Friday, August 27, 2010

Giberson Shows His Hand
I do hesitate to chime into a very well worn debate, but.....
I’ve heard the God deceiving part a few times (not just here, natch). I don’t get that conclusion. In a nutshell, our view of life here is based on a fantastically incomplete set of knowledge and that conclusion (deception) leans towards a reduction of the incredible power of God and an elevation of what we see as well. Dr. Mohler did specifically address this (one of his first points). In a fantastically crude analogy, if I send my sister flowers on her anniversary, she would say that, judging from evidence, her husband sent them (her husband always sends her flowers on their anniversary, he always uses a particular florist, he always sends her favorites). I haven’t deceived her, she made assumptions (well thought out, but still faulty). Furthermore, I sent her a note that said it was I who sent them. She wouldn’t protest saying no, they must be from her husband, nor would she call me a deceiver. Furthermore, what you say tends towards the idea (to me, overtly says) that if science says something should be, then it must always have been that way and always should in all circumstances. This brings a Jeffersonian view to the bible, since miracles would be deceptive (science says people can’t raise from the dead, water doesn’t turn into wine, the sick don’t have demons, water-soaked meat cannot combust, etc.). The view of aging the earth is rife with assumptions on our part. We have an incomplete knowledge. The great liar is there, prodding and saying did indeed he say... Now, all of that said, I’m not saying that this is a proof of YEC, I just think the deception bit is at best a shaky argument.

No comments: