Liberals vs conservatives
Robert Davidson
some here is understandable if the one time Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture (University of Oxford) is correct about
conservative evangelicalism:
"The real and fatal cost of fundamentalist doctrine and ideology, as a
system of life. . . is its personal cost: it can be sustained as a
viable way of life only at the cost of unchurching and rejecting, as
persons, as thinkers or scholars, and as Christians, all those who
question the validity of the conservative option. The presence of the
questioner breaks down the unnatural symbiosis of conflicting elements
which makes up the total ideology of fundamentalists. We can thus
understand why 'liberals' and other non-conservative persons have not
only to be disbelieved, discredited and overcome in argument; they have,
still more, to be eliminated from the scene altogether."
James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <3827A657...@student.uq.edu.au>):
Thanks for posting this, Robert.
For those who may be interested, James Barr is visiting Australia next year.
He will be giving a lecture at Saint George's Cathedral, Perth, at 7:30 pm on
Wednesday 22 March 2000. I do not know at this stage if he is appearing in
any other states or visiting our NZ cousins.
cheers
N+
Graeme Hunt
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
We stopped laughing at that a long time ago Robert, now it is just a
big yawn. We know not to expect anything that is sensible from the
SCM.
Graeme Hunt
invi...@ihug.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~invictus
Robert Davidson
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:43:04 +1000, Robert Davidson
> <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
>
> We stopped laughing at that a long time ago Robert, now it is just a
> big yawn. We know not to expect anything that is sensible from the
> SCM.
Seems a pretty darn accurate assessment to me, even if one limits the
scene to this newsgroup alone. I think he's right on the money, as you
would expect from an Oxford professor. SCM has some excellent titles if
you take an impartial view of things. Out of curiosity (and with no
desire to belittle you or anything) have you actually read any of their
books, or have you read descriptions of them in conservative
literature?
I often find this is the case with my conservative Christian friends.
They talk about Derrida, Satre, even Marx and Freud without having read
them first hand at all, but having read about them in evangelical books
by the likes of Francis Shaeffer (of L'Abri fame). They have been
surprised when taking my advice and actually reading the primary
sources.
Robert Davidson
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>Thanks for posting this, Robert.
>
>For those who may be interested, James Barr is visiting Australia next year.
>He will be giving a lecture at Saint George's Cathedral, Perth, at 7:30 pm on
>Wednesday 22 March 2000. I do not know at this stage if he is appearing in
>any other states or visiting our NZ cousins.
>
This rather reminded me of the passage in Philippians 3:2 - "Beware of
dogs, beware of evil workers, berware of the concision ..." The
passage refers to the Judaistic opposition to Paul but the principle
is extended to all forms of apostasy and evil teaching, including
today's liberalism. Judaisers are not quite today's liberals but the
liberals' teaching falls under the category of "evil workers".
There is a definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun here
in this verse calling special attention to a certain kind of dog. The
dog that is in view here is the Judaiser. So we translate this "Beware
of those dogs" - false teachers, apostles of apostasy, evangelists of
evil.
The phrase dogs does not refer to the literal canine species, it
refers to Judaisers. The Bible must be interpreted in the time in
which it was written. In the time of writing this passage regarding
dogs found the dog an animal which only inspired contempt. The reason
is because the dogs in the ancient world travelled in packs, were
often hungry, and were quite vicious. They were also carriers of all
of the animal diseases.The word "dog" was used in the ancient world in
a very derogatory sense. The Jews in the ancient world called the
gentiles dogs. So the fact that the word "dogs" was used as a
derogatory word was very definitely understood.
Basically the dog of the ancient world was a scavenger. By nature he
was unclean, he was the carrier of disease, and the carrier of other
creatures which carried diseases - like fleas. At the same time the
dog of the first century was semi-wild, eating garbage, carrion,
refuse, just about anything. Just as dogs fed on garbage and dead
bodies so the Judaisers fed on the principles and doctrines of evil.
Therefore the apostle Paul calls them the scavengers of theology.
Just as rabid dogs infected others, so the Judaisers infected Paul's
world-wide congregation. They followed him and they constantly tried
to insert legalism where Paul had taught grace. They infected with
reversionism and evil their victims.
The dog cannot be better than his own nature, so the Judaisers and
liberals cannot exceed the content of evil in their souls. While the
Judaisers passed themselves off as religious celebrities Paul in the
power of the Spirit, using spiritual language, they were in reality
dogs, scavengers, travelling in packs, and providing opposition for
the apostle Paul. And while they were a part of the great mantle of
opposition, and he could understand them and meet their opposition,
his congregation could not. Therefore the warning, "Beware of those
dogs." Hence the derogatory analogy to dogs indicates the
personality, the essence of the Judaisers who constantly opposed the
great apostle. They were a part of the honour that God bestowed upon
him.
Dogs are used in analogies to reversionism and apostasy - Matthew 7:6;
Philippians 3:2. Dogs are used to describe unbelievers - 2 Peter
2:22; Revelation 22:15.
"evil workers" is a reference to human good [Isaiah 64:6] which in
the Bible is in opposition to divine good and under the category of
evil. Evil is Satan's policy. "Beware of those evil workers,"
describes tose whose "work" which was offering opposition to Paul's
ministry. Evil workers here are those who do something to set a system
of opposition to the ministry or the teaching of the Word of God.
These people never left Paul, his churches had to be warned that they
would infiltrate the local church and would come in an teach something
that wasn't true. They would come in and take the Old Testament and
mutilate wonderful passages, take them out of their context and bring
them over into evil. This is one of Satan's greatest functions.
Starting with the garden, evil or Satan's policy always seeks to take
grace as it finds it and mutilate it. Evil always finds grace
perfectly healthy, perfectly whole, and seeks to mutilate it.
Mutilation, then, is taking legitimate Bible doctrine or ritual and
distorting it. This is what liberalism does.
Mutilation is the Satanic distortion of doctrine so that it appears to
be teaching his policy of evil. Many functions of evil today are
related to the Word of God but they are distorted from the Word of
God.
Beware of these false itinerate teachers of evil.
Graeme Hunt
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Out of curiosity (and with no
>desire to belittle you or anything) have you actually read any of their
>books, or have you read descriptions of them in conservative
>literature?
Yes, but not for a long time. Thankfully I have much better
discernment these days. I understand absolutely where they are coming
from and reject them as false teachers.
I'm sure Nigel has a library of this material or has access to one. I
prefer something that is true myself.
John Fulton
(Graeme Hunt) writes:
:>
:>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:46:27 +0800, Nigel Mitchell <n...@echidna.id.au>
:>wrote:
:>
:>>Thanks for posting this, Robert.
:>>
:>>For those who may be interested, James Barr is visiting Australia next year.
:>>He will be giving a lecture at Saint George's Cathedral, Perth, at 7:30 pm on
:>>Wednesday 22 March 2000. I do not know at this stage if he is appearing in
:>>any other states or visiting our NZ cousins.
:>> "The presence of the
:>> questioner breaks down the unnatural symbiosis of conflicting elements
:>> which makes up the total ideology of fundamentalists. We can thus
:>> understand why 'liberals' and other non-conservative persons have not
:>> only to be disbelieved, discredited and overcome in argument; they have,
:>> still more, to be eliminated from the scene altogether."
:>> James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
:>>
:>
:>This rather reminded me of the passage in Philippians 3:2 - "Beware of
:>dogs, beware of evil workers, berware of the concision ..." The
:>passage refers to the Judaistic opposition to Paul but the principle
:>is extended to all forms of apostasy and evil teaching, including
:>today's liberalism. Judaisers are not quite today's liberals but the
:>liberals' teaching falls under the category of "evil workers".
:>
:>There is a definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun here
:>in this verse calling special attention to a certain kind of dog. The
:>dog that is in view here is the Judaiser. So we translate this "Beware
:>of those dogs" - false teachers, apostles of apostasy, evangelists of
:>evil.
Snip ...
The above is the demonstration of an attempt to put down the questioner in an
irrational manner!
How kind of you to provide such a demonstration of James Bar's proposition - I
could not have done it better myself!
Thank you very much Graeme
Regards to you all
John Fulton
Graeme Hunt
You are very welcome John. I am well aware of the poison and unbelief
of liberal theology and make no apologies for exposing it wherever
possible. .
Graeme Hunt
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Graeme Hunt wrote:
>
>> I am well aware of the poison and unbelief
>> of liberal theology and make no apologies for exposing it wherever
>> possible. .
>
>Graeme, why do you call James Barr a false teacher? Have you read his books? What
>in them is false?
>
His stance is obvious enough from your quote of him - very obvious.
Graeme Hunt
<anti...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Here, Here!
>
>How easy is it to read secondary sources rubbishing organisations, scholars,
>other religions or prominent people? And how many do this and adopt the
>criticisms of such books without any consideration of those groups or people
>or ideas _
You are jumping to conclusions. I never said I have never read liberal
books. I have read enough of them to know that most of them are trash.
Graeme Hunt
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Graeme Hunt wrote:
>
>> Yes, but not for a long time. Thankfully I have much better
>> discernment these days. I understand absolutely where they are coming
>> from and reject them as false teachers.
>
>Surely it is a good practice to know the "enemy" as you describe liberal
>teachers? Should you really just ignore their writings? Would not your
>faith protect you from any falseness?
>
>Robert Davidson
Robert, why should anyone in their right mind study the work of
religious quacks? I use all my spare time studying the truth; I have
not time at all for messing around and wasting time on the enemies of
truth.
But you are correct, my faith does protect me from any falseness;
that's why I steer clear of irrelevant theories peddled by the false
teachers.
Robert Davidson
> I am well aware of the poison and unbelief
> of liberal theology and make no apologies for exposing it wherever
> possible. .
Graeme, why do you call James Barr a false teacher? Have you read his books? What
in them is false?
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> >Graeme, why do you call James Barr a false teacher? Have you read his books? What
> >in them is false?
> >
> His stance is obvious enough from your quote of him - very obvious.
I take it you haven't read "Fundamentalism" then. Why did you say you laughed at it
years ago and now that it's a big yawn? It's actually a very astute book you would
probably find very interesting. Certainly not hostile to conservative Christians, but
highly compassionate.
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
Daniel McLean
How easy is it to read secondary sources rubbishing organisations, scholars,
other religions or prominent people? And how many do this and adopt the
criticisms of such books without any consideration of those groups or people
or ideas _on their own grounds_, that is through a reading of their own
writers and texts. Perhaps it will result in no change to one's opposition
to them, but at least it adds a touch of integrity and "informedness".
Thanks for the Barr quote Robert.
Regards,
Daniel
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcl4/
Robert Davidson wrote:
> Graeme Hunt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:43:04 +1000, Robert Davidson
> > <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > >James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
> >
> > We stopped laughing at that a long time ago Robert, now it is just a
> > big yawn. We know not to expect anything that is sensible from the
> > SCM.
>
> Seems a pretty darn accurate assessment to me, even if one limits the
> scene to this newsgroup alone. I think he's right on the money, as you
> would expect from an Oxford professor. SCM has some excellent titles if
> you take an impartial view of things. Out of curiosity (and with no
> desire to belittle you or anything) have you actually read any of their
> books, or have you read descriptions of them in conservative
> literature?
Daniel McLean
> You are jumping to conclusions. I never said I have never read liberal
> books. I have read enough of them to know that most of them are trash.
Not a stab at you Graeme, but a generalisation (therefore will not hold for all
cases) of many in conservative circles. It is fantastic when anyone has the
patience and breadth of mind to listen to and read the writings of those from
positions in conflict with their own, regardless of which side of which fence
they come from.
What I would say however, is that even if a person does not agree with the common
assertions of a group such as SCM, that it is by no means true that they have
nothing to benefit from interacting with their ideas. Furthermore, it should be
acknowledged that organisations change over time, as does the style and content
of literature they produce. SCM produces a fairly wide variety of material and I
would be very surprised if you would find nothing of interest or benfit to read.
Graeme Hunt
<anti...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Graeme Hunt wrote:
>
>> You are jumping to conclusions. I never said I have never read liberal
>> books. I have read enough of them to know that most of them are trash.
>
>Not a stab at you Graeme, but a generalisation (therefore will not hold for all
>cases) of many in conservative circles. It is fantastic when anyone has the
>patience and breadth of mind to listen to and read the writings of those from
>positions in conflict with their own, regardless of which side of which fence
>they come from.
As a matter of curiosity I suppose it is interesting. One of the
problems as I see it is to be able to spend the time reading a lot of
stuff which you personally reject. I have my own priorities and they
more than keep me busy.
>What I would say however, is that even if a person does not agree with the common
>assertions of a group such as SCM, that it is by no means true that they have
>nothing to benefit from interacting with their ideas.
I would much rather spend my time (redeem the time) interacting with
the Bible and what it really says than with a group of rationalists
(many of whom are unbelievers anyway) who tear down the very doctrines
the Bible teaches.
>Furthermore, it should be
>acknowledged that organisations change over time, as does the style and content
>of literature they produce. SCM produces a fairly wide variety of material and I
>would be very surprised if you would find nothing of interest or benfit to read.
From my student days SCM leaned toward the liberal side of the fence
and I have ever since purchased books from other sources. If things
have changed for the better then that is good, but I have my doubts.
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <38289EDF...@student.uq.edu.au>...
G'day Robert,
Apparently Dr Barr came from a relatively conservative background but
departed from it and now hold's fairly unorthodox views, particularly
concerning special revelation. Although Barr may well attempt to be
gracious & understanding in his writings it is obvious he has a major beef
with anyone who subscribes to inerrancy which has always been the orthodox
understanding of divine revelation.
If I recall, Dr Barr clumps (not unlike yourself - perhaps he has
influenced you) evangelicals with fundamentalist purely on the basis of
inerrancy which seems to suggest his real bete noir is the orthodox
understanding of the doctrine of Scripture. Anyway, he is certainly an
excellent Hebrew scholar.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton
>For those who may be interested, James Barr is visiting Australia next
year.
>He will be giving a lecture at Saint George's Cathedral, Perth, at 7:30
pm on
>Wednesday 22 March 2000. I do not know at this stage if he is appearing
in
>any other states or visiting our NZ cousins.
G'day Nigel,
Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
Barr a question for me?
If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
Regards
Darren Middleton
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <3828cb35@nap-ns1>):
> G'day Nigel,
>
> Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
> Barr a question for me?
> If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
> major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
> intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
Hi, Darren.
Did that quote originate with Barr? I thought it came from someone else.
If you are interested in my answer to the question, it would be:
1. There were several authors of Genesis, not just one.
2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend the word
"day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day. I would be very surprised if
any world class scholar in any major University thought differently.
3. I am equally sure that the authors of Genesis did not believe that they
were writing an historical account of what actually happened. They were
writing an Israelite version of the Babylonian Creation myth, and thereby
expressing their faith in the one God who created all that is, and who chose
them to be his people.
4. The idea that the 'days' in Genesis 1 are thousands of years long is an
unfortunate pseudo-literalism which is neither credible nor helpful. The
quotation to which your question alludes, which is mentioned at just about
every Creationist lecture, is a red herring. It is not relevant unless you
think that the author(s) of Genesis believed that he/they was/were writing
about actual historical events. A casual observer need only look at the
alternative Creation myth in Genesis 2 to see that this is not the case.
(we all know you disagree with this, Graeme, but you can't prove anything
different, so we will take youir blatherings about 'liberal rubbish' as read,
if that is OK)
cheers
N+
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>If you are interested in my answer to the question, it would be:
>
>1. There were several authors of Genesis, not just one.
The expected liberal blather of unbelief Nigel. Moses wrote Genesis
along with the rest of the Pentateuch.
>2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend the word
>"day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day.
Hey, what's happened? I believe you are correct!! Put that down as an
astounding first Nigel.
>3. I am equally sure that the authors of Genesis did not believe that they
>were writing an historical account of what actually happened. They were
>writing an Israelite version of the Babylonian Creation myth, and thereby
>expressing their faith in the one God who created all that is, and who chose
>them to be his people.
Uh oh! More liberal blather. Where do you guys get these weird ideas?
>4. The idea that the 'days' in Genesis 1 are thousands of years long is an
>unfortunate pseudo-literalism which is neither credible nor helpful.
Well you may have couched in your usual pious humbug Nigel, but I
happen to agree with you here.
>(we all know you disagree with this, Graeme, but you can't prove anything
>different, so we will take youir blatherings about 'liberal rubbish' as read,
>if that is OK)
Nigel, you know very well I never utter blather. Don't be such a
spiteful young fellow, you still have a lot to learn and there's no
sense in getting in a tantrum every time you are wrong. You are wrong
so often it could be very detrimental to your health.
I really should tell you a bedtime story about Genesis one. It is
about the period most Bible "scholars" miss out altogether - the time
prior to verse 2 when the fallen angels used the earth as a
playground. They used to tie dynasaurs' tails together and then throw
them over the clothesline :-)
Now that isn't a myth Nigel, and it is far more logical than the
liberal blather we hear about so much of the Bible being a myth.
Okay, now listen carefully young fellow and I'll tell you what is not
myth!
Verse 1 - is creation, God created the universe in an instant at an
unknown time in history. No one knows how long ago it was but it gives
plenty of time to contend with all of the dynasaur fossils etc. which
the scientists and liberal preachers trot out to apparently discredit
the Bible account.
Between verse 1 and two a catastrophe occurred which turned planet
earth into chaos. The earth was not originally chaotic. Between verse
1 and verse 2 the earth was packed in ice.
But in verse 2b we read "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters." This begins the six 24-hour days of RESTORATION, not
creation.
The six-day period recorded in Genesis 1:3-31 is not a description of
original creation, it refers to the preparation of the earth for
habitation by man.
So what we have is:
Creation - verse 1
Chaos - verse 2
Restoration - verse 3 and following.
That is it in a nutshell. The explanation requires a lot of detail and
involves reasons for the chaos. The Hebrew actually gives many clues
which support this view. But there is a very definite theological
reason for the chaos and the restoration.
I know I've provided you with something to arouse your humour but that
isn't unusual with scoffers who regard Genesis as a myth. I'm really
only replying to this to perhaps give lurkers something to spark their
thinking.
Nigel B. Mitchell
(Graeme Hunt) wrote:
>I really should tell you a bedtime story about Genesis one. It is
>about the period most Bible "scholars" miss out altogether - the time
>prior to verse 2 when the fallen angels used the earth as a
>playground. They used to tie dynasaurs' tails together and then throw
>them over the clothesline :-)
Whilst you are sharing your little fantasy world, Graeme, perhaps you
can tell us who the Nephilim were, in the days when the sons of God
interbred with the daughters of men. I don't know of _any_ published
authors who consider Genesis 6:1-4 as a description of historical
events, but perhaps back in the 17th century there was a Brethren
Baptist 'Born again believer' (whatever that is), who wrote a book on
the subject???
cheers
N+
Nigel B. Mitchell
n...@echidna.id.au
Graeme Hunt
Yes Nigel, I could tell you all about the Nephalim, but you wouldn't
be interested.
Yes, I was pretty sure you didn't know what a born-agin believer was.
I'd find out if I were you. At the last judgement all who are not will
be cast into the lake of fire -- Revelation 20:11-15 -- you know, the
one that was prepared for the devil and his angels -- Matthew 25:41.
That's no fantasy Nigel, I'd take it pretty seriously if I were you.
BTW, I don't know any Brethren-Baptist who wrote a book on it,
especially back in the 17th century. I do know of someone who did
write on it prior to that - about 3100 years prior. His name was
Moses.
PS Born-again Christians are the genuine ones, not the pseudo ones.
Nigel B. Mitchell
(Graeme Hunt) wrote:
>Yes Nigel, I could tell you all about the Nephalim, but you wouldn't
>be interested.
I am interested, but as usual you have nothing to say.
>Yes, I was pretty sure you didn't know what a born-agin believer was.
You promised to tell me about three weeks ago, and I am still waiting.
but I know what your promises are like.
Robert Davidson
> Robert, why should anyone in their right mind study the work of
> religious quacks?
If they are respected enough to get professorships at Oxford, I think it's
not going to be a waste of time. My policy is to be always reading
literature with which I profoundly disagree as well as literature for which I
have sympathy (I got this habit from the Australian evangelist John Smith) -
I find it a great challenge to getting into intellectual ruts, and it often
results in my changing my mind in fundamental ways. I believe as soon as we
stop changing, we stop living in some sense.
Robert Davidson
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Nigel, Peace.
Re:
>Whilst you are sharing your little fantasy world, Graeme, perhaps you
>can tell us who the Nephilim were, in the days when the sons of God
>interbred with the daughters of men. I don't know of _any_ published
>authors who consider Genesis 6:1-4 as a description of historical
>events, but perhaps back in the 17th century there was a Brethren
>Baptist 'Born again believer' (whatever that is), who wrote a book on
>the subject???
I found one Dr Schofield! (Published that is)
However, his interpretation is the same as the Orthodox opinion that I
have heard postulated. That is....
Angels do not and cannot have sex. They are sexless creatures and have
no sexual parts, they are neither male nor female and thus the Angels
(Fallen or other) could not and did not have sex with earth bound
human women. Getting that out of the way that leaves us with what I
believe to be an excellent explanation...
The sons of God who took the wives were in fact the sons of Seth, the
righteous line from Adam, with God's blessings thus called the sons of
God, thus Sethites. The brides were the 'daughters of men' who were
from the ungodly line of Cain, thus Cainanites and without God's
blessings. This was the destruction of godly peoples on the earth and
the great flood followed straight after of which we know only one
family of eight persons survived. Due to righteous Noah!
This is all I can add to this matter.
Peace and grace.
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Robert Davidson
> Apparently Dr Barr came from a relatively conservative background but
> departed from it and now hold's fairly unorthodox views,
That doesn't surprise me, given his interest in fundamentalism.
> particularly concerning special revelation. Although Barr may well attempt
> to be
> gracious & understanding in his writings it is obvious he has a major beef
> with anyone who subscribes to inerrancy which has always been the orthodox
> understanding of divine revelation.
I can understand that beef - as far as I can tell, errancy in the bible is
very clearly demonstrable, and to hold to inerrancy seems untenable. But then
people who can disagree with plain facts such as evolution can hold out
against other certainties as well I suppose. Religious conviction is a
powerful thing!
As far as inerrancy being the standard orthodox position through the ages, I
refer you again to Barr's book for a number of discussions on that point.
Calvin, Luther and many others would not be orthodox by this definition.
Inerrancy seems to be quite a modernist thing.
> If I recall, Dr Barr clumps (not unlike yourself - perhaps he has
> influenced you) evangelicals with fundamentalist purely on the basis of
> inerrancy
I believe I have been influenced by the good doctor, but many others make this
grouping on the basis of inerrancy (perhaps also by Barr's influence)
> which seems to suggest his real bete noir is the orthodox
> understanding of the doctrine of Scripture. Anyway, he is certainly an
> excellent Hebrew scholar.
He is. Again, I'm not so sure inerrancy is the orthodox understanding
(because I'm going along with Barr). And if it was, it is more difficult to
sustain such a belief in a post-scientific age when we really do know a lot
more about how the world operates than people did in previous ages (though I
imagine we have much more superficial mental furniture and know lots less
about perhaps more important things than science).
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
> Barr a question for me?
> If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
> major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
> intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
Does Barr really think "day" (yom) means something else in Genesis? If so,
my respect for him wanes a little. I would be surprised if this were the
case. Or do you mean he has made straw man arguments (saying others have
this interpretation of yom)?
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> Whilst you are sharing your little fantasy world, Graeme, perhaps you
> can tell us who the Nephilim were, in the days when the sons of God
> interbred with the daughters of men.
There's a really creepy cult, the Reilians or somesuch, led by a French
egomaniac, and popular with "ferals" around the border of Qld and NSW.
These guys believe the Nephilim were aliens and that Jesus, Gautema,
Akhenaten, Moses etc were descendents of the offspring. Of course the
French guy is one of the offspring as well.
I was in Byron Bay recently and saw an ad for a workshop in which one
learnt how to "change your DNA in three months". There's just something
about the area.
To me, creation science is almost on this level.
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> That's no fantasy Nigel, I'd take it pretty seriously if I were you.
In my view, hell is one of the most malicious and dangerous fantasies
(because of its wide influence) dreamed up by humans. I have yet to meet
anyone who really believes in hell.
Robert Davidson
Graeme Hunt
Mitchell) wrote:
>In <385a2e7e...@news.tga.ihug.co.nz>, invi...@ihug.co.nz
>(Graeme Hunt) wrote:
>
>>Yes Nigel, I could tell you all about the Nephalim, but you wouldn't
>>be interested.
>
>I am interested, but as usual you have nothing to say.
>
You are not very perceptive Nigel. I have plenty to say and could tell
you the details about the Nephalim, the beni-ha-Elohim, in great
deatil, but why should I tell someone who only scoffs at God's
infallible Word? It is the same pirnciple of casting pearls before
swine. Like many other issues that come up, I just can't be bothered,
largely for the very same reason.
>>Yes, I was pretty sure you didn't know what a born-agin believer was.
>
>You promised to tell me about three weeks ago, and I am still waiting.
Nigel, the reason is pretty much as above. Everything I have said
concerning the gospel message and regeneration you have rejected.
That's your choice and your right.
Do you recall a certain individual in one of Jesus' trials just before
He was crucified? All he wanted to see from Jesus was a miracle, not
what Jesus came for. It was just entertainment for that person. If you
do you will also recall that Jesus answered him not a word. Jesus'
message of the gospel was rejected, so what more was there to say?
>but I know what your promises are like.
And we all know what your unbelief is like. As I have said before, I
have never seen you put together anything that suggests to me that you
are a genuine born-again Christian. If that is in fact so then there
is no way you are going to perceive any of the spiritual truths of
God's infallible Word, the Bible tells you this very clearly in the
second chapter of first Corinthians. However, I am sure that even that
will go right over your head.
Julian Visch
> PS Born-again Christians are the genuine ones, not the pseudo ones.
No Born again are the extreme loney ones, liberals are the true
Christians.
--
__^__ < Julian Visch >
__^__
( ___ )------------------------------------------------------------( ___
)
| / | | \
|
| / | It is true that if your paperboy throws your paper into the | \
|
| / | bushes for five straight days it can be explained by | \
|
| / | Newton's Law of Gravity. But it takes Murphy's | \
|
| / | law to explain why it is happening to you. | \
|
|___|
|___|
(_____)--------Internet:j.v...@math.canterbury.ac.nz--------------(_____)
Robert Davidson
> If that is in fact so then there
> is no way you are going to perceive any of the spiritual truths of
> God's infallible Word, the Bible tells you this very clearly in the
> second chapter of first Corinthians. However, I am sure that even that
> will go right over your head.
To me it is so clear that this is propaganda - "you wouldn't understand,
because you haven't been initiated yet" sort of idea. Quite gnostic
really. It is used by ideologues frequently - it is a common memetic
phenomenon. Seems to work very effectively.
Most liberal Christians have a very clear understanding of the gospel, and
can put themselves into the mind of an evangelical - after all, most of
them have been at some stage evangelical and have moved on. It makes no
sense to say they don't understand the spiritual truths of the gospel, as
they have already understood them and then found them wanting after further
reflection (I suppose you will argue that they were never truly saved at
all, even though they were indistinguishable from fundamentalists for much
of their lives). Liberals have been where evangelicals are, but
evangelicals haven't always been where liberals are.
Robert Davidson
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <382fae36...@news.tga.ihug.co.nz>):
> You are not very perceptive Nigel. I have plenty to say and could tell
> you the details about the Nephalim, the beni-ha-Elohim, in great
> deatil, but why should I tell someone who only scoffs at God's
> infallible Word?
As I have told you in the past, Graeme, I do not scoff at the scriptures. I
read, study, preach and teach from them daily, and rely on them as the
principle source of information for my faith and my hope of eternal
salvation.
I _do_ scoff at your way of interpreting the Bible, because it is without
logical or factual basis, contrary to almost all academic scholarship, and
places harsh and unneccesary burdens on the faithful.
Every time you (and others who have said the same thing to me in the past)
accuse me of "scoffing at God's word", I cannot help but wondering. Do you
know that "God's word" and "Graeme's opinions" are different things? I can
tell the difference, even if you cannot, and although I do certainly reject,
and sometimes scoff at, many of your opinions, I do not, and will not reject
God or his Word. I wonder if you are able to give some indication that you
are aware of the difference.
As to the Nephilim, since you will not provide any information I will happily
fill the gap.
The word "Nephilim" is translated "Giants" in the KJV, although Hebrew
usually uses a different word. These legendary men/beasts are mentioned only
in Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33. According to the Interpreters Dictionary
of the Bible (published by Abingdon, a very conservative publishing house,
especially back in 1974), Genesis 6:1-4 is part of a much longer story which
has been trimmed back by various editors of the Scriptures who found it's
mythological nature objectionable. The story has nothing to do with Noah's
flood, although various attempts have been made to make it into some sort of
introduction or justification (perhaps you will favour us with one such
attempt, Graeme), but it seems most likely that Genesis 6:1-4 is a fragment
of an ancient Hebrew myth/legend.
_If_ we are to read Genesis 6:1-4 as an historical account, that would beg
the folowing questions:
Can we infer from Verse 1 that the birth of daughters was the beginning of
the downfall of humanity into sin and degradation?
Who were the "Sons of God", and why did they rape/seduce the daughters of
men? (verse 2)
What does verse 3 have to do with the story, and why doesn't everyone live to
be 120?
These questions may look frivolous and pointless, and I freely admit that
they are, but anyone who wants to try and argue that Genesis 6:1-4 records
historical events should be able to answer them.
cheers
N+
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 1:41:27 +0800, Graeme Hunt wrote
>(in message <382fae36...@news.tga.ihug.co.nz>):
>
>> You are not very perceptive Nigel. I have plenty to say and could tell
>> you the details about the Nephalim, the beni-ha-Elohim, in great
>> deatil, but why should I tell someone who only scoffs at God's
>> infallible Word?
>
>As I have told you in the past, Graeme, I do not scoff at the scriptures.
But you do, emphatically so. You call great portions of them myths,
you kick the very authority of scripture out from under it, you pick
and choose what you will believe is true scripture and what is not.
You build on a totally sandy foundation which is completely inadequate
for any strong faith. You categorically deny the fundamental doctrines
of the gospel and therefore it seems ludicrous to me that you call
what you say Christian.
>read, study, preach and teach from them daily, and rely on them as the
>principle source of information for my faith and my hope of eternal
>salvation.
"Hope"???? The Greek word elpis means "confidence". Do you have
"confidence" in your salvation? Do you _know_ you are saved? I do, and
it has nothing to do with anything I have done or merited. But
salvation for me is a certainty. Do you have that confidence?
>I _do_ scoff at your way of interpreting the Bible, because it is without
>logical or factual basis, contrary to almost all academic scholarship,
Nigel, you are away with the fairies again. It is not "contrary to
almost all academic scholarship." I was reading Christians scholarship
when you were still having your nappies changed and I know that there
was then and still is a mountain of academic scholarship world-wide
which agrees with my own position. So stop that ludicrous nonsensical
blather.
> and
>places harsh and unneccesary burdens on the faithful.
There again, you do not know what in the world you are talking about.
The Bible, as I understand it, takes burdens off people.
>Every time you (and others who have said the same thing to me in the past)
>accuse me of "scoffing at God's word", I cannot help but wondering. Do you
>know that "God's word" and "Graeme's opinions" are different things?
I know that the Bible and Nigel's "opinions" are 180 degrees
antithetical. You are a scoffer of God's Word Nigel, a lost liberal
trying to pull himself up by his own shoelaces.
>As to the Nephilim, since you will not provide any information I will happily
>fill the gap.
>
>The word "Nephilim" is translated "Giants" in the KJV, although Hebrew
>usually uses a different word.
What word?
>These legendary men/beasts are mentioned only
>in Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33.
They were not legendary. You are wrong again.
>According to the Interpreters Dictionary
>of the Bible (published by Abingdon, a very conservative publishing house,
>especially back in 1974), Genesis 6:1-4 is part of a much longer story which
>has been trimmed back by various editors of the Scriptures who found it's
>mythological nature objectionable.
Ha, ha, ha, more laughs Nigel!
>The story has nothing to do with Noah's
>flood,
The account [not story] had everything to do with Noah's flood, in
fact it was the reason for the flood.
>although various attempts have been made to make it into some sort of
>introduction or justification (perhaps you will favour us with one such
>attempt, Graeme), but it seems most likely that Genesis 6:1-4 is a fragment
>of an ancient Hebrew myth/legend.
Seems likely??? Nigel you've been reading too many liberal comics
again.
>These questions may look frivolous and pointless, and I freely admit that
>they are, but anyone who wants to try and argue that Genesis 6:1-4 records
>historical events should be able to answer them.
>
I an easily answer all of your questions, it would be a breeze, but I
ain't going to. I've already told you why.
Now you run along back to your liberal library of unbelief and
skepticism, and I'll enjoy the truth of God's infallible and complete
Word, totally devoid of any "myths", as per the faithless rantings of
theological liberalism.
Julian S Visch
|> But you do, emphatically so. You call great portions of them myths,
As do biblical scholars.
Noahs Ark is a prime example.
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <383a0da0...@news.tga.ihug.co.nz>):
>> The word "Nephilim" is translated "Giants" in the KJV, although Hebrew
>> usually uses a different word.
>
> What word?
Raphah
Cf 2 Chronicles 20:4-7
>> These legendary men/beasts are mentioned only
>> in Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33.
>
> They were not legendary. You are wrong again.
You say I am wrong, but you have no evidence at all to prove it.
I can cite dozens of published theologicans and biblical scholars to support
my views. You just ignore them all and stick to your own private and
unsupported opinions.
>> According to the Interpreters Dictionary
>> of the Bible (published by Abingdon, a very conservative publishing house,
>> especially back in 1974), Genesis 6:1-4 is part of a much longer story
>> which
>> has been trimmed back by various editors of the Scriptures who found it's
>> mythological nature objectionable.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, more laughs Nigel!
The laugh is on you, Graeme.
Does _anyone_ who has studied the Bible at an academic level in this century
agree with your views?
>> The story has nothing to do with Noah's
>> flood,
>
> The account [not story] had everything to do with Noah's flood, in
> fact it was the reason for the flood.
>
>> although various attempts have been made to make it into some sort of
>> introduction or justification (perhaps you will favour us with one such
>> attempt, Graeme), but it seems most likely that Genesis 6:1-4 is a
>> fragment
>> of an ancient Hebrew myth/legend.
>
> Seems likely??? Nigel you've been reading too many liberal comics
> again.
Yes, I can see how you would think that most published biblical scholarship
is 'comic'. That is the only way you could retain your views.
I suppose you think of Jack Chick's publications as sound and reliable
scholarship. That would be consistent.
>
>> These questions may look frivolous and pointless, and I freely admit that
>> they are, but anyone who wants to try and argue that Genesis 6:1-4 records
>> historical events should be able to answer them.
>>
> I an easily answer all of your questions, it would be a breeze, but I
> ain't going to. I've already told you why.
That's OK, Graeme. I know why.
cheers
N+
Andrew Bromage
Saint-Athana...@telstra.easymail.com.au (St.Athanasius) writes:
>The sons of God who took the wives were in fact the sons of Seth, the
>righteous line from Adam, with God's blessings thus called the sons of
>God, thus Sethites.
I looked up Wesley, and that was pretty much his opinion too.
The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the
Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters
of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God.
The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought,
but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives
of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They
saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend
Oh Nigel, I know where you get this idea from. You have swallowed the
documentary hypothesis hook, line and sinker. No respectable scholar
believes that nonsense any more. It's a load of garbage. You've been
sucked into it and prefer to take this as truth rather than all the
evidence against it.
I posted on this hypothesis once before. I recall you avoided all the
diffcult and unanswerable questions which literally blew it apart.
I think this speaks for itself about your views of the scriptures and
their supposed "myths".
Darren R Middleton
Nigel Mitchell wrote in message
<01HW.B44F26510...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 8:46:50 +0800, Darren R Middleton wrote
>(in message <3828cb35@nap-ns1>):
>
>
>> G'day Nigel,
>>
>> Barr a question for me?
>> If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
>> major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
>> intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
>
G'day Nigel,
>Did that quote originate with Barr? I thought it came from someone else.
From Dr Barr, written in 1984 apparently, ask him.
>If you are interested in my answer to the question, it would be:
I'm familiar with the liberal take of Genesis - as I'm sure you're
familiar with the evangelical take.
Snip
>2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend the word
>"day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day. I would be very
surprised if
>any world class scholar in any major University thought differently.
I'd be interested in what Dr Barr has to say - not to mention a survey of
scholars on the issue of what the intention of the *original author* was
concerning the days of Genesis. Have you got some info that would support
your belief Nigel?
>3. I am equally sure that the authors of Genesis did not believe that
they
>were writing an historical account of what actually happened. They were
>writing an Israelite version of the Babylonian Creation myth, and thereby
>expressing their faith in the one God who created all that is, and who
chose
>them to be his people.
Now with all due respect that's is absolute speculation - have you
actually read the Babylon creation myth? Explain the similarities...
Although the Babylonian creation myth is pulled out as if it was
some sort of lay down misere - it is most unconvincing.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <3829517C...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
Snip of Dr Barr's beef with inerrancy (orthodoxy)
>But then
>people who can disagree with plain facts such as evolution can hold out
>against other certainties as well I suppose. Religious conviction is a
>powerful thing!
G'day Robert,
The bible is demonstrably reliable - though inerrancy is a matter of
faith, a ministry & testimony of the Holy Spirit.
>As far as inerrancy being the standard orthodox position through the
>ages, I
>refer you again to Barr's book for a number of discussions on that point.
>Calvin, Luther and many others would not be orthodox by this definition.
>Inerrancy seems to be quite a modernist thing.
Going to the original source instead of accepting liberal authors views
concerning orthodoxy:
Now here is Augustine confirming inerrancy in the autographs & sole
authority for Scripture:
"I have learned to defer this respect & honour to the canonical books of
Scripture alone, that I most firmly believe that no one of their authors
has committed any writing in error.
And if in their writings I am perplexed in anything which seems to me
contrary to the truth, I do not doubt that it is nothing else than either
that the manuscript is corrupt, or the translator has not followed what
was said, or that I have myself failed to understand it......"
"And I think you my brother you feel the same way; moreover; I say, I do
not believe that you want your books to be read as if they were those of
the Apostles & Prophets about which writings, free of all error, it is
unlawful to doubt." (Augustine's Epist. 82, to Jerome)
BTW, Pope Leo XIII actually quotes (in paragraph D.3.b, "Providentissimus
Deus") Augustine Epist to Jerome as evidence of the orthodox nature of
inerrancy!
Or how about Calvinin his Christian Institutes, Book 1, Ch 8:4:
"As if the eternal & inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of
men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that
these writing came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come
down
whole and intact even to our very day?"
Furthermore Calvin says, "if I were struggling against the most crafty
sort
of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging
Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence
their
clamorous voices....Unbelieving men... demand rational proof that Moses
and
the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is
more excellent than all reason.... the Word of God will not find
acceptance
in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the
Spirit."
"Therefore, illumined by His power, we believe neither by our own nor by
anyone else's judgement that Scripture is from God; but above human
judgement we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon
the
majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of
God
by the ministry of men."
Leo XIII in 1893: Extracts from "Providentissimus Deus"
"...For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical
are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of
the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can
coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially
incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and
necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can
utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of
the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and
finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the
Vatican...."
I rest my case.
>> If I recall, Dr Barr clumps (not unlike yourself - perhaps he has
>> influenced you) evangelicals with fundamentalist purely on the basis of
>> inerrancy
>
>I believe I have been influenced by the good doctor, but many others make
this
>grouping on the basis of inerrancy (perhaps also by Barr's influence)
Ropbert, you have castigated (along with others) conservatives for what
you perceive is their lack of scholarship, integrity and commitment to
engaging original sources, yet it is obvious you have taken Dr Barr &
others position on inerrancy without any personal perusal of the evidence.
We all do it, just so long as you realise that means liberals as well.
>> which seems to suggest his real bete noir is the orthodox
>> understanding of the doctrine of Scripture. Anyway, he is certainly an
>> excellent Hebrew scholar.
>
>He is. Again, I'm not so sure inerrancy is the orthodox understanding
>(because I'm going along with Barr). And if it was, it is more
difficult..
Then I hope you'll reconsider you views and revisit this issue through
original sources.
Regards
Darren MIddleton
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <382951FA...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
>> Barr a question for me?
>> If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
>> major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
>> intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
>
so,
>my respect for him wanes a little.
G'day Robert,
I'm saying he thinks the original authors understood "day" (yom) as 24
hour days.
It's not that he believes in a literal creation - just that we must be
honest when we interpret Scripture and say that the writer meant 24 hour
days.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Graeme Hunt
<Darren_M...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>some sort of lay down misere - it is most unconvincing.
>
Liberal speculation is apparently more reliable than the Bible
Darren!
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <3829f4a8@nap-ns1>):
> I'm familiar with the liberal take of Genesis - as I'm sure you're
> familiar with the evangelical take.
You make it sound as though each were equally viable.
Do you think Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
Could you convince a person who did not share your prior assumptions about
the nature of scripture that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
>
>> 2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend the word
>> "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day. I would be very
> surprised if
>> any world class scholar in any major University thought differently.
>
>
> I'd be interested in what Dr Barr has to say - not to mention a survey of
> scholars on the issue of what the intention of the *original author* was
> concerning the days of Genesis. Have you got some info that would support
> your belief Nigel?
This is interesting, Darren. Do you think that the "Yom" means something
other than "24 hour day" in Genesis 1. If you do, then you and I and Dr Barr
agree.
I will make a note to ask him the question.
>> 3. I am equally sure that the authors of Genesis did not believe that
> they
>> were writing an historical account of what actually happened. They were
>> writing an Israelite version of the Babylonian Creation myth, and thereby
>> expressing their faith in the one God who created all that is, and who
> chose
>> them to be his people.
>
> Now with all due respect that's is absolute speculation
It would be absoloute speculation if I were simply saying that on my own
account, but as you know it is mainstream Biblical scholarship and has been
for the past 100 years.
> - have you
> actually read the Babylon creation myth?
Yes. I have it right here.
> Explain the similarities...
As you know, many books have been written on this subject, but briefly, the
sequence of events is the same, viz;
Genesis
God creates all matter, but is independent of it Earth is in darkness and
chaos over the deep (Tehom).
Enuma Elish
The Divine Spirits and cosmic matters coexist and are coeternal. There is a
primeval chaos in which the gods war against the deep (Tiamat).
Genesis
1st day the creation of light
Enuma Elish
Light emanates from the gods
Genesis
2nd day the dome of the sky is created
Enuma Elish
creation of the firmament (dome)
Genesis
3rd day creation of dry land
Enuma Elish
creation of dry land
Genesis
4th day creation of heavenly lights
Enuma Elish
creation of heavenly lights
Genesis
5th day creation of animals
Enuma Elish
-
Genesis
6th day creation of man
Enuma Elish
creation of man
Genesis
God rests and sanctifies the sabbath
Enuma Elish
the gods rest and celebrate with a banquet
I am sure you have looked at all this before, Darren, but for anyone else who
is interested an useful comparison can be found at the following sites
http://www.cumber.edu/acad/rel/hbible/HebrewBible/hbmisc/enumaeli.htm
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/sess4/enuma.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/7418/lk11.htm
http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_TC.HTM
a contrary view is presented at
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9801.html
> Although the Babylonian creation myth is pulled out as if it was
> some sort of lay down misere - it is most unconvincing.
...to you. I will continue to accept and teach it until I see a more
convincing explanation.
cheers
N+
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>> - have you
>> actually read the Babylon creation myth?
>
>Yes. I have it right here.
>
>> Explain the similarities...
>
>As you know, many books have been written on this subject, but briefly, the
>sequence of events is the same, viz;
>
>Genesis
>God creates all matter, but is independent of it Earth is in darkness and
>chaos over the deep (Tehom).
>
The Bible also indicates that Satan always has a counterfeit to the
truth. The Babylonians also had a counterfeit trinity. Satanic
countefeits are well documented in the New Testament, always with the
same intent: to blind men to the truth - as, for example, in 2
Corinthians 4:4.
Satan has his counterfeit ministers - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; a
counterfeit doctrine 2 Timothy 4:1; a counterfeit gospel - 2
Corinthians 11:3,4.
Heathenism always has its counterfeits and they are sponsored by
Satan. False teachers today are sponsired by Satan, they preach his
policies. He sponsors liberalism and its unbelief.
So don't be surprised about the Babylonians counterfeit of something
that is true.
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> Oh Nigel, I know where you get this idea from. You have swallowed the
> documentary hypothesis hook, line and sinker. No respectable scholar
> believes that nonsense any more. It's a load of garbage. You've been
> sucked into it and prefer to take this as truth rather than all the
> evidence against it.
It depends on what you mean by the documentary hypothesis.
The details of Wellhausen's original dating scheme are indeed not
well supported. On the other hand, that the Torah was placed
in in present form well after the time of Moses, and was preceded
by four major strands of writing, is solidly in the mainstream
of academic biblical scholarship. One may dismiss this academic
approach, of course, but it exists and remains the majority view
within academia and theological seminaries that do not have a prior
doctrinal commitment to Mosaic authorship.
The mainstream consensus is that the Torah retains evidence of
earlier sources from which it is derived. These early sources
were written during the monarchy from the time of David up to the
exile, and combined into their present form as a single unified
document possibly during or after the exile.
We will need to bear in mind several distinct positions. First,
there is the classic JEPD model. In this model there are four
sources pre-dating the current form of the Torah. J (Yahwehist)
is the oldest, dating perhaps to the time of David or Solomon.
E dates from the later monarchy, possibly the time of Jeroboam,
and quite possibly never existed as a distinct document from J.
The Priestly source (P) reflects concerns of a Priestly class
in the later monarchy, and Deuteronomy (D) is a fourth document,
possibly from the time of Josiah.
This model is often credited to Wellhausen, who was the most
influential of a group of German scholars who first proposed
this division in the nineteenth century, including Vatke, Reuss
and Graf. Wellhausen gave the most detailed exposition of the
model, but his own original contribution was mostly concerned
with dating the early sources; dates which are now generally
considered much too late.
Within this academic mainstream we can roughly distinguish the
clumpers and the splitters. Splitters may try to identify further
divisions even within J, E, P and D, or try to reconstruct one of
the four major strands from the present unified Torah. Clumpers
are more interested in the unified work we have today, and in the
concerns of those who developed it in that unified form (R).
The trend today is away from excessive splitting.
It is now widely considered that E never existed as an independent
document: and we should speak of J followed later by the combined
document JE. On the other hand, it is recognized that there was a
wide body of traditions and sources in use, and that the major JEPD
strands may incorporate material from older shared traditions. A
trend to de-emphasize the splitting of the Torah into sources, and
to focus on the entire edifice is sometimes mistaken as a return to
the notion of a single author: care needs to be taken to distinguish
an emphasis on cohesion and the hypothesis of single authorship:
they do not necessarily go together.
Another area of ongoing dispute is the matter of dating of the
sources. It is not hard to find quotes from respected academics
stating views such as "Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis is
dead", or something of the sort. These statements usually refer
to the details of Wellhausen's formulation, especially his late
dating scheme, which has indeed been superseded.
The existence of J, E, P and D strands representing four distinct
writers at different times continues to be the general view for
authorship of the Torah by the vast majority of academic scholars,
Jewish scholars most definitely included.
It is not hard to find some fairly drastic criticism of the
JEPD model. Names frequently cited in this respect include
Jewish scholars Umberto Cassuto, Isaac Kikawada, Benno Jacob and
others. These are all rather dated; I am hoping for some more
modern references from others as this thread progresses. There
are two important points to bear in mind. First, these scholars
do argue against the documentary hypothesis, but they do not
present Mosaic authorship as the alternative. None of them accept
the simple tradition of Mosaic authorship, which is dead in the
water as far as serious scholarship is concerned. Second, these
scholars have not been persuasive. Time has not vindicated their
efforts, and (as far as authorship of the Torah goes) their views
are now little more than historical curiosities.
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <80daf8$irr$1...@dove.qut.edu.au>):
Hi, Chris,
thanks for an useful and accurate contribution to the debate, as usual.
>...that the Torah was placed
> in in present form well after the time of Moses, and was preceded
> by four major strands of writing, is solidly in the mainstream
> of academic biblical scholarship. One may dismiss this academic
> approach, of course, but it exists and remains the majority view
> within academia and theological seminaries that do not have a prior
> doctrinal commitment to Mosaic authorship.
>
> The mainstream consensus is that the Torah retains evidence of
> earlier sources from which it is derived. These early sources
> were written during the monarchy from the time of David up to the
> exile, and combined into their present form as a single unified
> document possibly during or after the exile.
Spot on.
...
> The trend today is away from excessive splitting.
This is very important.
Even 20 years ago there was an unfortunate trend to chop the Torah up into
tiny bits, and to speak of J1, P2, etc. I have a book on my shelf by Otto
Eissfeldt which goes to extraordinary lengths in this regard. Nowadays it is
recognised widely that the Torah should be read as an unified work, but with
the recognition that there are many different strands represented in the
final product.
> The existence of J, E, P and D strands representing four distinct
> writers at different times continues to be the general view for
> authorship of the Torah by the vast majority of academic scholars,
> Jewish scholars most definitely included.
No objective scholar or observer would disagree with you there.
cheers
N+
Robert Davidson
Calling something a myth doesn't mean you are saying it is
unhistorical. The death of princess Di is definitely a myth as well as
history. (By the way, I've been informed that there are a number of
resurrection stories and appearance stories out about Diana, as one
would probably expect. Just like Elvis, Poolan Devi and any number of
recent heroes. And that's in the scientific age - imagine how much more
common they were during the Hellenic period).
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> Now you run along back to your liberal library of unbelief and
> skepticism, and I'll enjoy the truth of God's infallible and complete
> Word, totally devoid of any "myths", as per the faithless rantings of
> theological liberalism.
Graeme, I get the impression that you believe liberals "attack" the bible, and are
motivated by wanting to "prove it wrong" or something. Almost no scholars who you
would think of as liberal are motivated in this way. Rather, they are simply
treating the bible as they would any other book of similar origins, and trying to
get at some empirical knowledge of it. Are you confusing liberals with eighteenth
century deists?
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> I rest my case.
I wouldn't do that too soon. In addition to the Calvin quote you have
produced, there are a number of places where he disagrees with Paul, remarks
on errors in the bible and generally commits proto-source-critical acts.
Luther of course called the NT book of James "a right strawy epistle".
> Ropbert, you have castigated (along with others) conservatives for what
> you perceive is their lack of scholarship, integrity and commitment to
> engaging original sources, yet it is obvious you have taken Dr Barr &
> others position on inerrancy without any personal perusal of the evidence.
> We all do it, just so long as you realise that means liberals as well.
That's not so. I have read many of the original sources (certainly many of
the reformers, Augustine, the ante Nicene fathers and much else). Careful
what you call obvious, cos it just ain't so. Orthodoxy has always been a
rather slippery thing.
> Then I hope you'll reconsider you views and revisit this issue through
> original sources.
I'm reading this stuff all the time. I will be revisiting the issue
repeatedly in my reading I imagine, with the impartiality of not wanting to be
orthodox myself particularly. I'm just fascinated by our cultural heritage.
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> Now with all due respect that's is absolute speculation - have you
> actually read the Babylon creation myth? Explain the similarities...
> Although the Babylonian creation myth is pulled out as if it was
> some sort of lay down misere - it is most unconvincing.
What relationship does it have with the Epic of Gilgamesh? Now there's a
story which has heaps in common with the Genesis creation myths.
Robert Davidson
Theo Bekkers
Graeme Hunt <invi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote
>
> Heathenism always has its counterfeits and they are sponsored by
> Satan. False teachers today are sponsired by Satan, they preach his
> policies. He sponsors liberalism and its unbelief.
>
> So don't be surprised about the Babylonians counterfeit of something
> that is true.
Once again you make me smile Graeme. I understood the Babylonian story and a
similar story from China predated the bible story. So who is copying who?
Watch out, I may be a disciple of Satan.
Cheers
Theo
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Graeme Hunt <invi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote
>>
>> Heathenism always has its counterfeits and they are sponsored by
>> Satan. False teachers today are sponsired by Satan, they preach his
>> policies. He sponsors liberalism and its unbelief.
>>
>> So don't be surprised about the Babylonians counterfeit of something
>> that is true.
>
> Once again you make me smile Graeme. I understood the Babylonian story and a
> similar story from China predated the bible story. So who is copying who?
From China?? That *would* be interesting!
Can you explain? I'd be very interested in a story from China which
was sufficiently close to the Balylonian or Hebrew stories to indicate
a common source!
I'm skeptical, but open to evidence -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Nigel B. Mitchell
<Darren_M...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
(of Dr Barr)
>It's not that he believes in a literal creation - just that we must be
>honest when we interpret Scripture and say that the writer meant 24 hour
>days.
100% agreement from me on that.
cheers
N+
Nigel B. Mitchell
n...@echidna.id.au
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ Be with your spirit.
G'day Andrew,
Re: Wesley and your comment:
>I looked up Wesley, and that was pretty much his opinion too.
I found out when I was studying Wesley that much of his commentaries
were simply the Orthodox view re-hashed (apart from particular
doctrines percular to the reformation and Wesleyanism. He was a
student of the Church Fathers and loved the writings of St. Mercurious
of the Church of Alexandria (Coptic Church).
I used to study that other famous commentary by the Anglican divine
written just prior to that, but found out that he virtually copied
most of the commentary from the writings of the Fathers, some of it
verbatim! So I just went to the source he used instead.
I particularly like this quote from John Wesley:
John Wesley:
"I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the
divine in one person, being conceived by the singular operation of the
Holy Ghost, and born of the Blesed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as
before she brought Him forth, continued a pure unspotted virgin."
'Letters to a Roman Catholic'
>Cheers,
>Andrew Bromage
Peace and grace.
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear All, some good questions have been asked about the ancient canon:
>_If_ we are to read Genesis 6:1-4 as an historical account, that would beg
>the folowing questions:
>Can we infer from Verse 1 that the birth of daughters was the beginning of
>the downfall of humanity into sin and degradation?
A: No, it was the culmination in that period of the total rejection of
God. The Garden of Eden was the beginning of the downfall of humanity
into sin and degradation.
>Who were the "Sons of God", and why did they rape/seduce the daughters of
>men? (verse 2)
A. The sons of God were of the line of righteous Seth and as such
obeyed God's commandments and offered sacrifices for sin, the
daughters of man (Cain) did not and as such were not sanctified in
God's sight. The sons of God 'married' the daughters of man, however,
I am sure a bit of rape probable went on!
>What does verse 3 have to do with the story, and why doesn't everyone live to
>be 120?
A. Your assumption that 'God would only contend with man 120 years' as
meaning that man would only now live to be a maximum of 120 years old
in not necessarly the correct interpretation. Another slant on the
verse is that God was stating that he would only allow mankind another
120 years of grace before He destroyed the lot of them in the Great
Flood. This is what He in fact did. It took Noah 120 years to build
the Ark and then God's grace with the people of the world was removed.
All the living then perished except eight souls.
>
>These questions may look frivolous and pointless, and I freely admit that
>they are, but anyone who wants to try and argue that Genesis 6:1-4 records
>historical events should be able to answer them.
And they are simply answered. I do not think the questions highlight
any problems with the passage under investigation. On the contrary I
believe that it is our -assumptions- that we bring to the passage in
question that causes the problems, eg: Angels having sex with women
and man limited to 120 years of age. These are protestant assumptions
from way back and are not necessary correct and thus need no modern
re-writing to explain them away. IMHO.
Peace and grace.
>
>cheers
>
>N+
Troy Harris
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Conservative Christian killfiling of certain threatening ideas posted by
>some here is understandable if the one time Oriel Professor of the
>Interpretation of Holy Scripture (University of Oxford) is correct about
>conservative evangelicalism:
>
>"The real and fatal cost of fundamentalist doctrine and ideology, as a
>system of life. . . is its personal cost: it can be sustained as a
>viable way of life only at the cost of unchurching and rejecting, as
>persons, as thinkers or scholars, and as Christians, all those who
>question the validity of the conservative option. The presence of the
>questioner breaks down the unnatural symbiosis of conflicting elements
>which makes up the total ideology of fundamentalists. We can thus
>understand why 'liberals' and other non-conservative persons have not
>only to be disbelieved, discredited and overcome in argument; they have,
>still more, to be eliminated from the scene altogether."
>
>James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
Sounds like a biased fanatic to me.
Funny how you exchange "fundamentalist" with "liberal" and the post
would still seem legit.
I think this sort of thing is just cloaked fascism of another kind.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Troy H
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Troy Harris
"Hör visheten ropar, och förståndet höjer sin röst"- Ordspråksboken 8:1
"Withdraw from evil, work good, and seek peace" - St John of the Cross
Robert Davidson
> Sounds like a biased fanatic to me.
He's accurately describing a situation - I can't see how there's much bias in
what he says.
> Funny how you exchange "fundamentalist" with "liberal" and the post
> would still seem legit.
I disagree. Fundamentalist people are not cast out of churches, described as
the enemy, eliminated from the scene because they question "liberal" theology
(which doesn't exist as a single thing - there are any number of liberal
viewpoints because they are not subject to authoritarian control - except for
the same amount of social control which is inescapable in any discipline).
The Uniting Church is a good example of this - fundamentalist people are
completely welcome to stay, but they often leave because they are
uncomfortable with the presence of liberals. They cast themselves out, not
the other way around.
> I think this sort of thing is just cloaked fascism of another kind.
I grant you that conservatives are often belittled and patronised by liberal
leaders. This should change. However, how does one take seriously people who
say that Job saw dinosaurs? Placing something with no evidence at all above
something with utterly compelling evidence (science).
> Two wrongs dont make a right.
Agreed.
Robert Davidson
Theo Bekkers
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:80dlpt$508$1...@dove.qut.edu.au...
> Theo Bekkers <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Once again you make me smile Graeme. I understood the Babylonian story
and a
> > similar story from China predated the bible story. So who is copying
who?
>
> From China?? That *would* be interesting!
>
> Can you explain? I'd be very interested in a story from China which
> was sufficiently close to the Balylonian or Hebrew stories to indicate
> a common source!
Sorry, I meant to say Further East and wrote China. I don't have great
instantaneous recall but remember reading of several stories similar to
creation and the flood to indicate that the Jewish stories were brought from
the East.
Cheers
Theo
Nigel B. Mitchell
Dr James Barr, one time Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture (University of Oxford) :
>>"The real and fatal cost of fundamentalist doctrine and ideology, as a
>>system of life. . . is its personal cost: it can be sustained as a
>>viable way of life only at the cost of unchurching and rejecting, as
>>persons, as thinkers or scholars, and as Christians, all those who
>>question the validity of the conservative option. The presence of the
>>questioner breaks down the unnatural symbiosis of conflicting elements
>>which makes up the total ideology of fundamentalists. We can thus
>>understand why 'liberals' and other non-conservative persons have not
>>only to be disbelieved, discredited and overcome in argument; they have,
>>still more, to be eliminated from the scene altogether."
>>
>>James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM, 1977, pp. 314-15)
Troy:
>Sounds like a biased fanatic to me.
Graeme I:
> I understand absolutely where they are coming
> from and reject them as false teachers.
Graeme II:
> ...why should anyone in their right mind study the work of
> religious quacks? I use all my spare time studying the truth; I have
> not time at all for messing around and wasting time on the enemies of
> truth.
Let me get this straight. The Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of
Holy Scripture University of Oxford is a biased fanatic, false
teacher, religious quack and enemy of truth. And you guys are.....
Troy and Graeme.
I'll bet the senate of the University of Oxford feels a little foolish
now, knowing the grave mistake they have made in appointing James Barr
and not you two to the post. Shall I tell them, or will you. Perhaps
you already have?
I can see the correspondence now....
Dear Mr Chancellor,
We are writing to inform you that your professorial appointments
commission have erred greatly in appointing Dr James Barr to the
position of Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture.
One only has to look at one paragraph of his writing, published as it
is by the notorious SCM publishing house, to see that the man is a
biased fanatic, false teacher, religious quack, and an enemy of
truth.
We, on the other hand, are not only qualified to make this judgement,
but also are willing, in all humility, to offer ourselves severally or
jointly for the professorial position Dr Barr will hopefully soon
vacate as a result of our bringing this matter to your attention.
We would be happy to make ourselves available for interview, or to
appear as witnesses for the Defence in Dr Barr's heresy trial. Please
send business class airline tickets to the adresses listed below.
Yours sincerely
G. Hunt
T. Harris
Chris Ho-Stuart
You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
The Summarian civilization is very ancient indeed, much older than
the Babylonian, and it is generally thought to be the source of
the epic of Gilgamesh (which is very closely related to the story
of Noah) and of the Enuma Elish; a very lengthy creation epic which
was later developed into a hymn of praise for the city of Babylon.
This followed a cosmological order which is still found in the
first creation story of Genesis, though little else is in common
between the two, in my opinion.
If these stories were literal historical accounts, we'd expect
a much wider spread commonality (into China, for example). There
have been some attempts by creationists to find connections between
the biblical accounts and Chinese records; but basically there is
no evidence of common sources as far afield as China. The stories
reflect a local cultural origin; and not a world-wide common
historical experience.
Ducking for cover -- Chris
Theo Bekkers
Nigel B. Mitchell <n...@echidna.id.au> wrote
<Snip>
> We would be happy to make ourselves available for interview, or to
> appear as witnesses for the Defence in Dr Barr's heresy trial. Please
> send business class airline tickets to the adresses listed below.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> G. Hunt
> T. Harris
You're going to burn for this Nigel. I can see the flames from here. You
know that I rely on Graeme for comic relief. Please stop trying to aspire to
be his replacement.
:-)
Cheers
Theo
Theo Bekkers
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote
>
> You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
> East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
You're right, I was. I'm a bit hazy as to where and when these civilisations
lived. Thanks for the info.
For a powerful God with character, I lean towards Thor. For a good deity, I
prefer the Tooth fairy. OTOH, the IPU does nothing for me.
:-)
Cheers
Theo
Nigel B. Mitchell
> You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
> East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
Pardon me for being a pedant, but I think you mean the Sumerians.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote
>
>> You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
>> East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
>
> Pardon me for being a pedant, but I think you mean the Sumerians.
Quiet so. I actually had warning bells going off in my mind as I
typed the word, but was too lazy to look up the correct spelling.
Stupid...
Thanks -- Chris
Robert Davidson
> Oh Nigel, I know where you get this idea from. You have swallowed the
> documentary hypothesis hook, line and sinker. No respectable scholar
> believes that nonsense any more.
Translation: no extreme fundamentalist scholar believes that anymore, even
though it is mainstream in bible scholarship.
Troy Harris
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Funny how you exchange "fundamentalist" with "liberal" and the post
>> would still seem legit.
>
>I disagree. Fundamentalist people are not cast out of churches, described as
>the enemy, eliminated from the scene because they question "liberal" theology
>(which doesn't exist as a single thing - there are any number of liberal
>viewpoints because they are not subject to authoritarian control - except for
>the same amount of social control which is inescapable in any discipline).
>The Uniting Church is a good example of this - fundamentalist people are
>completely welcome to stay, but they often leave because they are
>uncomfortable with the presence of liberals. They cast themselves out, not
>the other way around.
>
You're kidding.
>> I think this sort of thing is just cloaked fascism of another kind.
>
>I grant you that conservatives are often belittled and patronised by liberal
>leaders. This should change. However, how does one take seriously people who
>say that Job saw dinosaurs? Placing something with no evidence at all above
>something with utterly compelling evidence (science).
I have no problem with Job seeing dinosaurs- I even think there are
some scientific problems that are ignored by popular scientists that
may support that ....but so what?
If I say anything remotely like this- I am labelled. If I ignore it-
I am labelled.
Go ahead and label. It doesn't matter in the end.
>
>> Two wrongs dont make a right.
>
>Agreed.
Good.
Troy Harris
Nigel,
Your limited reading is showing.
There are some very good scholars who agree with me. Most notably
Thomas C Oden and Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger- get on the bus. Perhaps
Mr Barr would like to discuss his problems with them too.
He is biased, and it shows by his lack of addressing any
accountablility from the liberals, who have gotten away with murder
for too long.
Until you have read their own personal testimony of their encounters
and even life amongst liberals- shut up about this so-called higher
ground you are trying to take.
>
>I can see the correspondence now....
How about this:
***** Rocky and Bullwinkle Do Liberalism:******
BULLWINKLE: "Hey Rocky, watch me try to pull higher academic ground
out of my hat"
ROCKY: "Again? That trick never works!"
BULLWINKLE:"Nothing up my sleeve- Presto!"
¨¨
(Giant, ugly, paper monster comes out of hat and gives a wimper...and
creeps away to die its belated death)
Enter Mr Peabody:
Peabody: "You see, Nigel, liberalism has done its dash, and those who
still support it are part of a dying system that has merely been the
catalyst of theological death and unbelief. The current tactic of
attacking those who question, especially those from amongst their own
camp who are deserting, is merely the desperate last gasps of the
paper tiger that was liberlaism and modernity"
Enter Boris and Natasha:
Boris:" But Fearless Leader has told us that those with the new
ideologies have superior intellect and credentials"
Natasha:" Yes, and we should stomp out anyone who opposes our system
of theology by restricting their tenures and allowing our liberated
faculties to remain unaccountable to the people who stipend them"
Peabody:"But, Boris, Natasha, and Nigel, you see, liberalism is
rapidly becoming just another fad- with endless microcosmic fads
within it- remember "Ich Theologie" for example?. What I mean is
this: It wil go down with the fads of history- Montanism,
Nestorianism, Pietism, Fundamentalism or whatever "ism" you care to
mention- but the one constant that will always remain is: Classical
Christian Orthodoxy. Herein lies the mainstay of truth which has
stood, without doubt, the test of time and been the faith of literally
millions, against the trendsetters and so-called academics"
Boris and Natasha togeter: "But you can't say that liberals are not
real academics!!!!!"
Peabody: "Why not? It is sure they hold secular credentials, no
doubt, and some churches have been fooled into accepting their
ever-changing theories, but they are not in the stream of continuing
Christian consensus and certainly would not have gotten a pedestal
from our Fathers"
Boris and Natasha: "Woah! Them´'s fighting words! Fearless leader
will not like that at all!"
Peabody: "Doesn't matter what he says- he knows he is licked- and so
are you two icons of the Cold war era of theology!"
***********ENTER DUDLEY DO-RIGHT******************
Dudley."I always get my man- and woman"....
***ARRESTS BORIS AND NATASHA FOR CAUSING DISRUPTION, DIVISION AND
UNBELIEF IN THE CHURCH****
Think about it Nigel.
Darren R Middleton
Nigel B. Mitchell wrote in message
<382a7cca$0$29...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
>In <3829f64b@nap-ns1>, "Darren R Middleton"
><Darren_M...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>(of Dr Barr)
>>It's not that he believes in a literal creation - just that we must be
>>honest when we interpret Scripture and say that the writer meant 24 hour
>>days.
>
>100% agreement from me on that.
So let it be.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <382A34E8...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
Snip of quotes from Augustine, Calvin & Leo all teaching inerrancy.
>> I rest my case.
>
>I wouldn't do that too soon. In addition to the Calvin quote you have
>produced, there are a number of places where he disagrees with Paul,
remarks
>on errors in the bible and generally commits proto-source-critical acts.
>Luther of course called the NT book of James "a right strawy epistle".
G'day Robert,
I'm happy to discuss the evidence to the contrary.
I have suggested (& quoted) Augustine & Calvin, not to mention the
position of the Roman Church.
Surely you have to engage the authors I have quoted if you are to maintain
your position of the absence of inerrancy prior to modernity.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton
Nigel Mitchell wrote in message
<01HW.B4504AA20...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 4:58:28 +0800, Darren R Middleton wrote
>(in message <3829f4a8@nap-ns1>):
>
>
>> I'm familiar with the liberal take of Genesis - as I'm sure you're
>> familiar with the evangelical take.
>
>You make it sound as though each were equally viable.
>Do you think Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
>Could you convince a person who did not share your prior assumptions
about
>the nature of scripture that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
G'day Nigel,
I believe on the whole he did (as did Christ Lk 24:27,44) however, there
are some obvious exceptions - but that doesn't effect the doctrine of
Scripture unless one was to deny Mosaic authorship all together.
>>> 2. I have no doubt that the authors of Genesis 1 did not intend the
word
>>> "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day. I would be very
>> surprised if
>>> any world class scholar in any major University thought differently.
>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in what Dr Barr has to say - not to mention a survey
of
>> scholars on the issue of what the intention of the *original author*
was
>> concerning the days of Genesis. Have you got some info that would
support
>> your belief Nigel?
>This is interesting, Darren. Do you think that the "Yom" means something
>other than "24 hour day" in Genesis 1. If you do, then you and I and Dr
Barr
>agree.
No I don't.
I believe the intention of the author was 24 hour days - I believe that is
the position Dr Barr also holds & perhaps yourself. The question then
comes down to our doctrine of Scripture, we either receive the biblical
teaching or reject it.
Snip of Enuma Elish & some apriori commitment to priestly school
reconstructionism! ;-)
Regards
Darren Middleton
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <382B2AD3...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Troy Harris wrote:
>
Snip
>The Uniting Church is a good example of this - fundamentalist people are
>completely welcome to stay, but they often leave because they are
>uncomfortable with the presence of liberals. They cast themselves out,
not
>the other way around.
G'day Robert,
The UCA has silenced many of its ministers who disagree with her.
For example, I know personally (delete area) of a local minister who was
in disagreement with the homosexual movement in the UCA, and spoke out
against it (local rags etc). Soon he found himself under enormous pressure
by his local Presbytery.
Try being an evangelical in training for UCA ministry, you are ridiculed
and mocked as some sort of intellectual pygmy. I know enough UCA folk -
both liberals & EMU's to know that such tranquillity & tolerance is not in
abundance.
Robert, the reality is that liberals & conservatives clash because both
are passionate about their individual causes. What ever group has
ascendancy in the Church then that group wields the power over the other
(forgetting for the moment the spiritual battles that underpins it).
In my own denomination I happened to be a candidate for ministry in a
presbytery (the last one in Vic that still had liberal ministers) that
refused to ordain me unless I agreed to ordain women as Elders! So please
don't tell me that liberals are somehow more tolerant - they are just as
committed to their liberal views as I am about God's gospel.
Regards
Darren Middleton
>> I think this sort of thing is just cloaked fascism of another kind.
>
>I grant you that conservatives are often belittled and patronised by
liberal
>leaders. This should change. However, how does one take seriously
people who
>say that Job saw dinosaurs? Placing something with no evidence at all
above
>something with utterly compelling evidence (science).
>
>> Two wrongs dont make a right.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Robert Davidson
>
>
Nigel Mitchell
(in message <382b6c74@nap-ns1>):
> I believe the intention of the author was 24 hour days - I believe that is
> the position Dr Barr also holds & perhaps yourself. The question then
> comes down to our doctrine of Scripture, we either receive the biblical
> teaching or reject it.
Hi, Darren.
So the 24 hour day is not an issue. The issue is whether the authors of
Genesis believed they were writing about what actually happened, or a
creation saga to demonstrate their faith that the God of Israel is the
creator of all that is.
Like the vast majority of modern biblical scholars, and with no contradiction
from the vast majority of biologists, geologists, historians, etc., I believe
that the Genesis creation accounts are a poetic and mythical statement of
faith by the people of Israel, probably first written down during the
Babylonian captivity but drawing on sources which may be much older, and both
inside and outside Israel.
I amk sorry if you think that view amounts to "rejecting" the biblical
teaching, because I categorically do not see it that way. I accept the
biblical teaching, but I read it in the light of scolarship, scientific
knowledge, and common sense. Genesis 1-11 says many important and powerful
things about tyhe faith of ancient Israel, and those things inform and
underpin our Christian faith. The fact that there is little, if any, actual
factual historical material in those chapters does not in any way detract
from their canonical status or the truth they convey about God.
cheers
N+
Robert Davidson
> The UCA has silenced many of its ministers who disagree with her.
> For example, I know personally (delete area) of a local minister who was
> in disagreement with the homosexual movement in the UCA, and spoke out
> against it (local rags etc). Soon he found himself under enormous pressure
> by his local Presbytery.
This I can understand however, as it represents discrimination. If a minister
was racist, I would expect them to react similarly (I see no difference
between discrimination based on race or on sexual orientation). I don't
imagine there would be any pressure from the Presbytery for preaching
conservative doctrine, but discrimination is another matter involving human
rights.
> Try being an evangelical in training for UCA ministry, you are ridiculed
> and mocked as some sort of intellectual pygmy. I know enough UCA folk -
> both liberals & EMU's to know that such tranquillity & tolerance is not in
> abundance.
This is unfortunate, and should be addressed. But again, it is understandable
when there are clashes with basic science (as in the case of creationists).
Most academics would find it difficult to tolerate anti-scientific thinking.
The conservative student won't be told he is not a Christian and asked to
leave (I'm not so sure this wouldn't happen in a conservative institution, but
I may be wrong).
> Robert, the reality is that liberals & conservatives clash because both
> are passionate about their individual causes. What ever group has
> ascendancy in the Church then that group wields the power over the other
> (forgetting for the moment the spiritual battles that underpins it).
> In my own denomination I happened to be a candidate for ministry in a
> presbytery (the last one in Vic that still had liberal ministers) that
> refused to ordain me unless I agreed to ordain women as Elders! So please
> don't tell me that liberals are somehow more tolerant - they are just as
> committed to their liberal views as I am about God's gospel.
The issue of women as elders is also beyond doctrine and enters into the
region of human rights and discrimination. Okay, maybe my own biases are
coming out here. But I honestly think they are based on reasonable
presuppositions shared by society as a whole - human rights, academic
standards and tolerance. The presuppositions of conservative churches can
never be more than opinion based on faith.
What I was writing about was the need to rid the church of liberals.
Conservatives may find argument in liberal churches, but they won't be thrown
out as they often are in conservative churches, will they?
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
>
Robert:
> >I disagree. Fundamentalist people are not cast out of churches, described as
> >the enemy, eliminated from the scene because they question "liberal" theology
> >(which doesn't exist as a single thing - there are any number of liberal
> >viewpoints because they are not subject to authoritarian control - except for
> >the same amount of social control which is inescapable in any discipline).
> >The Uniting Church is a good example of this - fundamentalist people are
> >completely welcome to stay, but they often leave because they are
> >uncomfortable with the presence of liberals. They cast themselves out, not
> >the other way around.
> >
>
> You're kidding.
Huh? I certainly am not kidding. What's your point?
> I have no problem with Job seeing dinosaurs- I even think there are
> some scientific problems that are ignored by popular scientists that
> may support that ....but so what?
Troy, you can't be serious! If Job saw dinosaurs, then the whole of biology is
utterly wrong. That would mean medicine wouldn't work basically.
> If I say anything remotely like this- I am labelled. If I ignore it-
> I am labelled.
Who labelled you? You are labelling people as "liberals" as if there were some
unified front.
Robert Davidson
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <382CACB4...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
>> The UCA has silenced many of its ministers who disagree with her.
>> For example, I know personally (delete area) of a local minister who
was
>> in disagreement with the homosexual movement in the UCA, and spoke out
>> against it (local rags etc). Soon he found himself under enormous
pressure
>> by his local Presbytery.
>
>This I can understand however, as it represents discrimination. If a
minister
>was racist, I would expect them to react similarly (I see no difference
>between discrimination based on race or on sexual orientation). I don't
>imagine there would be any pressure from the Presbytery for preaching
>conservative doctrine, but discrimination is another matter involving
human
>rights.
G'day Robert,
sorry we haven't spoken about human rights - or are you confusing special
rights with human rights?
>> Robert, the reality is that liberals & conservatives clash because both
>> are passionate about their individual causes. What ever group has
>> ascendancy in the Church then that group wields the power over the
other
>> (forgetting for the moment the spiritual battles that underpins it).
>> In my own denomination I happened to be a candidate for ministry in a
>> presbytery (the last one in Vic that still had liberal ministers) that
>> refused to ordain me unless I agreed to ordain women as Elders! So
please
>> don't tell me that liberals are somehow more tolerant - they are just
as
>> committed to their liberal views as I am about God's gospel.
>
>The issue of women as elders is also beyond doctrine and enters into the
>region of human rights and discrimination. Okay, maybe my own biases are
>coming out here. But I honestly think they are based on reasonable
>presuppositions shared by society as a whole - human rights, academic
>standards and tolerance. The presuppositions of conservative churches
can
>never be more than opinion based on faith.
Robert, you don't seem to see the irony of your reply.
So your biases are reasonable - but the views of conservative Christians
are not... beautiful Robert, you illustrate my point perfectly.
The views of the Bible are nothing more than opinion, but the ever
changing views of secularism should be received as reasonable and
authoritative..... Why should I replace the authority of God's word with
the relative, fallible word of men?
In the USA it used to be O.K to have slaves & unlawful to kill your
children (abortion). Today is O.K to kill your children but you can't have
slaves. Sorry Robert, I'll keep the Word thanks.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Robert Davidson
> The views of the Bible are nothing more than opinion, but the ever
> changing views of secularism should be received as reasonable and
> authoritative.....
Ah, but science (at bottom of what I meant, and often rejected by conservative
Christianity) is not ever changing, but ever refining. Any new model cannot
simply dispense with the old model, but deal with it, incorporate it, explain
it more fully. Science is demonstrable and real, but beliefs are opinions,
and demonstrably ever changing. Modern conservative Christianity is very
different from NT Christianity, the faith of the reformers or even of the
evangelical revivals of Wesley etc.
> Why should I replace the authority of God's word with
> the relative, fallible word of men?
Because it is simply less fallible and less relative, because it can be
demonstrated. Miracles have never been demonstrated, but science has produced
countless miracles.
Robert Davidson
Darren R Middleton
Robert Davidson wrote in message <383018E1...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
G'day Robert,
>> The views of the Bible are nothing more than opinion, but the ever
>> changing views of secularism should be received as reasonable and
>> authoritative.....
>
>Ah, but science (at bottom of what I meant, and often rejected by
conservative
>Christianity) is not ever changing, but ever refining.
Perhaps I've missed something... I thought we were talking about
authority, human rights, moral basis for living etc - Science has no
authority in ethics, human rights etc.
Robert the point is the Word of God is constant - its application will
vary but its content remains the same. Secular ethics - morality (sic) is
predicated on the bases of utilitarian principles which are by their very
nature prone to change.
>Any new model cannot
>simply dispense with the old model, but deal with it, incorporate it,
explain
>it more fully. Science is demonstrable and real, but beliefs are
opinions,
>and demonstrably ever changing. Modern conservative Christianity is very
>different from NT Christianity, the faith of the reformers or even of the
>evangelical revivals of Wesley etc.
In its application yes, in its content no.
Orthodoxy has stood the test of time.
>> Why should I replace the authority of God's word with
>> the relative, fallible word of men?
>
>Because it is simply less fallible and less relative, because it can be
>demonstrated. Miracles have never been demonstrated, but science has
produced
>countless miracles.
How can science produce miracles - was your tongue in your cheek?
Then place you trust in science, I place mine in God.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Robert Davidson
> Perhaps I've missed something... I thought we were talking about
> authority, human rights, moral basis for living etc - Science has no
> authority in ethics, human rights etc.
It may inform them however.
> Robert the point is the Word of God is constant - its application will
> vary but its content remains the same. Secular ethics - morality (sic) is
> predicated on the bases of utilitarian principles which are by their very
> nature prone to change.
Sure they are. I probably didn't make myself clear on that. But then I think
everything is prone to change when it comes to humans, and feel like it's make
believe to think that Christianity or the interpretation of the bible don't
change.
> In its application yes, in its content no.
> Orthodoxy has stood the test of time.
But it has changed so drastically over the centuries. Orthodoxy was
allegorical interpretation for many centuries.
> How can science produce miracles - was your tongue in your cheek?
How about flying to the moon, microwave ovens, video recorders, huge
aeroplanes? These are more impressive than the biblical miracles.
> Then place you trust in science, I place mine in God.
You are correct except that it is really only your conception of God, subject
to whim and fancy. I prefer science, and feel justified in having an almost
religious attachment to it.
Robert Davidson
Ken Smith
>>For those who may be interested, James Barr is visiting Australia next
>year.
>>He will be giving a lecture at Saint George's Cathedral, Perth, at 7:30
>pm on
>>Wednesday 22 March 2000. I do not know at this stage if he is appearing
>in
>>any other states or visiting our NZ cousins.
>G'day Nigel,
>Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
>Barr a question for me?
>If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
>major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
>intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
At the risk of starting another flame war, have yyou read this for
yourself in Barr's writings?
If so, can you provide a reference?
Or, as I strongly suspect, are you quoting from some creationist
tract, most of which are notorious for their unreliability.
>Regards
>Darren Middleton
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> | "And, young man, sin is treating people
Department of Mathematics, | as things. Including yourself.
The University of Queensland, | That's what sin is."
St Lucia, Qld. 4072. Australia. | Granny Weatherwax, in "Carpe Jugulum"
Ken Smith
>Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:
>> Whilst you are sharing your little fantasy world, Graeme, perhaps you
>> can tell us who the Nephilim were, in the days when the sons of God
>> interbred with the daughters of men.
>There's a really creepy cult, the Reilians or somesuch, led by a French
>egomaniac, and popular with "ferals" around the border of Qld and NSW.
>These guys believe the Nephilim were aliens and that Jesus, Gautema,
>Akhenaten, Moses etc were descendents of the offspring. Of course the
>French guy is one of the offspring as well.
>I was in Byron Bay recently and saw an ad for a workshop in which one
>learnt how to "change your DNA in three months". There's just something
>about the area.
>To me, creation science is almost on this level.
Isn't this being a bit unfair to the Raelians?
>Robert Davidson
Ken Smith
>Nigel B. Mitchell <n...@echidna.id.au> wrote:
>> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote
>>
>>> You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
>>> East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
>>
>> Pardon me for being a pedant, but I think you mean the Sumerians.
>Quiet so. I actually had warning bells going off in my mind as I
^^^^^^^^
>typed the word, but was too lazy to look up the correct spelling.
>Stupid...
Is this different from the familiar "Ah, so" ?
>Thanks -- Chris
Ken Smith
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:45:07 +1000, Robert Davidson
><s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Funny how you exchange "fundamentalist" with "liberal" and the post
>>> would still seem legit.
>>
>>I disagree. Fundamentalist people are not cast out of churches, described as
>>the enemy, eliminated from the scene because they question "liberal" theology
>>(which doesn't exist as a single thing - there are any number of liberal
>>viewpoints because they are not subject to authoritarian control - except for
>>the same amount of social control which is inescapable in any discipline).
>>The Uniting Church is a good example of this - fundamentalist people are
>>completely welcome to stay, but they often leave because they are
>>uncomfortable with the presence of liberals. They cast themselves out, not
>>the other way around.
>>
>You're kidding.
>>> I think this sort of thing is just cloaked fascism of another kind.
>>
>>I grant you that conservatives are often belittled and patronised by liberal
>>leaders. This should change. However, how does one take seriously people who
>>say that Job saw dinosaurs? Placing something with no evidence at all above
>>something with utterly compelling evidence (science).
>I have no problem with Job seeing dinosaurs- I even think there are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>some scientific problems that are ignored by popular scientists that
>may support that ....but so what?
I see dinosaurs nearly every day - but they seem to have taken on
human form.
Garry Allen
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>How about flying to the moon, microwave ovens, video recorders, huge
>aeroplanes? These are more impressive than the biblical miracles.
>]
Are they? In general, they are the application of mathematics and
physics by engineers using the intelligence that God gave them. The
only miraculous part in all that is that God gave us intelligence and
the desire to build things. (oh and that because God sustains and
upholds the universe that physical laws have any meaning.)
Engineers get excited about building things. But it is not as if we
are God. We don't create something out of nothing. Normally we build
on what ahs been done before. I think that God has demonstrated his
supremacy far beyond us. The act of creation alone, however God did
it, in a literal 7 days or over billions of years (an argument that is
not worth pursuing), that is a far greater act than a puny microwave
or even an apollo rocket or the snowy mountains scheme or.... God made
the world. He made you and me. He made the universe out of nothing.
Our greatest engineering feats are nothing in comparison.
>> Then place you trust in science, I place mine in God.
>
>You are correct except that it is really only your conception of God, subject
>to whim and fancy. I prefer science, and feel justified in having an almost
>religious attachment to it.
>
I dont. I get scared at times by our dependence on complex systems,
systems that are more complex than any one human can understand. And
when our complex systems go wrong, they go wrong badly. Telephone
systems crash, nuclear powerplants meltdown, dams silt up, sewerage
systems pollute, computers dont work, bridges fall down.. Whatever we
do, no matter how hard we try, we cannot design for every eventuality.
It is actually built into our product liability law. Engineers are not
liable when their designs fail if they made every attempt with
existing knowledge to make their product safe. But their designs still
fail. I place no trust in our limited understanding of the world to
think that through science we can solve everything. The world is too
complex for us to understand. We can understand bits but there is
noone who could claim to understand it all..
I do no think that there is any good reason to put our trust in
Science. Scientists and engineers stuff up. Scientists and engineers
have their biases. Scientists adn engineers do not always understand
the problem, they get things wrong, even in peer reviewed journals.
Scientists and engineers are limited in their understanding to their
special area of interest. Even then, there are big gaps in their
knowledge.
>Robert Davidson
>
Garry Allen
>
ôżô
Science is a religion.
Based on the beliefs and thesis of men.
The only problem is it that seems there are more conflicting doctrines than
Christianity.
thesis - anti_thesis - synthesis.
What a waste of time.
Science in a nutshell:
Thesis - 5-10 years (often longer)
Anti thesis 2-10 years (often shorter) - possibly 2 -3 alternate anti-thesis
and thesis proposals.
Debate 10-100 years
Conclusion: Synthesis of all - Nothing is conclusive.
Source of Origin: Posthumously remembered in the annals of academia.
Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
Robert Davidson
> Ahh Robert - how profound
> Science is a religion.
> Based on the beliefs and thesis of men.
Based on observation. Anyway, all religions are based on the beliefs of men
(maybe wicca is based on the beliefs of women).
> The only problem is it that seems there are more conflicting doctrines than
> Christianity.
I doubt it. Conflicts are due to incomplete understanding.
> Conclusion: Synthesis of all - Nothing is conclusive.
Exactly. Certainty is not possible in anything. At least I don't pretend.
Robert Davidson
Troy Harris
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Are you certain of that? :-) If so, then the whole phrase is
ridiculous. If not, then accept the possibility of certainties in
both sceince and religion.
Troy H
>
>Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
> Are you certain of that? :-) If so, then the whole phrase is
> ridiculous.
Actually it's one of the classic paradoxes. The only thing to be certain of is
that there are no certainties. The only thing we can't tolerate is intolerance.
:)
I'm not even certain about that!
Robert Davidson
Daniel McLean
> Robert Davidson wrote:
>
> >How about flying to the moon, microwave ovens, video recorders, huge
> >aeroplanes? These are more impressive than the biblical miracles.
> >]
> Are they? In general, they are the application of mathematics and
> physics by engineers using the intelligence that God gave them. The
> only miraculous part in all that is that God gave us intelligence and
> the desire to build things. (oh and that because God sustains and
> upholds the universe that physical laws have any meaning.)
Divine miracles and scientific 'miracles' are two different things, but both are
amazing. Divine miracles (which I do _believe_ occur) are remarkable in their
reversal of human situations against the common laws of nature. Scientific
advances are astounding in what is achieved - I won't bore with well known
examples.
>
> >You are correct except that it is really only your conception of God, subject
> >to whim and fancy. I prefer science, and feel justified in having an almost
> >religious attachment to it.
> >
> I dont. I get scared at times by our dependence on complex systems,
> systems that are more complex than any one human can understand. And
> when our complex systems go wrong, they go wrong badly. Telephone
> systems crash, nuclear powerplants meltdown, dams silt up, sewerage
> systems pollute, computers dont work, bridges fall down.. Whatever we
> do, no matter how hard we try, we cannot design for every eventuality.
> <snip> The world is too complex for us to understand. We can understand
> bits but there is noone who could claim to understand it all.
But it is surprising how quickly we will throw our lives into the arms of science
when our lives are at threat, even if done while praying under the breate!
IMO it is not an either or situation with science and faith, and this is reality
for most modern day persons of faith - we use and rely on scientific achievements
in our day to day lives, meanwhile living with faith in God, open to the
miraculous if it occurs. Some pursue the miraculous with vigor, although that is
not my bent.
> I do no think that there is any good reason to put our trust in
> Science. Scientists and engineers stuff up. Scientists and engineers
> have their biases. Scientists adn engineers do not always understand
> the problem, they get things wrong, even in peer reviewed journals.
> Scientists and engineers are limited in their understanding to their
> special area of interest. Even then, there are big gaps in their
> knowledge.
This argument could also be pointed against the "God of the Christians" too! Look
at the world today with it's natural disasters, disease, babies born with
abnormalities, morally degenerate thoughts and actions by humans. How did God get
things so wrong in Creation. Yes, it may be replied that it was all perfect to
start with but we messed things up, but that only accounts for the human caused
bad things we see in life, not the natural disasters, disease and abnormal
births. So if God couldn't or wouldn't create a better world which would not
degenerate, then why would we accept the religious thesis over the scientific
thesis.
There are big gaps in their (scientists) knowledge, but there are even bigger gaps
in our knowledge of things divine and things immaterial. But we don't give up on
either!
Daniel
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcl4/
ôżô
Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> Based on observation.
Now there's a sticky point - because I think some of our observations must
be deemed obsequious.
I knew a house painter and his prolonged exposure to paint (and other
'recreational' activities)caused him to see colours quite differently to me.
>Anyway, all religions are based on the beliefs of men
.... and so far as I'm concerned - an equal helping of observation. But you
are right the Kingdom of God does not come through observation. Unless you
deem self discovery an observation also. Then you come to the realisation
that all things are observations of the senses.
> I doubt it. Conflicts are due to incomplete understanding.
There are conflicts Robert.
> Exactly. Certainty is not possible in anything.
another agreement - we are doing well lately.
> At least I don't pretend.
Well ---- does anyone?
Or ------ doesn't everyone?
Daniel McLean
> Robert Davidson wrote:
> <snip>
> >Certainty is not possible in anything.
>
> Are you certain of that? :-) If so, then the whole phrase is
> ridiculous. If not, then accept the possibility of certainties in
> both sceince and religion.
"Certainty is not possible of anything"
If so, the phrase is not necessarily ridiculous. It would just be that you
couldn't be certain of the truth of the phrase, which is merely applying the
principle of the statement. That doesn't make it ridiculous any more than the
rest of life might be considered ridiculous if we couldn't know anything with
certainty.
If the statement is not true, certainty is possible.
Feelings of certainty are experienced by all about a range of things, but can we
know that what we think about something is actually true? In our day to day lives
we must presume certainty about most things - that the real actual world will be
consistent with our previous observations and reasonings about it. But that
doesn't mean that we must be able to know that our ideas about things are actually
true.
In fact, it is unlikely that we can know true certainty.
Firstly, how do we know we are not about to wake up from a very long and very real
dream? or not in a stable and consistent state of mind?
Secondly, if we are awake and in a stable and consistent state of mind, how do we
know that our sensory perception or mental impression of anything correlates to
the object as it actually exists?
Thirdly, how do we know that our mental processing of an object is accurate, such
that the final idea we have about the object reflects the actual object?
Fourthly, how do we know that we can store our ideas consistently in our memory
such that when we recall that idea, it will be the same as when we first
remembered it?
Fifthly, how do we know that we synthesise all the ideas about different objects
correctly, particularly when these ideas may conflict?
(Note: this may be equally applied to include relationships, actions, immaterial
objects, etc as well as normal objects).
Then when it comes to invisible entities such as God, how much more difficult is
it? And how much is this borne out by the multiplicity of competing religions in
the world all claiming to have the truth?
True certainty is illusory, but it is a very useful illusion!!
Daniel McLean
ôżô
Troy Harris <fis...@beenleigh.webexpress.net.au> wrote in message
> Are you certain of that? :-) If so, then the whole phrase is
> ridiculous. If not, then accept the possibility of certainties in
> both sceince and religion.
Irony :)
"When regard for truth has been broken down or even slightly weakened all
things will remain doubtful."
St Augustine
My point: Science IS a religion. Of that I am certain.
Anything that requires belief in a power that excedes our own is a
religion - or at least a philosophical ideal in accepting that which we
don't understand as firm.
Ever seen a neutrino? I saw a picture of one -
Q: Do I believe that the guy who drew the picture had seen one?
A: No.
Problem: Do Neutrino's exist?
Answer to Problem: Yes
Why: Because - I believe they do.
If there is the possibility of the existence of certainty then the person
(directly involved) must believe (wholeheartedly - without doubt) which
brings us back to faith - when along comes another (person directly
involving themselves) who refutes the belief of the first.
Isn't that the whole issue with everything man does?
When we can all look up and see truth "together" then we will start to
achieve the things God intended for us. It's not far in spiritual terms -
but it's a long way off for mere mortals such as we.
God made man - both God and man loved one another without doubt - woman
(part of man) doubted - man & woman (all of man) fell - God still loved
man - man doubted - man killed man. Doubt ruled over Love.
ur322...@my-deja.com
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> Theo Bekkers <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> > Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:80dlpt$508$1...@dove.qut.edu.au...
> >> Theo Bekkers <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Once again you make me smile Graeme. I understood the Babylonian
story
> > and a
> >> > similar story from China predated the bible story. So who is
copying
> > who?
> >>
> >> From China?? That *would* be interesting!
> >>
> >> Can you explain? I'd be very interested in a story from China which
> >> was sufficiently close to the Balylonian or Hebrew stories to
indicate
> >> a common source!
> >
> > Sorry, I meant to say Further East and wrote China. I don't have
great
> > instantaneous recall but remember reading of several stories
similar to
> > creation and the flood to indicate that the Jewish stories were
brought from
> > the East.
>
> You may be thinking of the Summarians. They were (slightly) further
> East, into the region of present day Iran and Iraq, I think.
>
> the Babylonian, and it is generally thought to be the source of
> the epic of Gilgamesh (which is very closely related to the story
> of Noah) and of the Enuma Elish; a very lengthy creation epic which
> was later developed into a hymn of praise for the city of Babylon.
> This followed a cosmological order which is still found in the
> first creation story of Genesis, though little else is in common
> between the two, in my opinion.
>
> If these stories were literal historical accounts, we'd expect
> a much wider spread commonality (into China, for example). There
> have been some attempts by creationists to find connections between
> the biblical accounts and Chinese records; but basically there is
> no evidence of common sources as far afield as China. The stories
> reflect a local cultural origin; and not a world-wide common
> historical experience.
>
> Ducking for cover -- Chris
I see it a bit differently.
"In the beginning..."
The book of Genesis does not contain any mention of Moses. Yet it does
give a record of events, people, places, conversations, and exact
circumstances which all occurred before Moses was born. Nor is there any
mention of Moses receiving a revelation from G-d about what the book
contains.
But there is plenty of evidence that Genesis is an edited compilation of
approximately 11 books. Each `book' was most likely written on clay
tablets, and though long periods of time may have intervened between the
writing of one book to the next, the history `toledot' is a continuous
one as the books are connected to each other by colophons, a colophon
being an a connecting link between clay tablets. The books and possible
authors are as follows:
Book 1. Genesis 1:1 to 2:4. Adam? (Perhaps as revealed to him by
G-d, before the fall, or perhaps
by direct revelation to Moses)
Book 2. Genesis 2:5 to 5:1 Adam
Book 3. Genesis 5:1 to 6:9 Noah
Book 4. Genesis 6:9 to 10:1 Sons of Noah
Book 5. Genesis 10:1 to 11:10 Shem
Book 6. Genesis 11:10 to 11:27 Terah
Book 7 and Book 8. Genesis 11:27 to 25:19 Abraham, Isaac, & Ishmael
Books 9, 10, & 11. Genesis 25:19 to 37:2 Isaac, Esau, Jacob.
The remainder of Genesis deals with Joseph and was probably written in
Egypt on Papyrus instead of clay tablets. The minute details in these
later chapters indicate the author was either Joseph or someone who
received this history directly from Joseph, such as one of his sons.
The history recorded in the book of Genesis was most likely written over
a few thousand years. Names of places change over time. This is one
indication that Moses did indeed edit the above `books'. He gives the
(then) modern names to ancient sites; e.g. Gen, 14:2,3,7,8,15,17
Gen. 16:14, Gen. 23:2,19, 35:19. Plus, Moses writes of cities that had
cease to exist long before his time (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah) giving
their exact locations, and this he knew because he had possession of
these ancient books which had been passed on to him.
Since this history contains the revealing of G-d's plan of restoration
and salvation for man, undoubtedly the writing and preservation of this
history over time was from G-d.
From the above, it can be seen that Noah's record of the great flood was
the most ancient and the most reliable record of this flood. The
retelling of the events such as the Creation or Great Flood became
distorted and corrupted over time as it was retold and passed down by
developing and changing civilizations which began to worship the
creation rather than the creator. For example, the Ebla tablets (dated
to about 2,300 BC) attributes creation to one great being, but also
mentions other `gods'. The Babylonian records of the creation and the
flood (i.e Epic Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh), written hundreds
of years after the Ebla Tablets, though they still contain some
similarities with the much older Bible texts, show further deterioration
of the original event with elimination of one Creator, the `gods'
reflect much human weakness having been made by man in man's image, and
they contain superstitions, magic, and grotesque absurdities. The
Biblical record is clearly superior and historically acceptable.
The Ebla Creation tablet dates to approximately 2,300 BC. It credits the
Creation to a single great being, `Lugal'. Other translated Creation
and/or flood tablets include the Sumerian list of Kings, and the Babylon
tablets of the Epic of Atrahasis and the Epic of Emmerkur. The Epic of
Emmerkur is interesting in that it describes an Eden-like land which
translated reads "a clean and bright place where the lion kills not, and
the wolf snatch not the lamb." The Ebla tablets also make reference to
Dilmun as part of a list of known places.
A record of the Creation and Flood are also to be found preserved in
the ancient chinese written language (Pictographs). For instance, the
Chinese characters for `to Create' consist of the characters for;
`dust', `mouth' (=person), `movement of life', and `able to walk'. The
Chinese characters for `boat' consist of the Chinese Characters for:
`Vessel', `eight', and `mouth'. The Chinese word for `to continue' or
`to hand down' is `eight persons' with three wavy lines underneath
(making it appear as if the `eight people' are on water).
Secret + man + garden + alive = devil
devil + trees + cover = tempter
eight + united + earth = total
total + water = flood
eight + Person = common to all
Woman + Trees = desire, covet
Serpent + Trees = negative, not, not
Noble Person + Sheep = beautiful
lance + hand = me + sheep = righteousness
There are many others. Please note that the origin of the chinese
pictographs (their written language) precedes the later Chinese tales of
Creation, which are quite different than the Genesis account. It seems
that while they were fabricating their creation story many centuries
later, little did they know that their ancestors had preserved the
Genesis account within their `alphabet'!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Darren R Middleton
Ken Smith wrote in message <80qop2$upo$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>"Darren R Middleton" <Darren_M...@bigfoot.com> writes:
Snip
G'day ken,
>
>>G'day Nigel,
>
>>Unfortunately I won't be there, but I was wondering if you would ask Dr
>>Barr a question for me?
>>If so, inquire if it is his belief that no world class scholar in any
>>major university that he is aware of thinks that the writer of Genesis
>>intended the word "day" to mean anything other than a 24 hour day? ;-)
>
>At the risk of starting another flame war, have yyou read this for
>yourself in Barr's writings?
Actually Ken, I asked Nigel to ask this question for me.
Do you doubt that the author of Gen 1 meant anything other than 24 hour
days?
>If so, can you provide a reference?
>Or, as I strongly suspect, are you quoting from some creationist
>tract, most of which are notorious for their unreliability.
No more so than many of your own comments Ken.
Prof D. Kelly (Pressie Coll USA) intimated this in his recent visits to
Australia (& in my case Bendigo). It comes from correspondence on this
issue with Prof Barr & David CC Watson in 1984.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Daniel McLean
> Do you doubt that the author of Gen 1 meant anything other than 24 hour
> days?
Hi all,
I'm not one to take Genesis 1ff literally, but when I was reading Gen 1 last
night, I was rather intrigued by how those who do take it literally interpret
'day' as being a long period of time, when the text repeatedly states, "And
there was evening and there was morning, the first/second ... fifth/sixth
day". Were there no mention of morning and evening, I can see how it might
be disputable. Can anyone explain to me how they get around that?
Regards,
St.Athanasius
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Dear Daniel,
>I'm not one to take Genesis 1ff literally, but when I was reading Gen 1 last
>night, I was rather intrigued by how those who do take it literally interpret
>'day' as being a long period of time, when the text repeatedly states, "And
>there was evening and there was morning, the first/second ... fifth/sixth
>day". Were there no mention of morning and evening, I can see how it might
>be disputable. Can anyone explain to me how they get around that?
The Oriental Orthodox see the first three days as unknown length
(which may include 24 hrs), the next three as literal 24 hour days
(Due to the creation of the Sun and Moon on the 4th day-thus solar
days from thence) and the seventh as a 'long' day that ended with the
resurrection of Christ 4,000 years (give or take) after. Please note
that the seventh day is different to all the others as it DOES NOT
RECORD the very words you have questioned (morning and evening), this
lends support to the Orthodox view that the seventh day is
spiritual/allegorical which is further supported by much of the
teachings about the Sabbath etc. BTW, There is a Biblical teaching
about the 'Eighth Day" which not many know about. Have you heard about
it. Its big among the Orthodox!
Peace and grace.
"The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all,
and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified."
Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.
Troy Harris
<anti...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Darren R Middleton wrote:
>
>> Do you doubt that the author of Gen 1 meant anything other than 24 hour
>> days?
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm not one to take Genesis 1ff literally, but when I was reading Gen 1 last
>night, I was rather intrigued by how those who do take it literally interpret
>'day' as being a long period of time, when the text repeatedly states, "And
>there was evening and there was morning, the first/second ... fifth/sixth
>day". Were there no mention of morning and evening, I can see how it might
>be disputable. Can anyone explain to me how they get around that?
Sure...in the eyes of many scholars when the word "Yom" is used in
conjuntion with a numeric "(one, first, sixth etc) it means a 24 hour
day.
This is derived from a word study of the usage of the word "Yom" in
the scriptures. (check out Gen 7:11, 8:14, 17:12, Ex 12:16 for
examples)
Furhermore, Ex 20:8-11 appears to further define the days of creation
as 24 hour days.
Cheers,
Troy H
>
>Regards,
>
>Daniel
>--
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/mcln/
>
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ur322...@my-deja.com
"ôżô" <looking@you> wrote:
>
> Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> > Based on observation.
>
> Now there's a sticky point - because I think some of our observations
must
> be deemed obsequious.
> I knew a house painter and his prolonged exposure to paint (and other
> 'recreational' activities)caused him to see colours quite differently
to me.
We may observe data, but data of itself has no meaning. It is theory
that gives data meaning. Albert Einstein, when asked by Heisenberg as
to what observations lead to his Theory of Relativity, replied that
observation had little to do with it, but that it was the other way
around, that it is theory that determine what you may see and what
you may not see.
It can be that two people looking at the same exact data, but beholden
to two quite different theories that explain that data, which leads
them arrive at separate logical and sensible explanations of what they
observe, and yet, their explanations will be quite contradictory of
which at least one must be wrong.
>
> >Anyway, all religions are based on the beliefs of men
There is no scientist whose personal belief and philosophy
(i.e. world view)does not influence what he observes and how
he interprets it. Many scientists have been known to be more than
willing to bend their observations to fit in with their beliefs as
well as those commonly held by their peers.
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> "In the beginning..."
[...snip upto...]
> later, little did they know that their ancestors had preserved the
> Genesis account within their `alphabet'!
Hi ur32212451,
I am going to make a more detailed response to your post here,
especially the stuff on Chinese characters, of which I have some
small knowledge.
I would be grateful, however, for a reference. These 96 lines
are almost word for word identical with a post to talk.origins
made in 1997, and so I guess there must be some common
published reference you are using, but not citing.
Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
ur322...@my-deja.com
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> ur322...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > "In the beginning..."
>
> [...snip upto...]
>
> > Genesis account within their `alphabet'!
>
>
> I am going to make a more detailed response to your post here,
> especially the stuff on Chinese characters, of which I have some
> small knowledge.
>
> I would be grateful, however, for a reference. These 96 lines
> are almost word for word identical with a post to talk.origins
> made in 1997, and so I guess there must be some common
> published reference you are using, but not citing.
>
> Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Yes it is. I suppose I should have referenced the source, I
was focused on the information in it and am familiar with the
references it is based on, plus I expanded on it a bit. I will
provide the references in a follow up post, don't have them
with me right now.