Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Belief in the six day creation is not necessary for one to be a
    Christian.  One must hear, believe, and receive to become redeemed by
    the blood of Christ.
    
    This is just another one of those things we'll find out about when we
    get there.  Baptism, Predestination, etc.  They all fall in that
    special category!
    
    -Jack

    	
    So, what's your answer to the question, Richard?
    
    jeff

.1

>    Belief in the six day creation is not necessary for one to be a
>    Christian.  One must hear, believe, and receive to become redeemed by
>    the blood of Christ.
    
On what is your answer based, Jack?  Pauline doctrine?

>    This is just another one of those things we'll find out about when we
>    get there.  Baptism, Predestination, etc.  They all fall in that
>    special category!

Where is "there," Jack?

Richard

    	
>    So, what's your answer to the question, Richard?
    
In short, it is no more necessary to accept Genesis 1 & 2 literally in order to
be a Christian than it is in order to be a Jew.

Richard

 ZZ   On what is your answer based, Jack?  Pauline doctrine?
    
    Not just the epistles but the Hebrew prophets and the gospels.  
    "Neither is there any other, for there is no other name under heaven
    given unto men whereby we must be saved."
    
    -Jack

Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy
lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all
thy name.

    God magnifies His Word above His very name.  Either all of His Word is
    true or none of it is.  God is not the author of confusion either. 
    
    Also, it's not a coincidence that Creation Week parallels Re-Creation
    Week.
    
    Mike

re Note 1089.7 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy
> lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all
> thy name.
> 
>     God magnifies His Word above His very name.  Either all of His Word is
>     true or none of it is.  God is not the author of confusion either. 
  
        This is one reason why I do not believe that scriptures such
        as the above are referring to the literal text of the Bible
        when they refer to "thy word".

        There are other interpretations, e.g., Jesus the word (not a
        bad interpretation for his followers!), or all God's actions
        (since to be God is to act merely by pronouncing that
        something be) that require neither the mental gymnastics nor
        the mental blinders that are required by holding the text
        itself to be God-authored.

        Bob

.6

>    Not just the epistles but the Hebrew prophets and the gospels.  
>    "Neither is there any other, for there is no other name under heaven
>    given unto men whereby we must be saved."

Where do the prophets (of the Hebrew Bible, I take it you mean) say, "One
must hear, believe, and receive to become redeemed by the blood of Christ"?

Moreover, is redemption or salvation all there is to Christianity?

I think not.

Richard

 ZZ   Moreover, is redemption or salvation all there is to Christianity?
    
 ZZ   I think not.
    
    I agree with this; however, the context of what I was saying was in
    regards to becoming a Christian, not leading a victorious Christian
    life.  I am of the belief that one can be the greatest saint like
    individual in the history of the earth.  If however that person has not
    dealt with their sin nature by nailing it to the cross, then said
    individual will face God as a sinner, standing in judgement and not
    salvation.  
    
    Nebuchadnezzer is a great example in the Old Testamment.  As King of
    Babylon, he lived a sinful life...and was in essence a wicked
    individual.  Yet I firmly believe at the end of his life, he
    acknowledged God as THE GOD of the universe and stands in the shadow of
    no other.  The God of Daniel IS THE ONLY GOD!  
    
    Re: The prophets issue, Paul was an avid quoter of the Old Testament. 
    The letter to the Romans is mostly extrapolations from Isaiah and the
    Psalms.  The prophets of the O.T. set the foundation for what Christ
    came for, and Paul in his letters applied them to what the cross was
    all about.  I personally believe Paul gets a raw deal in this
    conference.  Because he speaks on issues dealing in controversy, he is
    automatically excused as an unreliable source.  I find this
    disheartening...considering Paul had direct revelation from Jesus
    Christ Himself!
    
    -Jack

>Where do the prophets (of the Hebrew Bible, I take it you mean) say, "One
>must hear, believe, and receive to become redeemed by the blood of Christ"?
    
    Most of the Messianic passages of Isaiah address this.
    
    Mike

    Yes...particulary Isaiah 53.  The whole chapter focuses on the person
    and mission of Jesus Christ!
    
    -Jack

    A wise man once said, "The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. 
    The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed."
    
    If you're familiar with typology, this becomes even more obvious.
    
    Mike

>    Most of the Messianic passages of Isaiah address this.
    
    This is perhaps how some choose to interpret the passages.  Sort of like
    the Creationist interpretation of Genesis.

Note 1085.35

>    There's a PBS special currently airing (produced in Chicago) that deals
>    with the creation vs. evolution controversy in public schools.  It is
>    definitely biased toward evolution, but still interesting.
    
It was from viewing part of this broadcast that I raised the basenote question.

Even though both side were aired, I would have to agree that the program would
have looked a whole lot different had it been produced by D. James Kennedy et
al.

Shalom,
Richard

    I don't think it was a very unbiased piece of work - which it should
    have been.  It's definitely agenda driven on the evolution side.  There
    are evidences and questions on both sides demanding answers and the
    creation side was slighted.  As usual, the media makes Christians to
    look like the lunatic fringe.
    
    Mike

re Note 1089.16 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> As usual, the media makes Christians to
>     look like the lunatic fringe.
  
I don't see that at all. I don't see Christianity as I know it
(or the people I worship with in a rather ordinary Catholic
parish) portrayed as lunatics by any of the mainstream media 
(of course there are exceptions -- I'm talking in general).

However, Christianity, as any activity in which a large number of
people participate, has its lunatic fringe.  One would expect a fair
reporting of the lunatic fringe of Christianity would make that
lunatic fringe look like a lunatic fringe.  

The media is pretty good at finding lunatic fringes.  It is part of
what makes "news".

Bob

ZZ    This is perhaps how some choose to interpret the passages.  Sort of
ZZ    like the Creationist interpretation of Genesis.
  
    Richard, there is no mistake that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 IS in fact
    referring to Messiah.  It is who people believe the messiah to be that
    is interpretive.
    
    I have spoken to some of Jewish heritage who believe it is referring to
    the nation of Israel.  It might be except it the prophecy refers to the
    root of Jesse as a sin offering.  In order for Israel to have been the
    messiah, it would have to be pure and unblemished.  At the very time
    Isaiah recorded the prophecy, Israel was marked for exile because of
    their groce sin and idolatry.
    
    -Jack
    

Re .16

Personally, I found the documentary to be fairly well balanced.  The
interviewer gave both sides plenty of opportunity to air their views.  The
fact that the creationists presented such a lousy argument for their side
does not make the show biased.  It just means that they have no case for
considering their views science.

/Mike

Note 1089.18

>    Richard, there is no mistake that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 IS in fact
>    referring to Messiah.

Interpretation enters in when you connect Isaiah 53 to this claim (Note
1089.1):

    One must hear, believe, and receive to become redeemed by
    the blood of Christ.

or defining:
    
    This is just another one of those things we'll find out about when we
    get there.  Baptism, Predestination, etc.  They all fall in that
    special category!

Who the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is is subject to interpretation.  It
could very well be that the Suffering Servant represents Israel herself.  But
this is grist for another topic.

Shalom,
Richard

    Mike, the other more likely possibility is that they didn't interview
    any credible scientists who are also creationists.
    
    Mike

    Re: Isaiah 53
    
    read the whole chapter.  Now tell me when Israel was punished and
    killed for our sins and who is the rich man the country was buried
    with.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I've read the whole chapter.  I've read the entire work of Isaiah I, II
    and III.  I've read it, reread it and read about it.
    
    Richard
    

    Isaiah 1, II, and III?  Did they split Isaiah up into three books?
    
    -Jack

    Actually Isaiah is in 2 sections, each of which exactly corresponds to
    the OT and NT in number as well as the major subject.
    
    Mike

>    Isaiah 1, II, and III?  Did they split Isaiah up into three books?

Who is "they"?

Richard

Note 1089.25

>                  -< Richard, you didn't answer the question >-

Sorry, Mike.  I didn't see a question in .22.  That's what I get for not
being very objective, I guess.

>    Actually Isaiah is in 2 sections, each of which exactly corresponds to
>    the OT and NT in number as well as the major subject.

Nothing I've studied indicates less than 3.  Your mileage apparently varies
from mine.

Richard

    Okay Richard, 
    
    1. when was Israel punished for our sins?
    2. when was Israel killed for our sins?
    3. who is the rich man buried with Israel after its death?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Let me ask you something, Mike.  In light of your comment in the title of
Note 1089.22, what makes you think I believe you might be receptive to
anything I might offer?

>	               -< talk about mental gymnastics >-

Richard

    New topic started.  Note 1095.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re. .21

>                      -< I didn't recognize any of them >-
>
>    Mike, the other more likely possibility is that they didn't interview
>    any credible scientists who are also creationists.
>    

Not really - there aren't any :-).  Actually, any credible scientist who is
also creationist probably realizes he couldn't make a scientific case for 
creationism, and so declined to be interviewed.

/Mike

  ZZ   Did they split Isaiah up into three books?
    
    ZZ Who is they?
    
    Richard, they might be the ones who Canonized the books in the first
    place.  I really never heard Isaiah was split into two or three books. 
    This is just a subject of interest to me!
    
    -Jack

    My Bible identifies the first 40 or so chapters of Isaiah as first
    Isaiah and the balance as second Isaiah.  It is fairly clear where
    first Isaiah ends but not as clear as how the balance may be more than
    one book.  The assumption is that there is more than one prophet name
    Isaiah and that there is a significant time difference between the
    books.  My passing knowledge is limited.  I have read Isaiah but have
    not studied it.
    
                                      Patricia

    It may have something to do with the finding of the dead sea scrolls.  
    
    I do believe that Isaiah was the same for the entirety (Chapters 1-66)
    Patricia, does 2nd Isaiah start with chapter 41...or whatever?  I
    believe a book can have more than one author.  Psalm 119 has many
    authors and the Pentatuch most likely had a few authors...seeing how
    the death of Moses is recorded.  
    
    -Jack
    
    

    
>    Richard, they might be the ones who Canonized the books in the first
>    place.  I really never heard Isaiah was split into two or three books. 
>    This is just a subject of interest to me!

The divisions will not be designated in your Bible as separate books.

Richard

  ZZ  The divisions will not be designated in your Bible as separate books.
    
    
    What version is it separated and what is the purpose of it?  Just
    curious!
    
    -Jack

    It is not separated in any bible.
    
    My NSRV designates them in the introduction to Issiah.
    
    Historical accuracy as well as understanding is enhanced when we have a 
    resonable understanding of who wrote a book and when it was written. 

    It would take some digging, Jack.  Off the top of my head, Isaiah was
    partly pre-Exilic and partly post-Exilic.  I've forgotten the duration
    in years of the Exile.
    
    This is drifting way off the basenote topic.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

          <<< Note 1089.29 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>Let me ask you something, Mike.  In light of your comment in the title of
>Note 1089.22, what makes you think I believe you might be receptive to
>anything I might offer?
>
>>	               -< talk about mental gymnastics >-

    	Richard -- gymnastics that are performed well are beautiful 
    	to watch.
    
    	Support your statements well, and you silence your critics.
    	Perform your gymnastics poorly, and the whole arena gasps
    	as you fall from the rings...

    How could I have been so blind?
    Here I was trying to read it in light of the intended spirit, too.
    
    Richard
    

>Let me ask you something, Mike.  In light of your comment in the title of
>Note 1089.22, what makes you think I believe you might be receptive to
>anything I might offer?
    
    You should know by now that I'm not receptive to much that isn't
    Scriptural.  Prove your point using the Bible and I'll listen.
    
    Mike

>Not really - there aren't any :-).  Actually, any credible scientist who is
>also creationist probably realizes he couldn't make a scientific case for 
>creationism, and so declined to be interviewed.
    
    You forgot "in my opinion."  Try picking up a copy of "Creation"
    magazine sometime.  It's not only published by creation scientists, but
    contains several interviews each issue.  For the more
    technically-inclined, there's also the "Creation Journal."  The people
    behind this periodical and the Creation Research Institute are the most
    well-known creation scientists we have today.  None of them were in the
    PBS special.
    
    Mike, since you're in Colorado Springs, you should know that Creation
    Science Ministries is also there.  They have several high quality books
    and videos that you can get a free catalog from.
    
    Creation Science Ministries
    PO Box 26225
    Colorado Springs, CO 80936
    (800) 778-3390
    (719) 591-0800
    
    Mike (who has no affiliation with CSM)

.42
    
>    Creation Science Ministries
>    PO Box 26225
>    Colorado Springs, CO 80936
    
Why am I not surprised?

Richard

    actually that's not their HQ, it's in Australia.  Colorado Springs is
    just the division that handles the mail order needs.  They have
    regional offices in Kentucky, London, New Zealand, Canada, and
    Australia.
    
    Mike

 ZZ   Why am I not surprised?
    
    Hasty generalization....naught naughty!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

>    Creation Science Ministries
>    PO Box 26225
>    Colorado Springs, CO 80936

I've read some of their publications, as well as stuff from
the ICR and the bunch out of Minnesota.  All of them rely
on discredited attacks on the evolution itself, and offer
very little, if any, credible science to back up their claims
of a valid 'Theory of Creation'.  But then, none of them are
seriously interested in taking a hard scientific look at
creation.  IMO, their real intent is to remove evolutionary
teaching from the schools, since they see that as such a 
threat to their biblically inspired world view.  If you want
to read a very good critique of their science, read 
"Science and Earth History".  I forget the name of the author,
but will provide it as soon as I get home tonight.  He offers
a concise summary of creationist arguments, as well as detailed
rebuttals to their major claims.

/Mike

    Another good source from a non-Christian's perspective is "Genesis and
    the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder on Bantam Books, ISBN
    0-553-35413-2.  Dr. Schroeder is an MIT grad and former U.S. DOD 
    physicist who now lives in Jerusalem.
    
    Mike

.46 PEAKS::RICHARD "_2B or D4?"

Mike,

I've noticed the same thing. All of the creationist literature I've read deals
with attacking the accepted theory (evolution), none of it offers proof for
creationism. They would be much more credible, and I would be much more inclined
at looking at their stuff, if they were trying to prove their point rather than
disprove another.

Steve

    It sounds like some folks haven't read too much in that space.

.45

>    Hasty generalization....naught naughty!!!!!!
    
>    -Jack

Eh?  Colorado Springs is the headquarters or key to several, well, conservative
organizations claiming a Christian orientation.  One more is of no surprise
to me.  How is that a "hasty generalization"?

Shalom,
Richard

    Well...you assumed they were based out of Colorado Springs...but they
    weren't!  
    
    -Jack

          <<< Note 1089.50 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>Colorado Springs is the headquarters or key to several, well, conservative
>organizations claiming a Christian orientation.  
    
    	And the number is still growing!  
    
    	Just one of the many factors that make this town attractive
    	to me.

    It's attractive to believers in more ways than one.  I've tried
    transferring there in the past, but my plans haven't been God's plans.

    Mike

    .51
    
    It still wouldn't surprise me if they were!
    
    So I'm still unclear why the "hasty generalization" remark.
    
    Richard
    

>                   -< you don't know how fortunate you are >-

Oh, yes I do!

Richard

re .50  

>It sounds like some folks haven't read too much in that space.

Yes, Mike, I think you should read some more science books.  :-)

/Mike

.49 OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

Assuming you're referring to me, give me a pointer. I've seen quite a bit in
that space, and other than relying on the Bible (which is of limited value
unless you believe it to be true), I've seen little to no verifiable scientific
evidence presented.

Steve

    "Not only do the facts of science not contradict the Bible, but they
    strongly support a recent creation and go very strongly against the
    idea of billions of years that the theistic evolutionists uphold.  So,
    both science and the Bible are on the same side and they are on the
    side of the young-earth creationist."
    
    Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, physicist at the prestigious Sandia National
    Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico and author of the new book
    "Starlight and Time."

.58 OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"

Does his book go into this theory? An assertion without supporting
fact is just an unsupported assertion, no matter who makes it. 
Leading scientists can be just as wrong as any of us (on both
sides) particularly when going outside of their areas of expertise.

What is Dr. Humphreys area of expertise?

Steve

    I'm not sure what part of physics is his speciality.

For a more extensive quote from Dr. Humphreys, check out the FAQ on
Creation Science and Magnetic Fields in the talk.origins archives,
at http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/magfields.  It goes into 
some of the background of the paper in which Dr. Humphreys made
the quote of .58.  If you don't have access to the WWW, contact
me and I will send you the extract.  Since it is somewhat long and
technical, I won't reproduce it here.

/Mike

    From  http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/magfields.
    
    
===============================================================================
Author: Tim Thompson (tjt@jpl.nasa.gov)
 Title: Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
===============================================================================

*************** [Section removed] *********************

   Thomas Barnes is emeritus professor of physics and planetary
science, University of Texas at El Paso. He has a B.A. in physics from
Hardin-Simmons College (now University), in Abilene, Texas, and an
M.A. in physics from Brown University. His doctorate is an honorary
degree, conferred by Hardin-Simmons University. He's an old timer, as
I recall his B.A. dates from the early 30's. He is the author of a
college textbook on electricity and magnetism.  I cannot recall the
title, but I have seen it, and it looks like any other ordinary upper
division type E&M text, lots of Maxwell's equations, nothing peculiar
that I saw. This would lead on to believe that he should know what
he's talking about.

   A brief outline of Barnes's claim goes like this:

      1. Only the dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field is
         generated in the core. All other components are either
         ionospheric, telluric currents, or magnetic rocks.

      2. Cowling's Theorem specifically prohibits the dynamo
         maintenance of the Earth's magnetic field.

      3. The dipole component of the Earth's magnetic field is
         generated by circular currents in the core.

      4. The dipole component is decaying along an exponential

      5. The extrapolated exponential shows unacceptably high field
         strengths upwards of 10,000 years ago.

   Barnes never produces a satisfactory explanation of the first
claim.  In his terminology, it's obvious that evolution scientists are
confusing "signal" (the dipole component), and "noise" (everything
else). Personally, I find it hard to believe that exploration
geophysicists would overlook a field of magnetic rocks big enough to
affect the quadropole moment of the earth's magnetic field. Also, the
spherical harmonic expression of the earth's magnetic field, as
produced by Gauss himself, clearly seperates field sources above and
below the earth's surface. That means the ionospheric components are
eliminated right from the start (they have been shown to average out
over long time periods anyway). Likewise, telluric currents should
average out over long time periods. And, of course, rocks don't move
much faster than the continents they ride on.

*************** [Section removed] *********************

   The whole thing is a setup. If he can't prove that ONLY the dipole
component is generated in the core, then his reliance on Cowling's
theorem is irrelevant. Neither proof, nor evidence are offered. In
fact this weakness destroys the entire concept at once. All the rest
of the work hinges on the acceptance of "dipole only" in the core.

   The fun part is where he talks about exponential decay of the
field.  Barnes fits an exponential function via least-squares, on a
CDC 6600, to 150 years of dipole data. I note in passing, his attitude
clearly implies that using the then giant CDC computer virtually
guarantees that his results can hardly be wrong. In comparing this
exponential fit of his to a standard linear fit, the probable errors
in the fitting coefficients are a few percent better for his
exponential. He immediately assumes the linear fit is wrong, the
exponential is right, and proceeds to the next step.
   Having satisfied himself of the exponential fit, to 150 years of
data, he then extrapolates the curve back 10,000 years, derives an
enormous magnetic field strength, denounces it as ridiculously large
(at least that much is true), and then dismisses the idea that the
earth can be more than 10,000 years old.

   Q.E.D.

*************** [Section removed] *********************

    From  http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/magfields.
    
    Continued...
===============================================================================
Author: Tim Thompson (tjt@jpl.nasa.gov)
 Title: Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
===============================================================================

**************** [Section Removed] ***************

   I draw your attention to the paper "The Creation of Planetary
Magnetic Fields", by D. Russell Humphreys, Quarterly Journal of the
Creation Research Society, vol. 21, December, 1984. Recieved 3
January, 1984, revised 14 August, 1984. This is a refereed, scientific
journal. It says that Humphreys has a PhD in physics, and is (was) a
physicist at Sandia National Laboratories. Here is the abstract of the
paper:

   "God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a
very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with
many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small
magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough
to account for the magnetism of the planets.  Within seconds after
creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of
nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet,
maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay
steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The
present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets
agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a
6000-year age for the solar system. The theory is consistent with all
the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled
evolutionists."

   Humphreys presumes that God made the sun, and all of the planets
out of water, which has a strong dipole. Line up enough dipoles, get a
big field, then God changes everything from water to the silicate/iron
type stuff we see now, leaving behind decaying magnetic fields.

   For those of you who still think scientific creationism is
scientific, I leave you with a paragraph from Humphreys' "conclusions"
section:

   "The Bible is scientifically accurate. A straightforward reading of
Scripture supplied the essentials of this theory: the possibility of
initial alignment, the water composition, and the short time scale.
The fact that the theory fits the facts shows that the scientist can
rely on the Bible for new insight into the natural world.
===============================================================================
Author: Tim Thompson (tjt@jpl.nasa.gov)
 Title: Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
===============================================================================

    
    I've been poking around http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs and I think
    it's very enlightening. Other non-literalist Christians may find it
    interesting as well, specifically
    http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-god.html

    Eric

    Answers in Genesis, a Creation Science ministry, is now available at
    
    http://www.christianswers.net
    
    The web site includes info to assist Christians with Biblical answers
    in Creation evangelism efforts.
    
    Mike

    "What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding
    [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of
    falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments
    against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
    
    - C.S. Lewis in a letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth, of England's
    Evolution Protest Movement

re Note 1089.66 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     "What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding
>     [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of
>     falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments
>     against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
>     
>     - C.S. Lewis in a letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth, of England's
>     Evolution Protest Movement
  
        Unfortunately, the defenders of evolution theory have no
        monopoly on "fanatical and twisted attitudes".

        Bob

    http://www.best.com/~dolphin/asstbib.shtml#anchor288679