by God. It must be read within the
cultural context from where it came. Beyond this, I have a space of
ignorance which hasn't been filled yet. Through study and prayer, these
gaps before been fillled. Someday, I will know the answer. I don't now.

Was the Bible meant to be an historical account, or a spiritual account? If
it be erroneous in some small details concerning history, does that
invalidate the spiritual message it contains?

> The sad thing about all this is that you're ripping pages out of your
> for no good reason.

I am not ripping out pages. I am gaining a deeper understanding of
scripture and of God's creation.

Someday, when we all die, we are going to face our God and find out that we
were wrong about some things. I think we will all be somewhat suprised.
Some things which we thought were important, will be trivial. Other things
which we dismissed will be of paramount importance. Some things which we
knew must be the truth, will be flat out wrong. Others, which we
disbelieved with equal vehemence, will turn out to be true.
I don't know what these things will be...but this very idea humbles me a
great bit. It seperates me from identifying my self worth with ideas, from
the need to decide upon controversial matters. It allows greater faith
placed in the wisdom of our Father.

God bless,

Ami Chopine