No offense, but you do admit that miracles are exceptions to the rule, yet you cannot allow for the BIG miracle of a literal Creation week? Why is it that when you're faced with a choice between the current consensus of 21st science [with its inordinate number of atheists and agnostics in comparison to the public, all the bias that implies] and the revealed Word of an inerrent God who was there, you decide it's the Bible that must be modified? You don't hold with non-overlapping magisteria. Good. But by conceding the plain meaning of Genesis and constantly modifying it to suit the latest claims of 21st century science, you're engaging the stead retreat from the authority of the Word and laying omniscience at the feet of science, which is practical NOMA. This is exactly what Gould wanted to achieve with NOMA, if you've read Rocks of Ages - not to give both magisteria equal authority in separate areas, but to force religion to retreat from what science lays claim to while throwing us a lovely parting gift.
Yet Jesus warned Nicodemus that if we could not believe when He spoke of earthly things, how could we trust Him when He spoke of spiritual things?
And please don't give me the Young Earth Creationism has its problems bit, for if you've read Sarfati's Refuting Compromise you'll note Old Earth Creationism also has its problems. Of tghe two, Young Earth Creationism has the benefit of not undermining either the perspecuity or the veracity [and ultimately, in either case, the authority] of God's revealed Word. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It seems more reasonable to stand upon God's Word and trust that the answers will come than to stop trusting that he can be plainly understood when men challenge it - so long as they do so in the name of 21st century science.
No offense, but you do admit that miracles are exceptions to the rule, yet you cannot allow for the BIG miracle of a literal Creation week? Why is it that when you're faced with a choice between the current consensus of 21st science [with its inordinate number of atheists and agnostics in comparison to the public, all the bias that implies] and the revealed Word of an inerrent God who was there, you decide it's the Bible that must be modified? You don't hold with non-overlapping magisteria. Good. But by conceding the plain meaning of Genesis and constantly modifying it to suit the latest claims of 21st century science, you're engaging the stead retreat from the authority of the Word and laying omniscience at the feet of science, which is practical NOMA. This is exactly what Gould wanted to achieve with NOMA, if you've read Rocks of Ages - not to give both magisteria equal authority in separate areas, but to force religion to retreat from what science lays claim to while throwing us a lovely parting gift.
Yet Jesus warned Nicodemus that if we could not believe when He spoke of earthly things, how could we trust Him when He spoke of spiritual things?
And please don't give me the Young Earth Creationism has its problems bit, for if you've read Sarfati's Refuting Compromise you'll note Old Earth Creationism also has its problems. Of tghe two, Young Earth Creationism has the benefit of not undermining either the perspecuity or the veracity [and ultimately, in either case, the authority] of God's revealed Word. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It seems more reasonable to stand upon God's Word and trust that the answers will come than to stop trusting that he can be plainly understood when men challenge it - so long as they do so in the name of 21st century science.
-Rev Tony Breeden
aka Sirius Knott
http://DefendingGenesis.org & http://CreationLetter.com