A slightly sarcastic commentary:
TJ,
First let me thank you for sending me that BioLogos link, in which they took Al Mohler to task for his views on creation. Thanks as well for your amusing comments, ribbing me for advocating a 6-day, Day-day, understanding of the
Genesis 1 text. You're always so kind in sending me links to news stories about science, life, the universe and everything.
I answered a lot of questions for you yesterday, my responses to the BioLogos queries to Dr. Mohler. I actually came up with a few questions for you, if you don't mind.
Now, you are in fact quite theologically conservative, a PCA elder in fact. Not only so, but you teach elder candidates. You are a Biblical inerrantist and also hold firmly to the Westminster Confession of Faith, with very few reservations. Lets leave aside IV.1. for the moment.
You believe that Jesus Christ was born from mother who was a virgin. Born male, of course. So it is not a case of human parthenogenesis. I can look up some links for you, if you want, but I think I am not overstepping my knowledge to point out that this is biologically impossible.
You fully accept the account that Jesus walked on water (and Peter for a moment). Perhaps we can explore the physics involved here. Studies have shown that human bodies have a tendency to pass through the surface tension of a body of water, though there is a variable amount of buoyancy to them. Empirical evidence suggests that both you and I enjoy a relatively high degree of buoyancy, owing to the generous lipid content of our body habitus.
You affirm that Jesus transformed a quantity of water into wine. I take it that where there was previously only H20 and some mineral solutes, after Jesus effected His change, the batch now included fructose, alcohol, and various tannins, among others. I seem to recall a little ditty we learned in school known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, which assures us matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Have we got ourselves a clash with science here?
Now Jesus also raised a number of people from the dead, including one man who had been dead for three days, with olfactory evidence of significant tissue breakdown. Medically speaking, this sort of thing just doesn't happen, can't happen. You (and I too) turn a deaf ear to science at this point, and maintain that whether or not it could happen, it did happen. And if science doesn't like it, too bad.
Jesus Himself rose from the dead. You would never dream of suggesting otherwise. I wonder if you would mind giving me your scientific understanding of this event. You know, we even have an account of a "science vs. faith" clash recorded in the Bible, on this very subject.
I Cor. 15:12-13
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
You know, scientifically speaking, those guys had a point. Once dead, always dead, would be a succinct way of putting the scientific view of the matter. Oh, a couple of minutes on table, and the paddles can get a heart beating again, sure. But Jesus went at least from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning in a state of deadness, and then all of a sudden, He was alive again.
In fact, you believe the same thing is going to happen to you, only you possibly will have been dead hundreds or thousands of years. After this, you fully expect to continue alive indefinitely, with a body impervious to pain or disease or aging, a life never to come to an end. What would you suppose is the scientific view on the possiblity of this happening?
In fact the whole cosmos is due to be entirely re-created, is it not. You affirm this. Given your views about what did or did not happen in the original creation, informed by the pronouncements of science, how would you suppose that this re-creation of the heavens and the earth are likely to concord with science?
Well, my point is, you believe a great many things that science, observation of the phenomena of the cosmos, tells us did not happen, could not happen, will not happen. Yet when I suggest that taking the language of
Genesis 1, in regard to the seven-day time references, as a reliable report on its face, you ridicule my suggestion as being risible, clearly not to be believed, in light of what science tells us.
Is it possible you are being a tad selective in your objections? Am I not somewhat justified in complaining of a double standard? Is there something about the creation account being long ago, and less central to the essentials of the faith, that allows us to treat it differently than all the other matters I've cited?
Just wondering.
http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/...er-to-tj-about
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
