How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
Rowland Croucher
I've been in email correspondence with Dr Don Batten, lecturer, writer and
researcher with Answers in Genesis Ltd, Brisbane, and Dr. Ken Smith, retired
lecturer in mathematics, University of Queensland, about having a
'conversation/debate' on matters to do with Creation/Genesis.
Don's a 'creationist'. Ken's not - at least he's not in the sense in which
'Creation Science' uses the term.
And they have differing views on biblical inerrancy, which will be pivotal
to their POVs about other matters, scientific and theological.
Each has agreed to post articles outlining their views, and then will
respond to one another's. I'll act as a sort of low-key moderator, only
intervening where necessary.
Others may enter the discussion, but only to contribute something
substantive, not to vilify. And at this stage I'd suggest we don't
cross-post to other 'noisy' groups. O.K.? However I might put a brief post
on some of those groups pointing them to the discussion here.
Should be interesting, and hopefully we can all learn something.
P.S. This all arose out of my posting some articles by Ken, Christ Ho-Stuart
and a few others on the JMM website, and Don felt (rightly) that people with
his perspectives were not given 'equal time' there. Now is an opportunity to
rectify that.
Don's first article article should appear in the next day or so, then
hopefully Ken's soon after.
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Br@dley
How about using one of those debate sites?
--
regards,
Bradley
A Christian Response
www.pastornet.net.au/response
~ vera ~
Newsbeitrag news:426f4338$0$8123$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Dear friends in ARC/ACE
Dear Friends in ARC/ACE
> I've been in email correspondence with Dr Don Batten, lecturer, writer and
> researcher with Answers in Genesis Ltd, Brisbane, and Dr. Ken Smith,
retired
> lecturer in mathematics, University of Queensland, about having a
> 'conversation/debate' on matters to do with Creation/Genesis.
I have been in prayer contact with the Holy Spirit.
> Don's a 'creationist'. Ken's not - at least he's not in the sense in which
> 'Creation Science' uses the term.
I am the same opinion as the Holy Spirit.
> And they have differing views on biblical inerrancy, which will be pivotal
> to their POVs about other matters, scientific and theological.
>
> Each has agreed to post articles outlining their views, and then will
> respond to one another's. I'll act as a sort of low-key moderator, only
> intervening where necessary.
>
> Others may enter the discussion, but only to contribute something
> substantive, not to vilify. And at this stage I'd suggest we don't
> cross-post to other 'noisy' groups. O.K.? However I might put a brief post
> on some of those groups pointing them to the discussion here.
>
> Should be interesting, and hopefully we can all learn something.
>
> P.S. This all arose out of my posting some articles by Ken, Christ
Ho-Stuart
> and a few others on the JMM website, and Don felt (rightly) that people
with
> his perspectives were not given 'equal time' there. Now is an opportunity
to
> rectify that.
>
> Don's first article article should appear in the next day or so, then
> hopefully Ken's soon after.
The Bible has appeared already on the market already, and I hope that you
soon go and buy one.
God bless you,
~ vera ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de ~
~ http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm ~
~ http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Growing-Deeper ~
~ http://www.e-sword.net ~
~ vera ~
"Br@dley" <n0m...@4u.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OLHbe.30662$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How about using one of those debate sites?
Yes, very good - keep them on your websites.
Br@dley
~ vera ~ <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> said:
> "Br@dley" <n0m...@4u.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:OLHbe.30662$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> How about using one of those debate sites?
> Yes, very good - keep them on your websites.
Them? My website?
When will your paranoia and insanity end?
Chris Bell
I don't like having to say this, but I think that this discussion will
be a waste of time. In my experience, both sides of this debate have
very strongly held views and no amount of debating will change them. The
best outcome you might see is that some of the more ridiculous arguments
might be put aside, but no-one will actually change their mind.
This reluctance to acknowledge that science actually does have answers
to some of the major puzzles of our existence worries me. But then, if
you look at the results of surveys of the public, you get pretty amazing
results too. The number of people who actually believe in horoscopes,
or who won't walk under ladders, the list is endless! However, I think
that the evolution/creationism debate is just too close to home for many
people, who are actually refusing to admit (to themselves) that they are
really animals, not (just) spiritual creatures, but have normal animal
emotions, instincts and behaviours. They really can't accept the
goo-to-you-via-the-zoo scenario (as a recent post put it) because it has
imnplications for their behaviour. Would you eat your second cousin, or
any other relative, if you knew that they had feelings just like you do,
feel pain and loss ? (Where I live its calving time at present, and the
nights are full of the sounds of calves and cows calling for each other,
separated by the necessity of milking so we can get the milk, not the
calf. Would we do this to animals if we thought they had strong maternal
ties, just like ours?)
In the end, creationism is not a rationally held view, and no amount of
argument will ever change that. I suppose the same was true for an
earth-centered universe, and look how long it took to change that view!
And don't forget that there are still people who say the earth is
flat!!! This change will be even more difficult because it is so close
to home - our view of who I am - a being created in God's image, or the
last of a line of apes who managed to evolve a mind. I have no
difficulty in seeing the two as the same, but it seems that many others do.
Chris
~ vera ~
Rowland Croucher
Rowland,
Chris
~~~
Rowland's response:
I hear what you're saying Chris, but I think the whole issue - or issues -
have not been aired in a respectful, responsible and irenic manner, so this
is a good opportunity to do that. We might actually have a reasonable
discussion, without inane point-scoring or diatribes...
===> And I'm removing ACE. The garbage has started from that quarter
already!
Everyone: aus.religion.christian's agreed FAQ limits this forum to
Australians, and to matters of religious interest to Australians. As the two
key presenters will be Australian, we'll limit the discussion at this stage
to ARC.
Bradley: I hear your suggestion about one of the debate forums (a couple of
others in email correspondence with me suggested that also), but in
preliminary email discussions with Ken and Don ARC emerged as their
(particularly Ken's) preferred context.
Athanasius
<rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>===> And I'm removing ACE. The garbage has started from that quarter
>already!
Thank God for that.
Will be watching this discussion. :)
Peace and grace.
returns to pascha services at the hop......
Athanasius, Deacon and sinner.
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is
catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed,
taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost
2000 years ago."
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
Mark T
> I have been in prayer contact with the Holy Spirit.
> I am the same opinion as the Holy Spirit.
...through Faulty Grizian Divine Osmosis!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
--
"Biblical fundamentalism reduces the religious options for people to
the shallow levels of propositional truth and then fills them with a
religious certainty that can be maintained only by a defensive, aggressive
hysteria. When that certainty explodes, fundamentalism leaves the would-be
fundamentalist with no alternative save a Godless despair. The day has
passed for me when, in the name of tolerance to the religious insecurities
of others, I will allow my Christ to be defined inside a killing
literalism." - John Shelby Spong
Ken Smith
"Rowland Croucher" <rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>Chris Bell wrote:
>Rowland,
>Chris
>~~~
>Rowland's response:
This whole thing started because Rowland put one of my postings to
a.r.c on his John Mark Ministries site. This post simply remarked
that many people had become so conserned about crerationism that John
Stear had set up No Answers in Genesis.
Someone pased this post (from JMM) to Answers in Genesis and Don
Batten responded with a post which Rowland also put on his site.
If you look at the first of my two posts about Jonathan Sarfati (which
I reposted a few minutes ago, since the original didn't show up here)
you'll see a bit of the history which led up to this.
Sometime later today, when I get a bit of free time, I'll remove the
HTML commands from my Credo and post it here as a starter.
I won't say anything more at this stage until Don Batten has posted
his first article.
>--
> *
>Shalom! Rowland Croucher
> * *
>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
>(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
Salaam
Ken Smith
> *
--
Dr Ken Smith -- `Great spirits have always found violent opposition from
mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not
thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
courageously uses his intelligence.' Albert Einstein
Ken Smith
>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:57:20 +1000, "Rowland Croucher"
><rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>===> And I'm removing ACE. The garbage has started from that quarter
>>already!
>Thank God for that.
>Will be watching this discussion. :)
And, I hope, contributing some insights from the Orthodox point of
view.
>Peace and grace.
>returns to pascha services at the hop......
>Athanasius, Deacon and sinner.
>http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
>dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
>"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is
>catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed,
>taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost
>2000 years ago."
>"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
Salaam
Ken Smith
Rowland Croucher
"Mark T" <hellofundyf@head015> wrote in message
news:42701202$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "~ vera ~" wrote:
>
>
>> I have been in prayer contact with the Holy Spirit.
>> I am the same opinion as the Holy Spirit.
>
> ...through Faulty Grizian Divine Osmosis!!!!!!
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Mark, I don't know who added ACC and ACE and AR to this thread, but could I
ask, respectfully, that we keep this thread to ARC and keep the garbage out
of it?
I hope someone Vera will listen to might encourage her to do the same.
Thanks.
Ken Smith
k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) writes:
>Just a brief comment at the end.
>"Rowland Croucher" <rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>Chris Bell wrote:
>>Rowland,
[deletions]
>This whole thing started because Rowland put one of my postings to
>a.r.c on his John Mark Ministries site. This post simply remarked
>that many people had become so conserned about crerationism that John
>Stear had set up No Answers in Genesis.
>Someone pased this post (from JMM) to Answers in Genesis and Don
>Batten responded with a post which Rowland also put on his site.
>If you look at the first of my two posts about Jonathan Sarfati (which
>I reposted a few minutes ago, since the original didn't show up here)
>you'll see a bit of the history which led up to this.
>Sometime later today, when I get a bit of free time, I'll remove the
>HTML commands from my Credo and post it here as a starter.
>I won't say anything more at this stage until Don Batten has posted
>his first article.
Here is the current version of my personal Credo.
Not much of this is original. Interested people might like to see how
much of the following they can find in other credal statements.
If you have read what I believed in statements earlier than March
2005, please ignore them and take this as what I believe now - I
regularly sing "The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth
from his word", and updating my Statement of Beliefs simply puts this
into practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My Personal
Religious Credo
Ken Smith: March, 2005
I believe
in One Triune God.
I believe
in God the Father, Almighty, Creator and Sustainer of all that is,
or ever was, or ever will be, whether visible or invisible.
I believe
in God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer. Through him all things were
made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the
power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and
became fully human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he was raised from
the dead. He ascended into heaven. He will come again in glory to
judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe
in God the Holy Spirit, the Advocate and Helper, the giver of
life, who is sent by the Father in the name of the Son. With the Father
and the Son he is to be worshipped. He has spoken through the prophets.
I believe
that in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments God has
given us an authoritative disclosure of his character and will, his
redemptive acts and their meaning, and his mandate for mission.
I believe
that since everything asserted by the divinely inspired
authors must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, the books of
Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and
without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred
writings for our salvation: anything which is not read therein, nor may
be proved thereby, is not to be required of anyone as an article of
faith, nor to be regarded as necessary for salvation.
I believe
that all those who confess Jesus Christ as God, Saviour and
Lord, according to the Scriptures, form one holy, universal, Christian
church. We should work together in love, accepting each other as Christ
has accepted us, to extend his kingdom.
I believe
that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part
of our Christian duty, for both are necessary expressions of our
doctrines of God and humankind, our love for our neighbour, and our
obedience to Jesus Christ.
I believe
that inherent within the Gospel is the need for God's people
to work for a world where peace and justice are pursued, and whose
environment is preserved.
I believe
that we must demonstrate God's love visibly by caring for those who are
deprived of justice, dignity, food and shelter, and that the
proclamation of God's kingdom of justice and peace demands the
denunciation of all injustice and oppression, both personal and
structural.
I acknowledge
one baptism as a symbol of the forgiveness of sins.
I give thanks
in the Lord's Supper, celebrating it as a symbol and
memorial of the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I look forward
to the resurrection of the dead, and life in the world to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--
>> *
>>Shalom! Rowland Croucher
>> * *
>>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
>>(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
~ vera ~
> (Three newsgroups - AR ACC ACE removed).
>
> "Mark T" <hellofundyf@head015> wrote in message
> news:42701202$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> "~ vera ~" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have been in prayer contact with the Holy Spirit.
>>> I am the same opinion as the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> ...through Faulty Grizian Divine Osmosis!!!!!!
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
>
> Mark, I don't know who added ACC and ACE and AR to this thread, but
> could I ask, respectfully, that we keep this thread to ARC and keep
> the garbage out of it?
You mean the garbage that you crosspost all the time?
> I hope someone Vera will listen to might encourage her to do the same.
Why should I listen to anybody in the usenet? You are too funny - the only
person I listen to is the Holy Spirit.
> Thanks.
Barry OGrady
>Here is the current version of my personal Credo.
>
>Not much of this is original. Interested people might like to see how
>much of the following they can find in other credal statements.
>
>If you have read what I believed in statements earlier than March
>2005, please ignore them and take this as what I believe now - I
>regularly sing "The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth
>from his word", and updating my Statement of Beliefs simply puts this
>into practice.
Why do you believe those things are why do you pretend to be a skeptic?
Barry
Sean McHugh
~ vera ~ wrote:
>
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
> > (Three newsgroups - AR ACC ACE removed).
> >
> > "Mark T" <hellofundyf@head015> wrote in message
> > news:42701202$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >> "~ vera ~" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I have been in prayer contact with the Holy Spirit.
> >>> I am the same opinion as the Holy Spirit.
> >>
> >> ...through Faulty Grizian Divine Osmosis!!!!!!
> >>
> >> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
> >
> >
> > Mark, I don't know who added ACC and ACE and AR to this thread, but
> > could I ask, respectfully, that we keep this thread to ARC and keep
> > the garbage out of it?
>
> You mean the garbage that you crosspost all the time?
>
> > I hope someone Vera will listen to might encourage her to do the same.
>
> Why should I listen to anybody in the usenet? You are too funny - the only
> person I listen to is the Holy Spirit.
And:
=========================================================
"Br@dley" <n0m...@4u.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OLHbe.30662$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How about using one of those debate sites?
Yes, very good - keep them on your websites. [Vera]
========================================================
Hi Vera,
As far as I know, it was the Creation Scientist Don Batten who
asked for this debate. He wanted the opportunity to present the
Creationist scientific world view and presumably its scientific
superiority over the evolutionary world view. I thought you,
being a Creationist, would like to see him allowed the opportunity.
Why are you so opposed to this exchange taking place in ARC? ARC
isn't even your newsgroup.
Perhaps you misunderstood the agenda.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
That was my very strong suggestion.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
sensi4sight
>
> The Bible has appeared already on the market already, and I hope that you
> soon go and buy one.
>
> God bless you,
>
> ~ vera ~
>
It would be nice to open your mind when you read your book. God won't kill
you for opening your mind.
~ vera ~
I am not a "Creationist". I am simply a Christian, you see.
Much ado about nothing...
> would like to see him allowed the opportunity.
> Why are you so opposed to this exchange taking place in ARC? ARC
> isn't even your newsgroup.
But it is! I am a regular there!!! :-)
Mark T
> I am not a "Creationist".
Vera is a Nutsie!
###################################################
Visit "No Answers In Genesis" http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/
###################################################
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
them?
CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the bible). What
facts can we find to support it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be a Creation Science Expert!!!!!
Visit http://exchristian.net/art/displayimage.php?album=17&pos=0
Sean McHugh
You don't believe in the literal Genesis? You don't want its case
to get time here? This surprises me.
> Much ado about nothing...
Then you don't have a problem with the debate taking place in ARC?
> > would like to see him allowed the opportunity.
> > Why are you so opposed to this exchange taking place in ARC? ARC
> > isn't even your newsgroup.
>
> But it is! I am a regular there!!! :-)
Actually, ARC is really supposed to be for Australian
participation and/or topics. Though this point has not
been invoked lately, it is still part of the charter.
I hope you enjoy reading the debate. I wish it would get under
way.
Best Regards,
Sean mcHugh
Don
the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
I want to say firstly that I am not anti-science; that would be very
strange for someone who worked for 17 years as a research scientist and
really enjoyed doing my research. You can find something of my career
at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and more
of my journey at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/fruit.asp.
I take the Bible as authoritative, so I take seriously the example of
the apostle Paul who said, "We demolish arguments and every pretension
that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive
every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). For the
last 200 years or so, perhaps the greatest source of arguments against
the knowledge of God has been naturalism; the dogma that nature is all
there is. Its corollary, historical naturalism, claims that origins
and history can be explained by purely natural processes.
There are elements of the sciences of astronomy, geology and biology
that have been developed based on and in turn used to bolster the
claims of naturalism: big bang cosmology, historical geology and
biological evolution (the origin of the huge spectrum of living
organisms). All three, not just the third, stand in opposition to the
traditional understanding of the biblical big-picture view of history,
which is founded in Genesis 1-11 (not just Genesis 1).
Some reasons why I take Genesis 1-11 as a straight-forward historical
account:
1. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow his example
in his attitude to the Old Testament scriptures.
Jesus regarded the OT scriptures as God's word; that is, spoken by God
or inspired by the Holy Spirit, although written by the hands of men
(Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37) and therefore
even the smallest letter or stroke was inspired and would "never pass
away" (Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17). Jesus cited nearly every book in the
OT as authoritative, thus authenticating the canon as we know it
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp). There
is no room here for regarding any part of Scripture as deficient in any
way due to it supposedly being the product of the minds of 'illiterate
primitives' (campfire stories of Semitic nomads, 'primitive
goat-herders' etc.).
Furthermore, I am not at liberty to make any part of it say what I
think it ought to say. My hermeneutic involves exegesis, not
eisegesis. I read Scripture to find what God is saying, not what I can
make it say that I find palatable.
I am not a 'bibliolater', a term of derision used by some on this forum
for folk such as me. But because I submit myself to the lordship of
Christ, I take my lead from him. In many places Jesus said, "It is
written" and he said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Jesus not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible,
He reviled them for their ignorance of it (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24).
In fact, Jesus affirmed the historical accuracy of even the Scriptural
passages that sceptics most scoff at today -- see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp and point 2
below.
'Inerrancy' derives logically from Jesus' view of inspiration, for how
can God inspire error? And if Scripture is not without error, then
whoever decides which parts are not in error actually becomes the
authority and so usurps God's authority. The 'Jesus Seminar' is a
logical outcome.
Scripture is not authoritative if it is not inerrant: perhaps "love
your enemies" is an error, or "you shall not steal", or "I tell you the
truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine,
you did for me"?
Some say, "The Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and
practice". This is dangerously deficient: if we cannot trust the Bible
in matters of history, for example, how can we trust it in matters of
faith and practice (theology)? Luke 16:31 says, "If they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose
from the dead." And Jesus asked Nicodemus: "I have spoken to you of
earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I
speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). So if we can't trust the Bible
about earthly things (such as the timeframe of creation), why should we
trust it on heavenly things (e.g. faith and morals)?
I agree with the Chicago statement on inerrancy. See
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm. Concurring with
this statement, I "affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He
be glorified. Amen and Amen."
Please note that belief in inerrancy does not mean wooden literalism (a
common straw-man argument). My hermeneutic is grammatical-historical,
which recognizes the various forms of writing such as metaphor,
hyperbole, etc. as explained at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp. See also
this refutation of some nonsense from a usually cogent scholar, J.P.
Moreland, on this issue:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/creationists.asp.
2. Jesus clearly regarded the account of Adam and Eve's creation as
factual, as well as the Flood.
Indeed, Jesus affirmed many people and events of the past that sceptics
deny ever existed or happened: Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark
10:2-9), Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke
17:26-27), Abraham (John 8:56-58), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15;
11:23, 24), Jonah and the great sea creature (Matthew 12:39-41).
Either Jesus was mistaken, in which case he does not deserve our
worship, or the sceptics and their allies are wrong. Jesus also
indicated that he did not understand earth history in terms of billions
of years with man arriving very recently (e.g., Mark 10:6, Luke
11:50-51; for a defence of this straightforward understanding of Mark
10:6, see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp).
3. Genesis was written as history.
Hebrew uses special grammatical structures for historical narrative and
Genesis 1-11 uses those structures. It is the same form as Genesis
12ff and most of Exodus, etc. It is not poetry or allegory. Genesis
is peppered with the vav consecutives (and...and...and), which is
characteristic of historical writing. The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis
1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for
recording history; a series of past events. That is, only the first
verb is a qatal (perfect), while the verbs that continue the narrative
are wayyiqtols (imperfects). In Genesis 1, the first verb 'bara'
(create) is qatal, while the subsequent verbs that move the narrative
forward are wayyiqtols. Parallelisms, a feature of poetry (e.g. many
Psalms), are absent, except when someone is quoted.
Hebrew scholars concur that Genesis was written as history. For
example, the Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr wrote:
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old
Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the
writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the
ideas that:
1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the
same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by
simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to
later stages in the biblical story
3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish
all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984). Barr, consistent
with his neo-orthodox views, does not *believe* Genesis, but he
understood what the Hebrew writer clearly taught. Some sceptics have
criticized us for using the Barr quote, because he does not believe in
the historicity of Genesis. That is precisely why we use his
statement: he is a hostile witness. With no need to try to harmonize
Genesis with anything, because he does not see it as carrying any
authority, Barr is free to state the intention of the author. This
contrasts with some 'evangelical' theologians who try to retain some
sense of authority without actually believing it says anything about
history.
One can take a statistical approach to the same issue, which shows the
same thing. See http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-377.htm
4. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture. The rest
of the OT takes it as history.
Exodus 20:11 summarizes the creation week. It eliminates any
possibility of an extended time scale by *any* interpretive scheme
(framework hypothesis, day-age idea, gap theories, God's days, etc.),
since it is given as the basis for our seven day week with a day of
rest (v.10): "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the
LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Note Ex. 20:1: "And
God spoke all these words, saying,...". These are the very words of
God himself, not the ideas of Moses, or some redactor or even J, E, D
or P (long discredited nonsense taught, sadly, at many 'evangelical'
theological institutions. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) 1
Chronicles 1 summarizes the genealogical data from Adam onwards in
Genesis and many other OT passages affirm the events of Genesis as
being historical (real events in time and space).
5. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture. The NT
takes Genesis as history.
There are over 100 quotations from or allusions to Genesis 1-11 in the
NT, none of which hint at Genesis being anything but history. Jesus'
genealogy (Luke 3) goes back to Adam. In the lineage, where do the
people stop being real and become metaphors? Hebrews 11 lists heroes of
the faith which start with Abel, Enoch and Noah, with not the tiniest
hint that they are less historical than the others. 2 Peter 3 refers
to creation and the flood (Greek: katakluzo, a special word referring
to the global cataclysm of Genesis; not just an ordinary flood). The
apostle Paul cites the order of creation of Adam and Eve as the basis
for teaching on the roles of men and women in the church (1 Tim.
2:13-14). If the first people evolved from a population of apes, then
this teaching does not make sense because man would not have preceded
woman.
6. The history of Genesis is necessary for an effective and biblical
theodicy.
After God had finished creating everything, he pronounced it 'very
good'. But it is not 'very good' today (is anyone getting older; do
you get winded changing TV channels?). Death pervades God's creation.
But death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26); an interloper.
All attempts to marry the Bible with the secular 'natural history'
accept the story of billions of years. But billions of years of what?
These unimaginable eons of time do not float out there on cloud nine,
disconnected from reality. The fossil record of multi-cellular
organisms supposedly covers some 600 million years in which these
creatures were dying and getting preserved as fossils. There are
fossil bones with cancerous tumours preserved in them; it's a record of
death and suffering. In this scenario, man appears about a million
years ago; one of the latest results of countless experiments involving
death of the unfit and survival of the fittest ("nature red in tooth
and claw", as the poet Tennyson put it). And when man appears,
effectively standing on a pile of bones kilometres deep, God says, it's
all 'very good'. No, not the God I worship. What an insult to God!
How can one defend the goodness of God (a theodicy) with any of the
compromise scenarios that try to retain belief in these millions of
years? All one can do is throw one's hands in the air, shrug one's
shoulders and give the ground to the sceptics. There is only one view
of Genesis that provides for a consistent theodicy: when we take it as
straightforward history. Genesis One indicates that the animals and
people were originally vegetarian (vv. 29-30). We cannot imagine such
a world, but it is consistent with visions of a future paradise in
Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, for example. Animals whimpering in pain and
fear while their throats are torn out by others is not consistent with
any vision of a future (even partial) restoration, or recreation, which
is always associated with the removal of the Genesis Curse giving rise
to an absence of suffering. It is therefore inconceivable to imagine
many millions of years of death and suffering as something God calls
'very good'. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0221plant_death.asp
Romans 8:18-25 affirms that the whole creation (not just people) has
been "subjected to futility" and is now "groaning" and in "bondage to
decay", waiting for its redemption. Leading commentators on Romans
such as F.F. Bruce, C.E.B. Cranfield and James Dunn agree that Paul is
referring to the Fall. This is consistent with the real history of
Genesis 3, where the creation, not just the people, was cursed because
of the man's sin. For example, the ground was to now bring forth
thorns and thistles (Genesis 3:18). There are thorns preserved in the
fossil record, supposedly some 300 million years before man came on the
scene. If this is really so, the Bible misleads.
We live in a corrupt creation because of man's sin; it was not created
that way. This has been the view of Christians from the beginning.
John Milton's classic poems, Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained,
reflect this Christian worldview that was once accepted almost without
question.
David Hull (not a Christian), wrote, "Whatever the God implied by
evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is
not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving
God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God
portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless,
wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort
of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray." (The God of the
Galapagos, Nature 352:486, 1992). I agree, but God did not create a
world like that; it became like that because Adam and Eve sinned. The
historicity of the Fall is crucial to a effective theodicy, and that
means hundreds of millions of years of survival of the fittest did not
precede Adam and Eve. Note that 'progressive creation' scenarios deny
evolution, but still must believe in billions of years of death and
suffering as part of God's drawn-out process of arriving at today's
world.
7. The history of Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.
Romans 5:12-17, with 1 Cor. 15:20-22; 45-49, grounds the meaning of
Jesus' bodily death and resurrection in the real history of Genesis.
A real man, Adam, brought bodily death and corruption into God's 'very
good' world by his sin. Likewise, a real man, the God-man from heaven,
came to undo the work of the first man, the federal head of the human
race. As one man brought death to all who are in him; one perfect man
brings life to all who are in him. I will show you what happens if
you *consistently* apply an evolutionary view of history to the Gospel.
Following are excerpts from the 'Confirmation Notebook', published by
SPCK, the Anglican publisher in the U.K.: "Human beings are the result
of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centredness and
aggression were essential at every stage of evolution. Human beings
naturally inherit this self-centredness ('original sin'). . .What the
cross is not . . . The Son standing in my place to take the punishment
that I ought to have. Such a view is immoral. In any case no one
person could suffer the whole world's punishments." (Bishop Hugh
Montefiore, 1984).
8. The history of Genesis is necessary for a cohesive and coherent
biblical Christian worldview.
The Bible tells us of a future where this universe will be purged and
there will be a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Why? If God
created the universe basically as we see it today, which any
interpretive scheme designed to harmonize the Bible with the 'deep
time' of 'scientific' historical naturalism tacitly accepts, then why
would He want to purify it with fire? It does not make sense. But it
makes sense if Genesis 3 is real history (reflected in Romans 8, etc.).
In other words, attempts to accommodate 'deep time' wreck the Bible's
eschatology. Furthermore, denial of the historicity of the global
Flood also undoes eschatology. Jesus referred to this (Luke 17:26,
27). If the account of God's judgment in the Flood is not to be
believed, why should we believe the Bible about the judgment to come?
Interestingly, the apostle Peter prophesied that scoffers would come in
the last days, sceptical of Jesus' coming again. These scoffers would
say that everything will just carry on as they suppose it has since the
beginning. Peter says that they have this philosophy because they are
'wilfully ignorant' of God's revelation that God created things by fiat
and that He destroyed the world with a flood (2 Peter 3:3-6). That's a
good description of the naturalistic paradigm that pervades academia
today, and its effects. Peter also ties the judgment by (global) Flood
with the (global) judgment to come by fire (v.7).
9. The church fathers accepted the 'young earth' historical time frame
and global Flood of Genesis.
Basil, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, Cappadocia, from AD 370-379, in a
series of sermons on the six days of creation argued that that the
plain meaning was intended, the days were ordinary days, that animals
did not originally eat each other, the sun was created after the earth,
etc. He also spoke against evolutionary ideas of humans springing from
animals (no, Darwin did not invent evolution; such ideas go back to
anti-theistic Greek and Roman philosophers before Christ; it's been a
pagan, anti-God idea from its earliest origins). For more from Basil,
see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/basil.asp.
Some have misconstrued the church fathers' positions because they have
not read them carefully. It was usual in the Eastern Orthodox Church
(EO) to view the creation week as real, but they often, in parallel,
viewed it as typologically pointing to a total earth history of seven
thousand years until the end. They most definitely did not regard the
days of creation week themselves as long periods of time.
Seraphim Rose, an EO priest, has meticulously documented the views of
the church fathers of the EO church, showing that they viewed Genesis
as I do. The book is 'Genesis, Creation and Early Man', Platina, CA,
2000. For a review see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp Dr Terry
Mortenson, author of this review wrote, "His [Rose's] primary sources
are early 'Fathers' who wrote commentaries on Genesis: John Chrysostom
(344-407), Ephraim the Syrian (306-372), Basil the Great
(329-379) and Ambrose of Milan (339-397). But he also used many
other 'Fathers' of that and later centuries who wrote on some aspect of
Genesis 1-11." Rose showed how the EO church fathers were unanimous
in their view of the historicity of creation week, the Fall and the
global Flood. They saw the world before the Fall as fundamentally and
profoundly different to that which pertained after the Fall.
Some cite Augustine and Origen to justify the smuggling of 'deep time'
into the Bible. These two gentlemen, being of the Alexandrian School,
tended to allegorize various passages of Scripture. Their
allegorization of the days of creation did not arise from within the
text, but from outside influences, namely their adherence to
neo-Platonic philosophy (whereby they 'reasoned' that God would not
sully himself with being bound by time constraints, etc.). But,
contrary to the positions of those who would use Augustine and Origen
to prop up their own 'deep time' accommodation, both said that God
created everything in an instant, *not* over long periods of time. And
they explicitly argued for the biblical time-frame of thousands of
years, as well as the global Flood of Noah. See more on Augustine and
Origen at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207dembski.asp
10. The Reformers understood it as history.
Calvin said: "The day-night cycle was instituted from Day 1, before the
sun was created [commenting on 'let there be light']" and "Here the
error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was
made in a moment [almost certainly referring to Augustine and Origen].
For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the
work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of
conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the
space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the
capacity of men" and "They will not refrain from guffaws when they are
informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed
since the creation of the universe" and "And the flood was forty days,
&c. Moses copiously insists on this fact, in order to show that the
whole world was immersed in the waters." For sources and more (e.g.
that bad things happened because of the Fall), see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/calvin.asp
Luther wrote even more explicitly of these issues, clearly stating
acceptance of the historicity of Genesis. He also dealt with sceptics'
claims of supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 &2. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i3/luther.asp .
Of course opponents of the historicity of Genesis love to cite Ronald
Numbers' book, 'The Creationists'. Numbers is cited as supposedly
showing that young-earth creationism was invented by a Seventh Day
Adventist, George McCready Price, in the 1920s. This has to be one of
the most incredible examples of historical revisionism I have seen; on
par with the flat earth myth (totally demolished by Jeffrey Burton
Russell at http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html).
It is as if Numbers, an apostate SDA, knows nothing of history before
Price or Ellen White. The above material on the church fathers and
reformers is sufficient to show the error of Numbers' work. But there
is much more that refutes it. See the research of the earth science
historian Dr Terry Mortenson on the geologists of the early 1800s who
defended the biblical age of the earth and the global flood of Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp (papers
listed under 'The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists'). For a
comprehensive and accurate history of what happened see Dr Mortenson's
definitive book, 'The Great Turning Point'
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0828turning_point.asp)
11. Historical naturalism (cosmic, geological and biological) is a
tenet of faith for the atheist, which should be sufficient for any
informed Christian to realize the foolishness of denying the
historicity of Genesis to accommodate it.
The Humanist [atheist] Manifesto specifies belief in the naturalistic
origin of the universe and mankind. The latest version, III, it
specifies 'unguided evolution', but in practice, as far as today's
dominant paradigm is concerned, this is tautology, because evolution is
by definition 'unguided' (nature creating nature). Likewise, 'theistic
evolution' is an oxymoron.
Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist." ('The Blind Watchmaker', Penguin 1991 reprint, p.6)
and many others have said similar things. Atheist Will Provine,
biology prof., Cornell, makes the following point: "...belief in modern
evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that
is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is
indistinguishable from atheism." ('No free will'. In Catching up with
the Vision, ed. Margaret W Rossiter, Chicago University Press, 1999, p.
S123).
Chris Ho-Stuart, an atheist and self-described apostate who is a
prolific contributor to this forum (hasn't he heard of
alt.religion,atheism? :-), says at
http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~hostuart/why.atheism2.html: "We are not
designed. Although I frequently say that the theory of evolution does
not formally disprove god, I would also add that the theory of
evolution has removed perhaps the best reason for supposing that a god
exists." He also says, "I am not trying to convince others..." [about
atheism]. However, he spends an inordinate amount of time pushing
evolution on this forum as well as on talk.origins and elsewhere. Is
an IT specialist that interested in evolutionary biology, etc.? I
suggest it is no coincidence; like other atheists, pushing evolution
pushes atheism, much as he tries to deny it. To the atheist, proving
evolution justifies atheism. All those posts by him have the effect of
removing "perhaps the best reason that a god exists", but he is "not
trying to convince others of atheism". Yeah, right, Chris. And all
this stuff is on a Christian forum??!!!
Chris Ho-Stuart also says that science is not anti-Christian (which is
certainly true of real operational science, which was largely founded
by biblical Christians). However, he equates 'evolution' and
'science', and since evolution (by his own words) removes "perhaps the
best reason for believing a god exists", then how can his evolutionary
'science' not be anti-Christian?? Something is missing in the logic
here.
Evolution (cosmic, geological and biological) claims to explain the
origin of everything without reference to any deity. So it contradicts
the Bible's teaching that God's attributes are clearly seen from what
He has made so that people will be without excuse at judgment (Romans
1:18ff). Similarly, God holds scoffers accountable for their *wilful*
ignorance of the Flood (2 Peter 3).
The evolutionary paradigm is fundamentally a religious idea. Canadian
philosopher of science, and anti-creationist campaigner, Michael Ruse,
said: "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere
science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular
religion---a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and
morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must
admit that in this one complaint---and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many
to make it---the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a
religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true
of evolution still today." (Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion:
creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 May 13, 2000).
Surely it is the height of foolishness to try to marry the Bible with a
religion designed as an explicit substitute for Christianity? We might
as well marry it with Baal worship! [Ruse later wrote a book claiming
that a Darwinian can be a Christian, but to him a Christian can deny
the Resurrection, which shows how pernicious the Darwinian compromise
is]
12. Abandoning the historicity of Genesis leads to heresy and
apostasy.
I have seen the destruction that abandoning the historicity of Genesis
causes---the wrecked individuals, families, churches and nations. I
experienced the wreckage in my own life, although it was mild compared
to some folk I have met.
Many prominent, vocal atheists testify to the effect of evolution on
causing them to abandon the faith of their parents. E.O Wilson comes
to mind (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/sand.asp).
Look at the reasons for former evangelist Charles Templeton's departure
from faith at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/unbelief.asp.
A youth minister at an Anglican church in Victoria recently shared with
us: "I used to beat my head against a wall wondering why we lost all
our young people at about age 16. In the last few years I've realised
that age 16 (year 10) is when they teach evolution in depth in science.
Chatting with some of the students I have also discovered that some of
the teachers actually identify the Christian students and make a
special point of explaining the differences and difficulties in
reconciling Genesis and the 'facts' of evolution. It's no wonder we
lost them. I come near tears just thinking about it."
Is it any coincidence that church attendance in the western world has
declined dramatically since the teaching of evolution in the schools
became widespread and systematic (increasingly so since the 1960s in
Australia)? Josef Ton, a Romanian Baptist pastor imprisoned for his
faith under the communist regime, said: "I came to the conclusion that
there are two factors which destroyed Christianity in Western Europe.
One was the theory of evolution, the other, liberal theology ....
Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith."
(New Life, April 15, 1982).
A secular source, F. Sherwood Taylor (Curator of the Museum of the
History of Science, Oxford) made a similar point: "... I myself have
little doubt that in England it was geology and the theory of evolution
that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation." (Geology changes
the outlook, in Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians, Sylvan Press Ltd,
London, p. 195, 1949; one of a series of talks broadcast on BBC radio).
The Uniting Church in Australia is self-destructing following the
erosion of scriptural authority beginning in Genesis. Princeton
Seminary is a classic example: The (otherwise) great Presbyterian
theologian Charles Hodge admitted that long ages of earth history
appeared to be at odds with the straightforward Mosaic narrative, but
nevertheless, he bowed to the authority of 'science' and so
accommodated his understanding of the Bible. Thus, even though he
railed against Darwinism as rank atheism, the camel had his nose in the
tent. His successor, B.B. Warfield (who was conservative enough to
sign the well-known 'Fundamentals' document), took this 're-adjustment'
of the Scripture to its next logical step, calling himself a Darwinian.
The next generation accepted not only Darwinism/millions of years, but
questioned biblical authority outright. So conservatives like J.
Gresham Machen broke away and founded Westminster Theological Seminary
in 1929.
Many who call themselves 'evangelicals' teach that we should
reinterpret Genesis because 'science' has 'proven' long ages and
evolution. At the same time they rail against liberal theologians.
But the liberals are actually more consistent. They reinterpret the
accounts of Jesus' Virginal Conception and Resurrection as unhistorical
because 'science' has proven that miracles such as these are
'impossible'. The evangelical compromisers in our Bible colleges have
yet to apply their Genesis hermeneutic to the rest of the Bible, but
there is no good reason not to do so. Compromise with Genesis unlocks
the door to doubting the authority of all Scripture.
13. Disbelieving the history of Genesis disconnects the Bible from the
real world, transforming Christian faith into an 'upper storey'
irrelevance.
I hear many say, "the Bible is not a science textbook", or "the Bible
is about theology, not science", or "the Bible is about why; science is
about how", etc. The late Pope advocated "two magisterial" (religion
and science). However, the Bible is to a great extent a book of
history, and theology is rooted in history. Does it matter whether
Jesus actually died and rose again? Perhaps all that's important is
what it tells us about loving one another (liberals say this sort of
thing). The naturalistic claims of 'science' about our origins and the
history of the universe are (competing) claims about the very things
the Bible tells us about: history.
A theological college student in Sydney told me he was taught that
Genesis is a polemic; that it teaches us that God created things and
this was a theological statement, not scientific. I pointed out that
'science' claims that the universe made itself when nothing exploded in
the big bang and that every form of life made itself by natural
processes from elements created in the big bang; God is not needed or
necessary. So, either science is making theological claims or the
Bible is making scientific claims. He hadn't thought of that. It is
not possible to solve the problem by word games, by some artificial
segregation of knowledge. Such nonsense in our Bible colleges appals
me.
In 1894, the Scottish theologian, James Denney, wrote: "The separation
of the religious and the scientific means in the end the separation of
the religious and the true; and this means that religion dies among
true men." ('Studies in Theology', London, 1894, p.15). That is
exactly what has happened apace in the last 40 years.
In a survey, children were asked who they believed, their Sunday school
teacher, or their primary school teacher. 80% chose their school
teacher. Why? They said that the school teacher taught them facts,
whereas the Sunday school teacher only told them stories. The children
think this way because that's how the Bible is taught in many churches:
as just ethereal stories, disconnected from the real world.
Many Christians today have divided their thinking into two
compartments: reality and faith; that's perhaps how many Christian
academics teach naturalism in their classes and then front up at church
on Sunday. I did something like that when I was an undergraduate
student.
So Christianity today for many is an existential leap in the dark,
taken against reason, or rather aside from reason. It's about having a
nice 'worship' experience, or thinking positively, for example.
Atheists are quite happy for people to have such a faith, as it makes
no truth claims that can be used in converting others or challenging
the unbelief or relativistic ethics of the atheist. This is not
biblical Christianity; Christian faith is based upon the faithful
testimony of those who have seen and heard *things that really
happened* (1 John 1:3); it is not a blind, irrational faith. That's
why atheists spend so much effort opposing Christians who defend the
truth claims re history in the Bible (creation, fall, flood, exodus,
resurrection of Jesus, etc.). See the introduction and articles re
apologetics at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/apologetics.asp and the
article 'Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation' at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/logic.asp
14. There is only one reason not to take Genesis as straightforward
history: the fallible reasoning of fallen mankind, in the guise of
historical, or origins, 'science'.
Dr Pattle Pun, biology professor at Wheaton College (and a believer in
long ages of earth history), said what many others, including modern
evangelical theologians, have also admitted: "It is apparent that the
most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to all
the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God
created the heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created on
the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of
Adam and Eve, and that all the fossils were the result of the
catastrophic universal deluge [note: we would say most, not all] which
spared only Noah's family, and the animals therewith." (J. Amer.
Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987).
So, like Augustine, this approach takes its authority from outside the
Bible to reinterpret Genesis to mean something other than its clearly
intended meaning.
Dr John MacArthur, noted American evangelical theologian and pastor,
remarked: "Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth.
And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less
evangelical and more humanistic it becomes." ('The Battle for the
Beginning', W. Publishing Group, p. 26, 2001).
There is a fundamental distinction between the 'science' that deals
with history and the science that deals with the operation of today's
world. With operational science you can do repeatable experiments, but
you can't with historical science, which deals with events that are not
repeatable. It does not matter much what your religious beliefs are,
water still boils at a given temperature (unless of course you are a
postmodernist who thinks that temperature is merely part of the
meta-narrative of a western Christian mindset; a mental construct and
only 'true for you'). However, what you believe about spiritual
matters profoundly affects what explanations of history / origins you
will find acceptable. The atheist geologist / palaeontologist Stephen
Jay Gould acknowledged this effect of philosophical bias. And how
about this for an open-minded approach: "Even if all the data point to
an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." (Scott Todd, Kansas State University
immunologist, Nature 410(6752):423, 1999). This whole area is driven
by such biases. The 'facts' of history do not speak for themselves, as
most philosophers today realize; they have to be interpreted; see
'Where's the proof?' at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp . It
happens at present that the interpretive framework is pure naturalism.
In this paradigm, even 'god' and morals evolved; nothing is 'outside
the box', nature (matter, energy) is all there is.
James Conant, former president of Harvard University, said about
historical 'science': "The sciences dealing with the past stand before
the bar of common sense on a different footing. Therefore, a grotesque
account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously
though it be built by piling special assumptions on special
assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart
the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a
fantasia which is neither history nor science." (Kevin Wirth, Science
Education: Only the Best Ad-hoc Will Do. Origins Research 5(2):2,
1982).
There is actually nothing in experimental science, which is the science
that has given us so many modern benefits, that conflicts with the
Bible. It is only the conjectures of historical science ("ad hoc
hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis") where conflict occurs. As God said
to Job, "Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job
38:4). No palaeontologist or geologist was there; they have scraps and
bits and pieces in the present, from which they try to construct a
story about what happened in the past. But only stories that fit the
naturalistic paradigm are permitted.
Whether you believe in revelation or not has a profound effect. I
believe in revelation: God was there at creation and no one else was.
He has revealed how long He took to do the work and what order He did
it in. He also revealed to us that it was Paradise; we can only know
this by revelation. But it was spoiled by the blight of sin. But I
look forward to a coming Saviour, the last Adam, who will restore
Paradise (Rev. 21&22).
Louis Berkhoff, the respected systematic theologian, summed up the
priority of Scripture when it comes to these matters: "Originally God
revealed Himself in creation, but through the blight of sin that
original revelation was obscured. Moreover, it was entirely
insufficient in the condition of things that obtained after the fall.
Only God's self-revelation in the Bible can now be considered adequate.
It only conveys a knowledge of God that is pure, that is, free from
error and superstition, and that answers to the spiritual needs of
fallen man.... Some are inclined to speak of God's general revelation
as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that
nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the
light of Scripture." ('Introductory volume to Systematic Theology', p.
96).
For much, much more on the problems with compromise with 'scientific'
historical naturalism, see Dr Jonathan Sarfati's meticulously thorough
treatment in 'Refuting Compromise' (Master Books)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp.
BTW, I often hear the charge, "But it's divisive". See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0101aus_newsletter.asp for
what the Bible says about who it is that divides the church.
Atheist Daniel Dennett described Darwinism in his book 'Darwin's
Dangerous Idea' as a "universal acid; it eats through just about every
traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized
world-view." We only have to look at who and what has been inspired by
Darwinian ideas to see the truth of this statement: Marx, Stalin, Mao,
Ceausescu, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot, Hitler and the eugenics movement
(founded by Galton, Darwin's first cousin). And we could mention the
likes of Australian Peter Singer (who sometimes passes for a
'bioethicist'), with his ideas of murdering children and the elderly
whose lives are deemed to be not worthwhile, while also condoning
bestiality. Atheists hate these connections being pointed out, but
they are very real (see documentation by European historian Richard
Weikart in his book 'From Darwin to Hitler'
http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm
). See also the articles at the Q&A on Communism, Nazism and eugenics
at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp Of
course this does not prove evolutionary dogma wrong; but if the
universe is as the evolutionists claim, then these views and their
effects are logical outcomes. "By their fruit you shall know them."
Jesus was speaking of people, but ideas bear fruit too.
I want nothing of this world view that brings so much death and misery;
a world-view that is an explicit substitute for Christianity, that is
anti-Christ. I don't want it to destroy my children, or my friends, or
anyone. I will get my world-view from what the Creator of all has
revealed. So, here I stand on the authority of God's Word from Genesis
1:1ff; any other authority results in a world running away from its
Creator and wrecked lives.
I have not touched on the scientific issues; deliberately. 'Theology
is the queen of sciences.' We must begin with what God has said. If
we cannot agree that God has indeed spoken, that the Bible is indeed
His Word, then we cannot even get started in this discussion. Once we
agree that God has spoken and agree upon what He has said, then we can
begin to interpret the 'facts' of history accordingly. But, on the
matters of historical science, there is a mass of material on the
Answers in Genesis website at various levels of technical detail, from
children's material to peer-reviewed academic papers. Check out the
Q&A section at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp.
Some on this forum are enamoured with talk.origins. I can only appeal
to readers to check out what we actually say, not just what the
opposition says about us. Wouldn't that be fair? But then I guess in
an evolutionary world I should not expect fairness; it's about survival
of the fittest, isn't it? :-) Fairness is a biblical concept, based on
the history in Genesis that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve,
made in the image of God, all equal under God.
Ken Smith
>"Br@dley" wrote:
>>
>> In news:426f4338$0$8123$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au,
>> Rowland Croucher <rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> said:
>> > Dear friends in ARC/ACE
>> >
>> > I've been in email correspondence with Dr Don Batten, lecturer,
>> > writer and researcher with Answers in Genesis Ltd, Brisbane, and Dr.
>> > Ken Smith, retired lecturer in mathematics, University of Queensland,
>> > about having a 'conversation/debate' on matters to do with
>> > Creation/Genesis.
>> > Don's a 'creationist'. Ken's not - at least he's not in the sense in
>> > which 'Creation Science' uses the term.
>> >
>> > And they have differing views on biblical inerrancy, which will be
>> > pivotal to their POVs about other matters, scientific and theological.
>> >
>> > Each has agreed to post articles outlining their views, and then will
>> > respond to one another's. I'll act as a sort of low-key moderator,
>> > only intervening where necessary.
[deletions]
>> How about using one of those debate sites?
>That was my very strong suggestion.
In his initial letter to Rowland, Don complained about two of my
postings here (a.r.c) which Rowland had copied to the JMM site, and
wanted to be able to respond. He wanted to make a response to the
same forum where my posts had originally been posted.
His precise words were:
However, the immediate issue involves the slanderous insinuations
that have been published on the JMM website, emanating from Ken
Smith. Principles of justice would dictate that the response to
this should be published promptly on the same forum so that those
who have read the slander can be disabused of misconceptions they
may have picked up.
Since I originally posted to a.r.c carrying out the discussion herre
is completely in line with what Don wrote.
>Best Regards,
>Sean McHugh
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from
authority". (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance
hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.)' Carl Sagan
Ken Smith
>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
With the length of this, I won't try responding immediately.
I'll have to take it away, read it carefully, and then make a
response.
But with over 700 lines, don't expect a response to everything in one
posting.
I'll try responding to it a couple of hundred lines (or so) at a time.
Athanasius
Smith) wrote:
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>
>>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>
>>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>
>With the length of this, I won't try responding immediately.
>I'll have to take it away, read it carefully, and then make a
>response.
>
>But with over 700 lines, don't expect a response to everything in one
>posting.
>I'll try responding to it a couple of hundred lines (or so) at a time.
Ken, from one who is very interested in this impending dialogue, can
we please maybe agree to break up Don's post into agreed bite size
pieces?
I think the excellent way he has set his post out will make it easy to
do so. Then we can tackle each topic which is raised independently of
the whole?/
What do you think?
My recomendation would be to follow Don's point numbering system and
keep each section as a seperate post to be dealt with or left as
agreed. What do you and others reckon?
Peace and grace
Athanasius
>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>
>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
Christ is Risen!
Don,
May I say I am thankful to God that you have joined in this
discussion on our public board. May I ask if it can be restricted to
aus religion christian, this will cut down on the static which results
and those regulars from the other group watch arc anyway so they won't
miss out.
Don I wish to express my great thanks for all AIG has promoted
and done over the years and the many attempts at holding onto the
faith in this area, once delivered to the saints. I hope to become
involved in some small way in some of your points, this will not
follow the usual way others debate you so please be aware that I
myself hold to a young earth creation position, albeit not because of
AIG formerly CSF but certainly aided over the years by them. My points
will be an attempt to broaden the -theological- issues that your
movement has created as a byproduct as well as some minor issues that
have propped up from time to time over the years.
But for all means and purposes I am substantially on your side
regarding the creation account, the truthfulness of Creation and the
Great Flood of Noah etc, I just have some issues with some other
matters which by God's grace I will raise.
Thank you again and may the Father the Lord of all continue to bless
you and yours abundently in Christ Jesus our True God and Saviour
through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
PS. Whilst I realise some Orthodox Christians are pro-evolution of
which you may already know, however, the Coptic Orthodox Church to
which I am ordained within most definitely are not. Clergy are not
permitted to prreach or teach from an evolutionary perspective, nor
are any of the sunday school/youth group servants either.
Again thank you for joining us here and I look forward to a civil
discussion from all aspects. :)
~ vera ~
Of course I believe in the Genesis. But I won't argue about it. People are
free to believe they want to believe.
>> Much ado about nothing...
>
> Then you don't have a problem with the debate taking place in ARC?
Debate? Which one? I don't debate about God's creation. God made this world
in six days. He rested on the seventh day.
>>> would like to see him allowed the opportunity.
>>> Why are you so opposed to this exchange taking place in ARC? ARC
>>> isn't even your newsgroup.
>>
>> But it is! I am a regular there!!! :-)
>
> Actually, ARC is really supposed to be for Australian
> participation and/or topics.
Yes, I am writing about that all the time. Being a citizen of Sydney...
Writing anonymously via Berlin... Or not? Who will know...
You see, I have a wombat ranch - called "The Perl of Oz" near Sydney. There
are 3000 wombats, and we have wombat races every year. Thousands of wombats
from all ober Australia participate, and many visitors come and bet which
wombat might be the winner this year. People pray for their wombats. So you
see, I am maybe an Australian, and I have a typically Australian topic to
debate.
Did you know that some wombats are specialised in digging tunnels?
> Though this point has not
> been invoked lately, it is still part of the charter.
"Charter"??? You mean Rowland Croucher's charter? LOL
> I hope you enjoy reading the debate. I wish it would get under
> way.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Sean mcHugh
Greetings,
~ vera ~ No.23,678
Rowland Croucher
"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote in message
news:1115042847.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
> the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
> trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>
> How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
> Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>
> I want to say firstly that I am not anti-science; that would be very
> strange for someone who worked for 17 years as a research scientist and
> really enjoyed doing my research. You can find something of my career
> at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and more
> of my journey at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/fruit.asp.
Thank you Don
Excellent
And yes, it would be a good idea to separate the points - though let's keep
it all within this thread for the moment eh? Perhaps down the track it might
get too cumbersome and we'll separate the threads from one another...
As the post from Athanasius suggests it would probably be wiser to keep it
within the confines of ARC, but let's play that a little by ear. If
rubbish/noise is too great from non-Australians, we'll chop ACE out of the
thread. Howzat?
BTW for those wondering about the ethics/protocols of posting to an
Australian newsgroup, see the FAQ for this group
(http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12320.htm ) At the moment it's
non-moderated, and we trust the good-will of non-Australians. You are
welcome to post here, but only if your posts are on-topic, and of particular
'religious interest' to the Australians who inhabit this group. Thanks.
Note: there is no moderator for ARC, and the FAQ was a composite effort by
all of us. It's housed on the JMM website purely for convenience. I'm
moderating this discussion, as the one who's helped with Don and Ken and a
few others to bring it together.
Enjoy the interaction: if we teachable and respectful with each other and
our views, it should be a good conversation...
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Mark T
> I won't be bothering to reply to trite or abusive comments, only
> apparently
> genuine responses.
I will be bothering to reply to trite or abusive comments by fundamentalists
/ creationists who think they are the only true Christians in the world.
Fundamentalism does not represent the whole of Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Os Guinness, an evangelical Christian, "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why
Evangelicals don't think and what to do about it" ( Baker Books; Grand
Rapids:1994)
p. 143
A fourth misconception concerns the idea that thinking Christianly is a form
of uniformity - in other words, that if we all think Christianly we will all
think the same way. When this happens, the goal of thinking Christianly
collapses into a frantic search for the one particular correct way of
thinking or acting. The result is he fallacy of "particularism", the
uniformity of a particular "Christianly Correct" way of thinking.
...[particularism] denies two requirements of thinking Christianly that
oppose all uniformity: the importance of diversity and the fact of human
fallibility.
p. 143 - 144
For another thing, applying the idea of uniformity is disastrous because it
leads inevitably to legalism and judgementalism. There is only a short and
easy step from "This is the Christian way" to "There is only one Christian
way" to "Anything different from this Christian way is not Christian" to
"All those who differ from my way are not Christians".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
--Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
> I take the Bible as authoritative
Is the bible authoritative in areas of science? I don't believe so.
Creationism only works for fundamentalists.
Creationists do not view other Christians as "true Christians".
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
> 1. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow his example
> in his attitude to the Old Testament scriptures.
I am also a Christian but reject the idea that the bible is in any manner
inerrant.
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
> 2. Jesus clearly regarded the account of Adam and Eve's creation as
> factual, as well as the Flood.
Jesus was wrong on these points.
> 3. Genesis was written as history.
The bible was edited and re-edited. Parts of Genesisi are history. The
rest of Genesis is not. History properly begins with Abraham not the
fictional Adam / Eve or Noah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH.and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yer been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alivce at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interest's were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefdore wrote than no image could be made
of God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath abnd it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result thje etails of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 4. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture.
That is like interpreting error with error!
The is the core mistake with fundamentalism and creationism.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from
them?
CREATIONIST METHOD: Here is the conclusion (stated in the bible). What
facts can we find to support it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 7. The history of Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.
The history of Genesis is only foundational to creationism.
Genesis has no relevance to the Gospel as expressed by Jesus .....
What is recorded in Mark and Matthew about the CONTENT of the gospel that
Jesus preached?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of God is like" in Matthew's gospel!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 8. The history of Genesis is necessary for a cohesive and coherent
> biblical Christian worldview.
Genesisi as history is only necessary to support a fundamentalist /
creationist viewpoint.
If Geneisis is not history then creationism and fundamentalism are a lie.
Christianity is not dependent upon Genesis or any part of the bible.
Christianity is solely dependent upon the One God, YHWH, the Ground of all
being, who cannot be contained in a finite fallible collection of ancient
books - the bible.
> 9. The church fathers accepted the 'young earth' historical time frame
> and global Flood of Genesis.
The church fathers were fallible humans.
> 10. The Reformers understood it as history.
The Reformers were fallioble humans.
> 11. Historical naturalism (cosmic, geological and biological) is a
> tenet of faith for the atheist, which should be sufficient for any
> informed Christian to realize the foolishness of denying the
> historicity of Genesis to accommodate it.
All truth is God's truth even if it is found by an atheist.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis.
> The Humanist [atheist] Manifesto
Humanists are not necessarily atheists.
> Evolution (cosmic, geological and biological) claims to explain the
> origin of everything without reference to any deity.
Have you never heard of the various types of theistic evolution????
> So it contradicts the Bible's teaching that God's attributes are clearly
> seen from
> what He has made so that people will be without excuse at judgment (Romans
> 1:18ff)
Paul was wrong!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Romans 1 Paul uses the Causal or Cosmological Argument for God's
existence. It is an argument from origins. Look at the universe ... it
must have come from somewhere ... it came from God.
It doesn't work for the following reasons:
1. Although it may establish a deity it says nothing about the type or
nature of the deity. It would work equally as well for Zeus or a little
green alien as YHWH.
2. It leads to an infinite regress. If the universe is made by God then
who made God? The God above God. Who made the God above God? The God
above the God above God. etc ad infinitum. (This is one reason why God is
NOT "A being" but rather the Ground of all being.)
3. How do we know everything has a cause? From experience. Experience
tells us nothing about causality in the non-empirical world. Even in the
empirical realm experience is based on induction and deduction and both are
logically faulty for any absolute claim in all areas of past, present and
future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 12. Abandoning the historicity of Genesis leads to heresy and
> apostasy.
Only according to fundamentalists!
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
Fundamentalism does not represent the whole of Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Os Guinness, an evangelical Christian, "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why
Evangelicals don't think and what to do about it" ( Baker Books; Grand
Rapids:1994)
p. 143
A fourth misconception concerns the idea that thinking Christianly is a form
of uniformity - in other words, that if we all think Christianly we will all
think the same way. When this happens, the goal of thinking Christianly
collapses into a frantic search for the one particular correct way of
thinking or acting. The result is he fallacy of "particularism", the
uniformity of a particular "Christianly Correct" way of thinking.
...[particularism] denies two requirements of thinking Christianly that
oppose all uniformity: the importance of diversity and the fact of human
fallibility.
p. 143 - 144
For another thing, applying the idea of uniformity is disastrous because it
leads inevitably to legalism and judgementalism. There is only a short and
easy step from "This is the Christian way" to "There is only one Christian
way" to "Anything different from this Christian way is not Christian" to
"All those who differ from my way are not Christians".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 13. Disbelieving the history of Genesis disconnects the Bible from the
> real world, transforming Christian faith into an 'upper storey'
> irrelevance.
A nice parroting of Francis Schaeffer.
> Some on this forum are enamoured with talk.origins. I can only appeal
> to readers to check out what we actually say, not just what the
> opposition says about us. Wouldn't that be fair?
It would also be fair to look at all truth ... not just a secytio of truth
within an ancient book - the bible.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
#################################################
My Testimony at http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
>Don I wish to express my great thanks for all AIG has promoted
> and done over the years
I wish to express my dismay at the perversioin of science that creationism
has attempted to force on eduction.
I attended the creationist seminar in Sydney where Professor Ian Plimer was
manhandled by creationist thugs for daring to ask questions. My friend and
I, Les McQueen (Head Geologist on the Sydney Harbour Tunnel), were sitting
in the row directly before Ian Plimer on the extreme right rear of
auditorium (as one entered)
Talking with Ken Ham during the break, the main point that I gleaned is that
creationism was not interested in science but in a fundamentalist view of
the bible. The bible takes precedence over all other factual truth from any
other source.
Should fundamentalists dictate science for all Christians?
Athanasius
On Tue, 3 May 2005 12:41:28 +1000, "Mark T" <f@chance00018> wrote:
>"Athanasius" wrote:
>
>
>>Don I wish to express my great thanks for all AIG has promoted
>> and done over the years
>
>
>I wish to express my dismay at the perversioin of science that creationism
>has attempted to force on eduction.
Mark,
I see you have been serious and direct in your two responses
in this thread section so far. Can I ask, humbly and respectively that
you continue in this direct and courteous manner please? This thread
-really- needs to be exempted from the pettiness that occurs towards
the fundamentalists outside this thread. You have valid points to
make and bring forward, you are very intelligent, a mature believer
and have been through the mill so have much to share. lets do it in a
spirit of respect. I am sorry that you witnessed an unfortunate event
regarding Prof. Ian Plimer, this man Don is as free of any guilt in
that matter as you and I are. Lets leave the pain outside as well
please?
Peace and grace.
Theo Bekkers
> This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
> the case is not insubstantial. :-)
> I have not touched on the scientific issues; deliberately. 'Theology
> is the queen of sciences.' We must begin with what God has said. If
> we cannot agree that God has indeed spoken, that the Bible is indeed
> His Word, then we cannot even get started in this discussion. Once we
> agree that God has spoken and agree upon what He has said, then we can
> begin to interpret the 'facts' of history accordingly.
761 lines to say, 'because the bible says so'?
Yes I know this is a 'trite' response to which you are not going to respond,
but hey, you didn't respond to the arguement either. And you now refuse to,
unless everybody agrees that the bible is the "Word of God".
What a wanker!
Theo
Mark T
> I see you have been serious and direct in your two responses
> in this thread section so far. Can I ask, humbly and respectively that
> you continue in this direct and courteous manner please?
Yep. There is a time for seriousness and a time for frivolity.
> I am sorry that you witnessed an unfortunate event
> regarding Prof. Ian Plimer, this man Don is as free of any guilt in
> that matter as you and I are. Lets leave the pain outside as well
> please?
I bring it up only as an example of what happens to those who oppose
creationism and ask questions thy don't want to answer. This incident has
been talked about by Plimer but creationists deny it ever happen. I was
there! I saw it! One cannot rewrite history.
A problem with this thread is that it is basically about a view of the bible
and fundamentalism and not really about science. Have a look at Don's
headings .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow his example
> in his attitude to the Old Testament scriptures.
....
> 2. Jesus clearly regarded the account of Adam and Eve's creation as
> factual, as well as the Flood.
...
> 3. Genesis was written as history.
...
> 4. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture.
[5 & 6. Likewise]
...
> 7. The history of Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.
...
> 8. The history of Genesis is necessary for a cohesive and coherent
> biblical Christian worldview.
...
> 9. The church fathers accepted the 'young earth' historical time frame
> and global Flood of Genesis.
...
> 10. The Reformers understood it as history.
...
> 11. Historical naturalism (cosmic, geological and biological) is a
> tenet of faith for the atheist, which should be sufficient for any
> informed Christian to realize the foolishness of denying the
> historicity of Genesis to accommodate it.
....
> 12. Abandoning the historicity of Genesis leads to heresy and
> apostasy.
....
> 13. Disbelieving the history of Genesis disconnects the Bible from the
> real world, transforming Christian faith into an 'upper storey'
> irrelevance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The majority are about the bible and fundamentlaist faith.
If creationism is true then it needs to be able to work for Liberal
Christians such as myself ... and atheists, and Hindus, and Buddhists etc
etc etc.
Creationism is a fundamentalist apologetic and not science. It is required
to back up fundamentalist belief. Creationism does not work for anyone
except fundamentalists.
For this reasoin the headings should not be addresses seperately as they are
all dependent on a fundamentalist view of the bible.
The main questions to be considered are in two different camps and are
related to the following:
THEOLOGY
1. Is the fundamentalist view of the bible the ONLY correct view to be held
by ALL Christians (including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox faiths)?
2. Is ALL of Genesis to be considered as history? (This must also address
the problem of Moses writing about his own death and the two different
creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2! If any part of Genesis can shown to be
faulty then Geneisis is not inerrant and "Answers in GENESIS" have a faulty
foundation.)
SCIENCE
1. What is science?
2. What is pseudo-science?
[Note that this is not a faith issue as creationists like to suggest.]
Theology is not science.
Science is not theology.
Mark T
> 761 lines to say, 'because the bible says so'?
>
> Yes I know this is a 'trite' response to which you are not going to
> respond, but hey, you didn't respond to the arguement either. And you now
> refuse to, unless everybody agrees that the bible is the "Word of God".
Basically creationism only works for fundamentalists.
Real science works for everyone ... even if you are an atheist or a
Christian.
Flu season is coming up in Oz. Vaccines are prepared every year because the
virus EVOLVES. If evolution doesn't happen then why produce new
vaccines????? All one needs to do is follow the bible!!!!! I quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Chr. 16:12-13 - In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased
in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek
the LORD, but the physicians. So Asa slept with his fathers, having died in
the forty-first year of his reign.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is obvious from the Bible that no-one should not consult a doctor!!!!!
Atheists should just remain on a diet of bible verses in order to get cured.
Go to bed. Take 2 bible verses a day with a glass of water. Report back
after being 10 years on this Bible Medicine ... or arrange for your
obituary to be posted on the ngs if you kick the bucket beforehand.
> What a wanker!
Creationist wankers will not respond if you call them wankers. ;-)
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> I am not a 'bibliolater', a term of derision used by some on this
forum
> for folk such as me. But because I submit myself to the lordship of
> Christ, I take my lead from him. In many places Jesus said, "It is
> written" and he said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
One question.
You seem to present John 10:35 as a proof text for Scripture being (a)
the word of God, and (b) it being inerrant.
I'm just wondering what your understanding is of the legal aspects of
the Greek word used to convey the idea of 'not being broken', for
Christ himself was not talking about the Bible as we know it, but at
best, about the Law and the Prophets.. As far as I can tell, the whole
nuance of this 'broken' statement was that Scripture could stand as a
witness to God..
Surely it is beneficial to understand the culture and context of the
language used *before* applying any ideas you may have picked up from
the culture of the current day over it, right?
lawrence
Don
> On 2 May 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote:
> Christ is Risen!
He is risen indeed!
Thanks for the heads up, Athanasius. I appreciate knowing that I have
at least one friend on this forum! And we don't *have* to agree on
*everything* to recognize each other as brothers in the Lord. But
acceptance of the hisorical reality of Jesus' resurrection would have
to be a necessity, I think we would agree. But from what you have
already said, I'm sure that there is much, much more that we would
agree upon.
Blessings in Jesus,
Don
Don
be easily demonstrated. Another way of referring to it was 'Moses and
the prophets'. Sometimes Jesus spelt out all three categories: Law,
Prophets and Writings/Psalms (Torah, Nevim, K'tuvim = TANAKH) and
used them as authoritative (Luke 24:44). Genesis is certainly one of
the books of Moses. In the context (yes, context is very important,
just as I said!), I am not using this verse, or any other from the NT,
to 'prove' the authority of the NT, merely the OT (yet Jesus also
implied that His Apostles would write Scripture, as explained in
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp ). Note
the heading: "I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow
his example in his attitude to the *Old Testament scriptures*" - (and
this includes Genesis, which I thought was the focus of our discussion
;).
Regarding the cultural context, John Gill, a Bible commentator learned
in Talmudic teachings, etc., wrote:
'and the Scripture cannot be broken'; or be made null and void;
whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting
to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud {y};
when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of
debate, another says, [Hebrew script], "it may be broken"; or objected
to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot
be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation
of that.
{y} T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.
So I can't see how this cultural understanding overturns my use of
Jesus' statement; rather, it *reinforces* it. Jesus, here and
elsewhere (please note the other material I cited in point 1, but which
does note exhaust the statements by Jesus about the issue) shows his
attitude towards the whole OT is that of utmost respect for it as the
Word of God. He never disparaged it, criticized it, or indicated that
there was any fault with it. He amplified it at times, but never
questioned it (unlike, it seems, several who have rushed in to post on
this forum).
Of course anyone who does not worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour is
quite free to take a different view to Jesus, but as one who honours
Jesus as God the Son, I take my cue from him.
Mark T said that Jesus was wrong in believing that Adam and Eve, the
Flood, etc., were real events. Well how can one worship a person who
is errant? And if you can be a 'Christian' without worshiping /
honouring / obeying Jesus, the word has lost all meaning.
BTW, Mark, I am not forcing my views on anyone. You seem quite keen to
push your views, so I could just as easily take offence at you 'forcing
your views' on others. My views, like anyone else's, are in the market
place of ideas and will be judged however people see fit to judge them.
If you had bothered to read my story (link near the beginning), you
know that I was at one time most definitely a Christian while at the
time believing in evolution, so I do not simply reject anyone who does
not agree with me as being an unbeliever (nor do any of my colleagues
at AiG). This is a gross caricature. AiG has been totally consistent
in this, e.g.
* Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading
creationist answers an often-asked question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp
* The big picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does not
automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that
makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/bigpicture.asp
* Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/literalcreation.asp
(concludes
The short answer is 'No'. The long answer is 'No, but ...'.)
We have also pointed out that our founding chairman, Prof. John
Rendle-Short, was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/creation.asp
Don
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
<header trim>
> The law and the prophets is shorthand for the Old Testament, which
can
> be easily demonstrated. Another way of referring to it was 'Moses
and
> the prophets'. Sometimes Jesus spelt out all three categories: Law,
> Prophets and Writings/Psalms (Torah, Nevim, K'tuvim = TANAKH) and
> used them as authoritative (Luke 24:44). Genesis is certainly one of
> the books of Moses. In the context (yes, context is very important,
> just as I said!), I am not using this verse, or any other from the
NT,
> to 'prove' the authority of the NT, merely the OT (yet Jesus also
> implied that His Apostles would write Scripture, as explained in
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp ). Note
> the heading: "I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I
follow
> his example in his attitude to the *Old Testament scriptures*" - (and
> this includes Genesis, which I thought was the focus of our
discussion
> ;).
I'm just curious, that's all. Most people I've seen tout John 10:35 as
a proof text for inerrancy don't actually understand its context when
if they actually understood the context of what they're quoting it
would make them rethink their position significantly.
I'm not here to take part in the Genesis debate. I'm just going to
watch from the sidelines if that's okay once my curiosity is satisfied.
;)
> Regarding the cultural context, John Gill, a Bible commentator
learned
> in Talmudic teachings, etc., wrote:
>
> 'and the Scripture cannot be broken'; or be made null and void;
> whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or
objecting
> to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud {y};
> when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point
of
> debate, another says, [Hebrew script], "it may be broken"; or
objected
> to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture
cannot
> be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation
> of that.
>
> {y} T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.
And I agree with this rendering and affirm it as a better understanding
that what is presented on AiG from your supplied link, which states
"John 10:35 '... and the scriptures cannot be broken.' -
self-explanatory", which is by no means self-explanatory. If it was
self-explanatory, why did Gill need to flesh out that it's a Jewish
legal / debate term ?? (Error of ommission on AiG's part, perhaps..)
There is an entire cultural context that is missing from AiG (as seen
above, which I affirm) in this regard if you wish to *teach* people a
correct understanding of the Scriptures.
> So I can't see how this cultural understanding overturns my use of
> Jesus' statement; rather, it *reinforces* it.
It does overturn the doctrine of inerrancy, however. Jesus' statements
still stand because we're not doctoring the context in this case..
It overturns this doctrine in two very distinct, provable and
demonstrated ways:
1) Firstly, there is an issue with context. As Gill points out, the use
of this Jewish nuance is within arguments, legal debate and the like.
This means we need a Jewish understanding to get *our* perspective
right as we are not in the culture and times when these words were
written. We cannot simply apply our 21st century understanding over
this verse with just a simple "self-explanatory" statement, for to do
so ignores the context and culture in which it was written. This means
Jesus was using it to show how much authority Scripture had, and
nothing more (as per Gill and what I've said), right ??
With me so far ?? Good..
2) Secondly, there is an apparent issue with history. The doctrine of
Scriptural inerrancy is a relatively modernistic Protestant phenomena
(post 1600s, iirc). This means the cultural context for the doctrine of
Scriptural inerrancy is pretty much in direct opposition to a 1st
century Jewish understanding. It therefore remains unreasonable and
illogical to cookie-cut a 17th century Protestant phenomena out of a
1st century understanding. Anyone who believes in innerancy therefore
cannot use John 10:35 as a proof text for their belief.
This is further confirmed by looking through the ANF/ECF archives, the
history of the Early Church, to see if there is any confirming theology
for the doctrine of inerrancy based on John 10:35, and there isn't
any.. 600+ years of silence from the Church on them using John 10:35
for any form of inerrancy doesn't exactly bode well for those who wish
to defend inerrancy using John 10:35..
So if the history and context of anyone using John 10:35 as a support
for the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy not only contradicts the
culture and language in which John 10:35 was written, but also the
collated history of the Church, what does that tell you about the
doctrine of inerrancy ?
> Jesus, here and
> elsewhere (please note the other material I cited in point 1, but
which
> does note exhaust the statements by Jesus about the issue) shows his
> attitude towards the whole OT is that of utmost respect for it as the
> Word of God. He never disparaged it, criticized it, or indicated
that
> there was any fault with it. He amplified it at times, but never
> questioned it (unlike, it seems, several who have rushed in to post
on
> this forum).
This I don't doubt. What I do doubt is whether your use of John 10:35
to help build a case for inerrancy is correct, and that cascades into
whether the entire doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy actually holds any
water or sound judgement..
lawrence
Mark T
> Mark T said that Jesus was wrong in believing that Adam and Eve, the
> Flood, etc., were real events. Well how can one worship a person who
> is errant?
I don't know as I don't worship any human. I worship the One God, YHWH just
as Jesus instructed us all to do.
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the FIRST and
GREATEST COMMANDMENT. And the SECOND is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO COMMANDMENTS." -
Matthew 22:37-40
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
COMMANDMENTS, which is the MOST IMPORTANT?" "The MOST IMPORTANT ONE,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God (GOD NOT THE
MESSIAH) the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all
your strength.' (Mark12:28-30)
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, WHAT SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he
answered, "You shall love the Lord your God (GOD NOT THE MESSIAH) with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have
answered right; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28)
These are repeated THREE TIMES. They are in each of the synoptic
gospels. The commandments do not mention anything about the finite
human Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah ...or about being born again.
Why do fundamentalist creationists fail to obey the greatest commandment and
worship the Christ / Messiah (the Anointed of God) instead of the One God,
YHWH?
> And if you can be a 'Christian' without worshiping /
> honouring / obeying Jesus, the word has lost all meaning.
If you can only be a Christian by being a fundamentalist then the word
"Christian" has lost all its meaning for Messiah / Christ does not mean God
but the Anointed One of the One God. Messiah / Chroist is not the same as
the One God, YHWH.
> BTW, Mark, I am not forcing my views on anyone.
You may not be forcing your views but creationists want creationist
pseudo-science taught as science in state school science classes. As a
Christian, educator and parent I am totally opposed to such a move.
> My views, like anyone else's, are in the market
> place of ideas and will be judged however people see fit to judge them.
Then please explain how creationism works for an atheist / Moslem /
Buddhist.
> I do not simply reject anyone who does not agree with me as being an
> unbeliever > (nor do any of my colleagues at AiG). This is a gross
> caricature.
Not according to Ken Ham who I have spoken with in a private conversation.
According to Ken Ham any Christian who does not believe in creationism is
not a "true Christian". I'm glad that you think that your para-church
organisation understands that there is not only one view on how God created
the universe.
> * Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading
> creationist answers an often-asked question:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp
My comments marked with #.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is Required to be a Christian?
But can one really be a born-again Christian and an evolutionist at the same
time? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# I am not a fundamentalist "born again" Christian ... though I used to be a
fundamentalist "born again" Christian. I am simply a Christian who takes
seriously the greatest commanment according to the Christ in Matthew
22:37-40, Mark12:28-30, Luke 10:25-28 ... which fundamentalists ignore in
preference to the later written Gospel of John.
One does not have to believe fundamentalist dogma in order to be a
Christian.
Fundamentalism is on the lower rungs of mental health and the lower Stages
of Faith.
****************************************************
Robin Skinner & John Cleese "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - (Methuen;
London:1993)
p. 270 - 271
John: So a religious idea will be interpreted by a person in a way that fits
in best with their existing psychology?
Robin: Yes, and it can therefore support them in functioning at the best
level they're capable of, given their limitations. ... Well, take people
functioning at the least healthy level first. They'll understand religion
as a collection of rules, of rewards and punishments, of threats and
promises, all enfoced by a powerful and frightening God.
John: The extreme black-and-white thinking found in young children?
Robin: That's exactly what it is. The thinking of such people has got
stuck at that level, and though it's normal in a very young child, it's
obviously unhealthy in an adult.
...
John: And how is God experienced?
Robin: He's seen as a terrifying, domineering, bad-temprered dictator, who
wants everyone to spend heir time admiring him and telling him how
marvellous he is. ... So naturally people holding this view feel they have
to do lots of things to keep Him sweet, so that He won't get into a bad mood
and blast them with thunderbolts, or boils, or rivers of blood.
p. 287
John: Well, everything that you've been saying implies that
[Fundamentalism] is a manifestation of a fairly low level of mental health,
doesn't it? For a start, Fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation
of scripture, and as we saw when we were discussing secular values, focusing
in on the letter of the law is a characteristic of the less healthy. In
addition, wise people tend not to exhibit literal mindedness, so it seems
singularly inappropriate to assume that this is the vein in which great
spiritual teahers are speaking. Then again, whether we're talking about
Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, the values of Fundamentalists seem
aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all negative and
destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and enjoying the
golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know that simile:
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the Inquisition did
largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they? Wasn't burning
heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
******************************************************
Stages of Faith, by James W. Fowler (published in paperback by
Harper Collins, 1995.)
Stage 1--Magical World
ages 2-6, perceives the world through lens of imagination and intuition
unrestrained by logic e.g., lives in a magical world in which anything is
possible
Stage 2--Concrete Family
ages 6-12, sees the world as a story--concrete, literal, narrative family of
ritual and myth e.g., "In the beginning, God created the . . ."
~Stage 2 collapses when teenagers use newfound power of abstract thought to
deconstruct previous understanding of the world e.g., risk of rejecting
religious beliefs of parents, and identifying with surrounding secular
culture
Stage 3--Faith Community *
teenager to early adulthood or beyond, sees the world through the lens of
the peer community e.g., unconsciously "catches" faith, values, and way of
thinking from peer group or subculture tends not to question the accepted
ways of thinking e.g., "if the Bible says . . . it must be true" or "if some
group says . . . it's the Truth" difficult dealing calmly and rationally
with issues that touches on one's identity
Stage 4--Rational Constructs *
adulthood (if) traditional answers stop making sense e.g., beliefs
previously unquestioned are called into account; develops the capacity to
step back (usually for the first time) and examine beliefs with reason
universe is reconstructed with self-chosen concepts might experience deep
disappointment/anger on finding some beliefs did not stand up to
investigation
Stage 5--Numinous (Supernatural/Mysterious) Universe
mid-life or latter (if) it seems we have run up against the limits of
rational thought
e.g., the search for certainty can end in feelings of failure/despair; we
come to live in a spiritual universe of mystery, wonder, and paradox e.g.,
we might return to sacred symbol, story, tradition, liturgy, spiritual
community, but no longer captured in a theological box
Stage 6--Selfless Service **
rare stage for many; identifies deeply with all humanity, and spends
themselves in
service of worldwide issues of love, and justice e.g., Mahatma Gandhi,
Mother Theresa, etc.
________________
(*) To those in stage 3 or higher, the next stage looks like a loss of
faith, and the previous stage is repulsive. This can be seen when stage 3
engages in witch hunting, and stage 4 baits and taunts stage 3.
*********************************************************
> * The big picture: Being wrong about the six days of creation does not
> automatically mean someone is not a Christian. But if you think that
> makes it unimportant, stand back and look at the big picture ...
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/bigpicture.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The big picture
Being wrong about the six days of creation does not automatically mean
someone is not a Christian. But if you think that makes it unimportant,
stand back and look at the big picture....
by Ken Ham
....
the authority of the Word of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The bible is not the "Word of God". The bible is a collection of ancient
books about other people's experience of God. As such it has no inherent
authority of itself.. The final authority is the One God, YHWH, not the
bible. Abraham knew God without a bible, so did Moses.
If one uses "scripture to explain scripture" then one must take seriously
the claims of the Koran which was written after the close of the New
Testament. The Koran accepts both the New and Old Testaments and Jesus as
the Christ and uses scripture to claim that Mohammed is the final prophet.
Obviously, fundamentalist creationists are not eager for the same
hermeneutics of "scripture to explain scripture" being granted to Moslems
... or any other religion.
Science works for ALL people but creationism only works for fundamentalist
Christians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once Christians concede to the world that we don't have to take the words in
Genesis as written, but can use outside beliefs (e.g. age of Earth) to
(re)interpret Scripture-then the door to do this throughout the whole of
Scripture has been unlocked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# That is great news! I hope and pray that it happens universally soon.
It may finally end the Dark Age of Fundamentalism!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now it is true that whether one believes in six literal days or not doesn't
ultimately affect one's salvation, if one is truly born again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The fundamentalist dogmatic interpretation of being "born again" is not
universally held by all Christians.
The just shall live by faith..... in the One God YHWH ....... not faith in
in the bible!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But once the door of compromise has been unlocked, once Christian leaders
concede that we shouldn't take the Bible as written in Genesis, why should
the world take heed of it in any area?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Some of the bible should be rejected ... and IS rejected by most
Christians.
Slavery is no longer accepted in Western Churches yet is condoned in both
Old and New Testaments.
On the other hand fundamnentalist creationists accept and condone usury but
the bible has more to say against usury than homosexuality.
Fundamnentalist creationists are selective in what they want to take from
the bible ... very much the same as us Liberal Christians in that respect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the church has told the world that one can use man's interpretation
of the world (such as billions of years) to reinterpret the Bible, it is
seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect 'holy book', not intended to
be taken as written.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Amen! The bible is not a science textbook. One does not "do science" by
looking up the bible!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open
further and further-increasingly, they are not accepting the morality or
salvation of the Bible either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Fundamentalism has done more to injure Christianity than the Inquisition.
As for morality, see the lack of morality of fundamentalist creationists in
therir stance on usury and slavery (as mentioned above.) Jesus of Nazraeth,
the Christ, would call that hypocrisy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct as written, how can one
be sure the rest can be taken as written?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# This is the fundamentalist creationists' biggest fear (though all
fundamentalism is built on fear).
Creationism is about the defence of a fundamentalist view on the bible more
than anything remotely concerned with science. It places the bible above
God as the final authority.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The collapse of Christianity in the once 'Christian' West is directly
related to the issue of Biblical authority-which is directly related to the
issue of the days of Creation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The collapse of fundamentalist Christianity ( not Christianity as a whole)
is directly related to the absurd claims of fundamentalism and creationism
that cannot be substantiated in the real world.
The bible is not the final authority on anything! The One God, YHWH is the
final authority. Fundamentalist creationists are addicted to a book ( the
fallible man made bible) rather than devoted to the One God, YHWH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The battle is not one of young Earth vs old Earth, or billions of years vs
six days, or creation vs evolution-the real battle is the authority of the
Word of God vs man's fallible theories.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The battle is about fundamentalism vs everyone else on planet earth ...
including other Christians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those in the Church who do not accept God's Word as written concerning the
literal days of Creation have greatly contributed to the Christian demise of
the culture, and will be held responsible before the Lord for leading so
many lives astray.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Fundamentalist creationists who think the fallible finite man made bible
is somehow "God's Word" that proclaims the literal days of creation have
greatly contributed to the misuse of one's God given brain in the current
Fundamentalist Dark Age, and will be held responsible before the One God,
YHWH, for leading so many lives astray with their pseudo-science ratbaggery.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They have undermined the text of Scripture because they didn't accept the
words as written.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The literalism of fundamentalist creatrionism is an illogical irratioonal
stance.
The bible should be examined like any other Ancient Near East document.
Doing so reveals the many problems in the "bible is inerrant" theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The real issue is one of authority-is God's Word the authority, or is man's
word the authority?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# The real issue is fundamentalist Christianity vs science by all other
people (including other Christians)
One does not do science by looking up a bible verse!
> * Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/literalcreation.asp
> (concludes
> The short answer is 'No'. The long answer is 'No, but ...'.)
# The "but" is a problem for all non-fundamentalist Christians!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Becoming a Christian
In the New Testament, a Christian is seen as someone who does two things:
1.. Believes that Jesus Christ (who was fully God and fully man), through
His death on the Cross and His Resurrection, has paid the penalty for our
sin. Cf. 'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your
heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved' (Romans 10:9).1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# This is fundamentalist dogma not universally accepted by all Christians.
As such, all nonfundamentalist Christians are viewed as "not true
Christians" by our fundamentalist creationist bretheren.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is true that one can go through the steps of becoming a Christian without
accepting or even knowing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall.6
However, such a minimal belief system misses out on the full measure of what
God has provided as the basis for our coming into a right relationship with
Him. .... This leads to a shallow faith ... resist the attacks and ridicule
of sceptics, atheists, liberal religious leaders, fellow students, or
work-mates, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# As I have stated before - fundamentalist creationists do not view other
Christians as equals ... especially not Liberal Christians such as myself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today Genesis is under attack as never before-not only by sceptics who
ridicule it, but also by 'Christian' teachers who, in their books and
sermons, blatantly misrepresent what the text says, to try and make it
conform to the conclusions of some of modern science, with its antitheistic
presuppositions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# I am a Christian teacher. I do not accept creationism as holding any
redeemable truth regarding science.
The biggest lie of creationism is that "modern science" has "antitheistic
presuppositions". Modern science is opposed to pseudo-science and therfore
opposed to the quackery of fundamentalist crteatiinism as it falsely claims
to represent ALL Christians.
Fundamentalism does not represent ALL Christianity!
One of the biggest Christian denominations, Catholicism, has no problem with
evolution or an old earth.
Fundamentalist creationists exclude all Catholics! Fundamentalist
creatinism is not taught in Catholic Schools.
Fundamentalist creationism only works for fundamentalists!
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer: The key to understanding the meaning of any book of the Bible is to
ask, 'What was the intention of the author?' When we do this with Genesis
(e.g. by comparing the style of the first chapters with that of the rest of
Genesis),7 it is very evident that Moses' purpose, under God, was to write
an authentic, historical and factual account, beginning with the creation of
the universe and Earth, and then narrating the history of mankind from the
creation of Adam to the death of Joseph (Genesis 50:26).8,9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Fundamentalist dogma again! There were several authors of Genesis as
clearly demoinstrated by the first two chapeters! Moses did not write all
of Genesis!
Moses apparently wrote about his own death. A miracle!!!!!
Deuteronomy 34:5-6 (New International Version)
5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had
said. 6 He buried him [a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to
this day no one knows where his grave is.
Moses as author of Deuteronomy also refers to himself in the third
person!!! Another miracle!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a slippery slope into unbelief that accompanies disbelieving any
part of the Word of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# More fundamentalist dogma! One is supposed to use one's God-given brain!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As can be seen above, the foundation of creationism is fundamentalist dogma.
If you are not a fundamentalist then you cannot be a true creationist for
the two are inseparable.
If creationism is true then it needs to be able to work for Liberal
Christians such as myself ... and atheists, and Hindus, and Buddhists etc
etc etc.
Creationism is a fundamentalist apologetic and not science. It is required
to back up fundamentalist belief. Creationism does not work for anyone
except fundamentalists.
The basic questions for this thread remain .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEOLOGY
1. Is the fundamentalist view of the bible the ONLY correct view to be held
by ALL Christians (including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox faiths)?
2. Is ALL of Genesis to be considered as history? (This must also address
the problem of Moses writing about his own death and the two different
creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2! If any part of Genesis can shown to be
faulty then Geneisis is not inerrant and "Answers in GENESIS" have a faulty
foundation.)
SCIENCE
1. What is science?
2. What is pseudo-science?
[Note that this is not a faith issue as creationists like to suggest.]
Theology is not science.
Science is not theology.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
swa...@ozemail.com.au
about to start I phoned an Islamic Centre to ask if a member or
members of their religion could do something to prevent the situation.
In the course of the conversation I was told that Jesus had said that
someone would come after Him whose shoelaces he was not worthy to
untie. From that it was determined that Mohammed was prophesised by
Jesus. (Also in a study of Ceramics around the world including Islamic
ceramics one text and perhaps two stated that Mohammed had used the
Biblical Scriptures (obvious from only a little reading of the Koran.)
According to the New Testament John the Baptist said of Jesus the he,
John, was not worthy to unloose His shoe laces.
(Mark 1 : 7)
That was about six hundred years before the writing of the Koran.
I had determined not to come into this newsgroup. Nevertheless, I
believe that it is right that I make these comments, but I do hope they
are not developed to any great extent as they are off the subject. .
One further point there is an attitude being developed in the wider
community 'that all roads lead to God.' That is not the Christian
faith. Jesus Christ said that He is the way, the Truth and the Life. No
one comes to the Father except through Him.
The Great Commission to the disciples was to go into all the world to
preach the Gospel.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>
>I want to say firstly that I am not anti-science; that would be very
>strange for someone who worked for 17 years as a research scientist and
>really enjoyed doing my research.
Later you admit to being anti-science.
>I take the Bible as authoritative,
You should said that from the start. We can now reject anything you say.
Piss off loon.
Barry
Barry OGrady
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>
>>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>
>>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>
>With the length of this, I won't try responding immediately.
>I'll have to take it away, read it carefully, and then make a
>response.
>
>But with over 700 lines, don't expect a response to everything in one
>posting.
>I'll try responding to it a couple of hundred lines (or so) at a time.
Don't bother responding until you decide whether you are Christian or sceptic.
Nobody takes you seriously.
>Salaam
>Ken Smith
Barry
Barry OGrady
>Athanasius wrote:
>> On 2 May 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote:
>
>> Christ is Risen!
>
>He is risen indeed!
Take it to the gay news groups you pair of queers.
>Don
Barry
Barry OGrady
wrote:
>
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote in message
>news:1115042847.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>> the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>> trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>>
>> How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>> Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>>
>> I want to say firstly that I am not anti-science; that would be very
>> strange for someone who worked for 17 years as a research scientist and
>> really enjoyed doing my research. You can find something of my career
>> at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and more
>> of my journey at
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/fruit.asp.
>
>Thank you Don
>
>Excellent
>
>And yes, it would be a good idea to separate the points - though let's keep
>it all within this thread for the moment eh? Perhaps down the track it might
>get too cumbersome and we'll separate the threads from one another...
You have nothing of value to say.
>Rowland Croucher
Barry
Barry OGrady
>On 2 May 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote:
>
>>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>>
>>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>
>Christ is Risen!
Christ must be using viagra.
>Don,
>
> May I say I am thankful to God
Another idiot to be ignored.
Piss off loon.
Barry
Sean McHugh
I thought I read somewhere that Don said he would be happy to debate
you in any forum. That is the reason for my suggestion. I won't go
hunting for it, and both parties please accept my apology, in advance,
if I am wrong. Anyway, it's your debate and I will make no more
comment regarding the venue. I was asked for my thoughts and that's
why I provided them.
All the best to both participants,
Sean McHugh
Don
about. Even modern eyes can understand what it means, while Gill
provides a deeper Jewish understanding that further strengthens what an
English reader would understand. And this is in the context of Jesus'
repeated teaching that Scripture was completely authoritative on
everything it teaches, including the parts that sceptics scoff at
today. I can't see that John 10:35 is being misused at all and Jesus
made many other statements to reinforce the concept anyway.
Inerrancy is most definitely *not* a modern idea. The phrase 'biblical
inerrancy' is relatively recent, but the concept is most certainly not.
Look at Augustine's first letter to Jerome:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm "For it seems to me that
most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that
anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the
men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to
writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question
whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it
is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of
Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question -- it is no
question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of
authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will
not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any
one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal
rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and
under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true."
That's a pretty clear statement about inerrancy, although if you
searched for the term 'inerrancy' you would not find it, of course.
The dispute between Protestants and Catholics was never over inerrancy
(implicitly accepted on all sides) but authority: the Bible plus church
or the Bible alone (sola scriptura). In the early church, both the
heretics and the orthodox appealed to Scripture as authoritative (the
heretics misused it, but the point remains that there is a complete
absence of any hint that the teachings of Scripture were wrong). The
creeds concentrated on the things where there was divergence (deity of
Christ, for example).
The only reason that evangelicals need to spell out 'inerrancy' today
is the modern fashion for denying it.
Don
Don
If regarding the Bible as authoritative means I am anti-science, then
you have to dismiss many of the great founders of modern science as
anti-science. Pascal wrote, "Except by Jesus Christ we know not what
our life is, what our death is, what God is, what we are ourselves.
Thus, without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we
know nothing, and we only see obscurity and confusion in the nature of
God and in nature herself." --- Blaise Pascal (1623-62), The
thoughts, letters and opuscules of Blaise Pascal, Translated from the
French by O.W. Wright, Hurd & Houghton, NY, 1964, p. 335.
Oh, and you can write Newton off---he wrote much more on theology than
he wrote on physics and calculus. And you can forget Kepler, who saw
his research as "thinking God's thoughts after him". And Robert Boyle,
and ... Indeed, even secular historians have noted that modern science
arose because of the Christian (i.e., Bible-based) mindset of the
intellectuals of the day. See, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp.
Dr Loren E. Eiseley, a leading science historian and evolutionist
(1907-1977) concluded:
'[by] The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and
could be interpreted by rational minds... The philosophy of
experimental science ...began its discoveries and made use of its
method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a
rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim or
interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental
method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that
brought it into existence owes something to the Christian conception of
the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of
history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith,
owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally
interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.'
(Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Man who Discovered it.
Doubleday, New York, 1969,p.62.)
I see nothing in the Bible that contradicts experimental science; only
the story telling that goes in the guise of historical science.
Don
Rowland Croucher
> Athanasius wrote:
>> On 2 May 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote:
>
>> Christ is Risen!
>
> He is risen indeed!
>
> Thanks for the heads up, Athanasius. I appreciate knowing that I have
> at least one friend on this forum!
Don, make that two (I have many friends with whom I might disagree). And
you'd better add Gladys: she's been a lone voice here pro-creationism... and
will no doubt be encouraged by your participation...
BTW: it's a good protocol in newsgroups to put at the top the person/post
you're responding to, as you've done in this one...
> And we don't *have* to agree on
> *everything* to recognize each other as brothers in the Lord.
It will be interesting to see what we come up with in terms of a 'minimal
creed' on this question. For example, Mark Tindall is a self-confessed
liberal Christian who acknowledges Jesus as Lord, but whose 'Christian'
credentials are mostly (always?) denied by fundamentalist Christians... (One
or two of them are also praying for my conversion to Christ, despite my
evangelicalism - and being a critic of theological liberalism: see
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm ).
>But
> acceptance of the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection would have
> to be a necessity, I think we would agree. But from what you have
> already said, I'm sure that there is much, much more that we would
> agree upon.
Is Spong a Christian then? He believes Jesus 'appeared' to the disciples as
he 'appeared' to Paul - not necessarily physically...
> Blessings in Jesus,
>
> Don
Thanks for all this Don: when do you leave for overseas? We need to make the
most of your contributions before you go, unless you participate in
newsgroups while you attend conferences :-)!!!
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> 'Scripture cannot be broken'. I'm afraid I cannot see what you are
on
> about.
Don, I am on about the provable, demonstrated fact where people claim
John 10:35 as part of a proof to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
Such a claim contradicts the known history of the Church in regards to
THIS VERSE and in regards to the context the original language suggest.
If nobody prior to the latter day Protestant movement associated with
fundamentalism was EVER using this verse inside the Church to talk of
Scripture being inerrant, it can mean one of two things:
1) The Church has been wrong in the teaching on this verse, up until
the fundamentalists fixed the error (1600 to 1800 years lag time)
2) The person spouting John 10:35 as part of the doctrine of inerrancy
is wrong, as there is NO confirming theology present for this verse
ANYWHERE within the entire ANF/ECF and Catholic archives.
> Even modern eyes can understand what it means, while Gill
> provides a deeper Jewish understanding that further strengthens what
an
> English reader would understand.
So if modern eyes can understand what it means, why is there no
consistent, reliable record within the Church of anyone using John
10:35 as a proof text for inerrancy until the Fundamentalist movement
arrived on the scene ?
> And this is in the context of Jesus'
> repeated teaching that Scripture was completely authoritative on
> everything it teaches, including the parts that sceptics scoff at
> today. I can't see that John 10:35 is being misused at all and Jesus
> made many other statements to reinforce the concept anyway.
Then I ask what history you are considering.
I've been through the ANF/ECF and Catholic archives and fail to find
anything even remotely equivalent to what fundamentalists are doing in
using John 10:35 as a proof text for inerrancy.
> Inerrancy is most definitely *not* a modern idea. The phrase
'biblical
> inerrancy' is relatively recent, but the concept is most certainly
not.
I already knew this. I've had this line of thought pitched before.
> Look at Augustine's first letter to Jerome:
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm "For it seems to me that
> most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that
> anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the
> men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to
> writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one
question
> whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but
it
> is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of
> Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question -- it is
no
> question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of
> authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will
> not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to
any
> one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same
fatal
> rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and
> under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true."
>
> That's a pretty clear statement about inerrancy, although if you
> searched for the term 'inerrancy' you would not find it, of course.
Augustine believed a few interesting things, demonstrating that he,
even
as the leader of the Catholic Church, wasn't always correct. To err is
human after all..
Augustine believed tongues "died out" because the "known world" had
heard of God, similar to the modern day theology that Jesus is coming
back when the "known world" has heard of him (somewhere in the City of
God, iirc). He was wrong in this.
Augustine states elsewhere (which is a more used 'historical' claim for
the inerrantists) "If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in
Scripture, it is not allowable to say, 'The author of this book is
mistaken'; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is
wrong, or you have not understood" (AF 11.5). If you read the entire
summation of Augustine's argument it goes thus: Faustus found a
contradiction in the Bible. Augustine says that contradiction doesn't
matter and the person who sees the contradiction is in error because
the
Bible is sacred, or well, nothing really matters anymore. This line of
defence by Augustine is a flawed argument. Basically anyone who
disagrees with Augustine is wrong, even if there is proof, evidence and
ALL the things that would qualify a case as sound, rigourous and having
integrity. I do believe he errs in this area in the same way he erred
regarding the "known world" hearing of Christ.
Throwing out evidence merely because it doesn't agree with you is NOT a
sign of integrity, and that is in essence what Augustine is suggesting
people do..
Scripture says God values those who have integrity. Why would God value
someone searing their conscience so they couldn't question something ?
> The dispute between Protestants and Catholics was never over
inerrancy
> (implicitly accepted on all sides) but authority: the Bible plus
church
> or the Bible alone (sola scriptura).
Then why does the Chicago statement on inerrancy explicitly state:
"We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church,
tradition, or any other human source"
and
"We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority
greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible."
..if not to stave off questioning whether the Scripture recieve
authority from the Church or not. That is what these two denials
address.
You say you affirm the Chicago statement, but this means, from where I
stand, an apparent contradiction on your part. The Chicago statement
goes into *explicit verbatim* detail about what you are taking on board
when you affirm the doctrine of inerrancy and you are now publically
stating inerrancy is around for a *different* reason.
Bite the bullet or rewrite your stance, please.
> In the early church, both the
> heretics and the orthodox appealed to Scripture as authoritative (the
> heretics misused it, but the point remains that there is a complete
> absence of any hint that the teachings of Scripture were wrong).
There is also a complete absense of ANYONE within the Church using John
10:35 to say the Scriptures are either infallible and inerrant.
I do believe since you are the one claiming John 10:35 as a proof text,
it is your responsibility to provide sufficient evidence from the
history of the Church as to why the fundamentalist usage /
intepretation / eisegesis is correct..
> The creeds concentrated on the things where there was divergence
(deity of
> Christ, for example).
No problems here. We're not discussing creeds, we're discussing
Scripture (primarily John 10:35) and the doctrine of inerrancy.
> The only reason that evangelicals need to spell out 'inerrancy' today
> is the modern fashion for denying it.
Then where is the proof and evidence to back up such a statement ?
I'll be also waiting for your definitive proof on why the
fundamentalist usage of John 10:35 as a proof text for inerrancy is
correct.
lawremce
Ken Smith
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>With the length of this, I won't try responding immediately.
>I'll have to take it away, read it carefully, and then make a
>response.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I forgot to look at the newsgroups line and sent this to alt.* :-(
Please forgive me, everyone.
>But with over 700 lines, don't expect a response to everything in one
>posting.
>I'll try responding to it a couple of hundred lines (or so) at a time.
A first comment.
At the end of the paragraph about Chris Ho-Stuart, Don seems to be
u7nder the impression (as are a number of other people) that this is a
"Christian forum", to use his words.
Could anyone who wants to take part in this thread please read the FAQ
for this group at
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/arc
For present purposes the most relevant part of this is
2. What is aus.religion.christian?
----------------------------------
Aus.religion.christian is a newsgroup for discussion of
Christianity and issues relevant to Christianity, for
Australians or people connected with Australia.
aus.religion.christian os _not_ a Christian newsgroup.
It is for _discussion of Christianity_
Can we all bear that in mind, and nor assume that everyone who gets
involved in this thread is a Christian.
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`We might have to tighten our belts.'
`A tight belt,' said Roger, `looks silly on a skeleton.'
from John Christopher, "The Death of Grass"
Ken Smith
>On Mon, 2 May 2005 23:02:57 +0000 (UTC), k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken
>Smith) wrote:
>>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>>
>>>This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then
>>>the case is not insubstantial. :-) I won't be bothering to reply to
>>>trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.
>>
>>>How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
>>>Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.
>>
>>With the length of this, I won't try responding immediately.
>>I'll have to take it away, read it carefully, and then make a
>>response.
>>
>>But with over 700 lines, don't expect a response to everything in one
>>posting.
>>I'll try responding to it a couple of hundred lines (or so) at a time.
>Ken, from one who is very interested in this impending dialogue, can
>we please maybe agree to break up Don's post into agreed bite size
>pieces?
>I think the excellent way he has set his post out will make it easy to
>do so. Then we can tackle each topic which is raised independently of
>the whole?/
>What do you think?
>My recomendation would be to follow Don's point numbering system and
>keep each section as a seperate post to be dealt with or left as
>agreed. What do you and others reckon?
Seems reasonable.
I'm getting together something on the general topic of "inerrancy",
which will refer to some of the past discussions here on that.
Don refers to the Chicago Declaration.
I suspect that this isn't widely known to people who might want to
contribute. I'll dig out something on this as well.
And I suspect that once we start talking about "the original
autographs" the LXX and the way NT writers cited it as scripture will
come into the discussion.
>Peace and grace
>Athanasius, Deacon and sinner.
>http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
>dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
>"The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but not Jewish. It is
>catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it is pre-denominational. It has believed,
>taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost
>2000 years ago."
>"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"But by and large the history of European Christianity is the record of
a church that relies on wealth, power, prestige, and even coercion and
war to advance its cause." Philip Yancey in "Soul Survivor"
Mark T
> The only reason that evangelicals need to spell out 'inerrancy' today
> is the modern fashion for denying it.
As a Christian I deny it. The bible changed throughout its creation. Ideas
about God changed throughout the bible. This evolutionary change occurred
also after the writing (and editing) of the bible. Catholic and Orthodox
churches separated. Cthaolic and Protestant churches separated. Many
different Protestant denominations continue to evolve ... including
pentecostals - a recent phenomenon.
Again, you need to explain why creationism is more focussed on the bible
than on science and why it only works for fundamentalists.
Mark T
> If regarding the Bible as authoritative means I am anti-science, then
> you have to dismiss many of the great founders of modern science as
> anti-science.
The "great founders of modern science" did not all have fundamentalist
belief.
The "great founders of modern science" did not use the bible to find a verse
to get their discovery.
The real issue is fundamentalist Christianity vs science by all other
people (including other Christians)
Science is not theology.
Theology is not science.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
I notice that you have not addressed these claims.
Mark T
> It will be interesting to see what we come up with in terms of a 'minimal
> creed' on this question. For example, Mark Tindall is a self-confessed
> liberal Christian who acknowledges Jesus as Lord, but whose 'Christian'
> credentials are mostly (always?) denied by fundamentalist Christians...
I notice that Don has addressed none of my concerns that creationism only
works for fundamentalists and that all truth is God's truth.
>>But
>> acceptance of the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection would have
>> to be a necessity, I think we would agree. But from what you have
>> already said, I'm sure that there is much, much more that we would
>> agree upon.
>
> Is Spong a Christian then? He believes Jesus 'appeared' to the disciples
> as he 'appeared' to Paul - not necessarily physically...
I believe likewise ... which is why I use the comment by Australia's living
heretic ...
Ken Smith
>Don wrote:
>> I am not a 'bibliolater', a term of derision used by some on this
>forum
>> for folk such as me. But because I submit myself to the lordship of
>> Christ, I take my lead from him. In many places Jesus said, "It is
>> written" and he said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
>One question.
>You seem to present John 10:35 as a proof text for Scripture being (a)
>the word of God, and (b) it being inerrant.
>I'm just wondering what your understanding is of the legal aspects of
>the Greek word used to convey the idea of 'not being broken', for
>Christ himself was not talking about the Bible as we know it, but at
>best, about the Law and the Prophets.. As far as I can tell, the whole
>nuance of this 'broken' statement was that Scripture could stand as a
>witness to God..
The same holds for II Timothy 3:16 about the inspiration of scripture.
In NT times the only scriptures were, as far as scholars have been
able to discern, the Torah and the Prophets - meaning what is known
as the Hebrew Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Sanuel, Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve.
And these were quite often cited from the Greek translation, not from
the Hebrew.
Which raises problems for anyone who claims that the NT writers
believed in the inerrancy of the original autographs - unless they
want to assert that the LXX came before the MT.
Incidentally, now the Lawrence has joined in, should we all declare
our religious affiliation?
The main headings used by the Bureau of Statistics would do: Buddhism,
Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Others, None.
I'll start off by saying that I put myself in the Christian group.
>Surely it is beneficial to understand the culture and context of the
>language used *before* applying any ideas you may have picked up from
>the culture of the current day over it, right?
>lawrence
Salaam
Ken Smith
I may respond at greater length later.
"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>The law and the prophets is shorthand for the Old Testament, which can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be easily demonstrated. Another way of referring to it was 'Moses and
>the prophets'. Sometimes Jesus spelt out all three categories: Law,
>Prophets and Writings/Psalms (Torah, Nevim, K'tuvim = TANAKH) and
>used them as authoritative (Luke 24:44). Genesis is certainly one of
>the books of Moses. In the context (yes, context is very important,
>just as I said!), I am not using this verse, or any other from the NT,
>to 'prove' the authority of the NT, merely the OT (yet Jesus also
>implied that His Apostles would write Scripture, as explained in
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp ). Note
>the heading: "I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow
>his example in his attitude to the *Old Testament scriptures*" - (and
>this includes Genesis, which I thought was the focus of our discussion
>;).
Not really accurate, Don.
The verse you quoted is the only one (if my memory is correct) which
adds teh word "writings".
In all other cases the phrase is simly "the law and the prophets".
There is considerable doubt that in the time of Jesus the canon had
been finally decides.
And certainly there was considerable fluidity about the content of
Psalms.
Athanasius will confirm that the LXX contains 151 psalms.
The Syriac Church accepts 155 psalms.
Three of these additional psalms are now known in Hebrew from the
finds at Qumran
And the Psalm Scroll there (I can't remember the code under which it
goes) had a large number of additional songs/prayers.
And some of the more widely known 150 psalms were in a rather
different form, though recognisable.
These are just some of the things which raise problems about just what
we mean by "the original autographs".
[rest deleted - for the present]
>Don
Mark T
> Scripture says God values those who have integrity.
Which brings me back to creationist claims about Isaac Newton which must
really make one wonder and bout their veracity.
Don wrote ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newton .... wrote much more on theology than
he wrote on physics and calculus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Newton wasn't a fundamentalist!!!!!!
I quote from http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html used in Microsoft®
Encarta®.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newton left a mass of manuscripts on the subjects of alchemy ...Most
importantly in the "Queries" appended to "Opticks" and in the essay "On the
Nature of Acids" (1710), Newton published an incomplete theory of chemical
force, concealing his exploration of the alchemists, which became known a
century after his death. ....
Newton sought to reconcile Greek mythology and record with the Bible,
considered the prime authority on the early history of mankind. In his work
on chronology he undertook to make Jewish and pagan dates compatible, and to
fix them absolutely from an astronomical argument about the earliest
constellation figures devised by the Greeks. He put the fall of Troy at 904
BC, about 500 years later than other scholars; this was not well received.
...
Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was
essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. ... Its message was that
Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of
Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full
extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century:
but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of
Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and
accepted its account of creation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a result Newton would not be accepted as a member in any church that
creationists attend.
The real issue is fundamentalist Christianity vs science by all other
people (including other Christians)
Science is not theology.
Theology is not science.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
I notice that Doin has not addressed any of these claims.
#################################################
My Testimony at http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
#################################################
Ken Smith
We haven't even started to talk about science yet, Sean.
When we do I hope that you'll join in.
I hope we can persuade Don that simply because science works entirely
within the natural world, that implies neither denial nor acceptance
of anything outside the natural world.
Just as when I write a program in C it says nothing about the
existence or non-existence of Pascal or Fortran.
>All the best to both participants,
Thanks, Sean.
I think it's about time I got the system to use a random number
generator (seeded with the Unix time in seconds) to change my
signature.
Having done that, it came up with one of the more suggestive
quotations I have stored.
So as not to offend the more conservative Christians reading this I'll
have another go.
>Sean McHugh
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`[Throwback]'s been a useful superstition to a lot of half-caste women living
in coloured countries,' he said. `It explains a lot of things that might
want a bit of explaining any other way.' David Anderson in "In The Wet"
Ken Smith
"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> writes:
>Thanks for your friendly welcome. :-)
>If regarding the Bible as authoritative means I am anti-science, then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you have to dismiss many of the great founders of modern science as
>anti-science. Pascal wrote, "Except by Jesus Christ we know not what
>our life is, what our death is, what God is, what we are ourselves.
>Thus, without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we
>know nothing, and we only see obscurity and confusion in the nature of
>God and in nature herself." --- Blaise Pascal (1623-62), The
>thoughts, letters and opuscules of Blaise Pascal, Translated from the
>French by O.W. Wright, Hurd & Houghton, NY, 1964, p. 335.
>Oh, and you can write Newton off---he wrote much more on theology than
>he wrote on physics and calculus. And you can forget Kepler, who saw
>his research as "thinking God's thoughts after him". And Robert Boyle,
>and ... Indeed, even secular historians have noted that modern science
>arose because of the Christian (i.e., Bible-based) mindset of the
>intellectuals of the day. See, for example:
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp.
Accepting the Bible as authoritative is not the same as accepting it
as inerrant.
Most peopls are aware that many great scientists from the past were
Christians. But stating that they were "creationists" in the modern
sense of that word is another matter entirely.
People are always influenced by the culture in which they live.
And since the great scientific societies were formed in the
(relatively) early days after the Reformation, it's not surprising
that they were influenced, at least in their public utterances, by the
religious culture.
I suspect that we might get into a distinct thread about just what the
religious beliefs of scientists were.
It's not easy digging these out, and some surprises await thoise who
actually delve into these things.
>Dr Loren E. Eiseley, a leading science historian and evolutionist
>(1907-1977) concluded:
>'[by] The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and
>could be interpreted by rational minds... The philosophy of
>experimental science ...began its discoveries and made use of its
>method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a
>rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim or
>interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental
>method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that
>brought it into existence owes something to the Christian conception of
>the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of
>history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith,
>owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally
>interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.'
>(Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Man who Discovered it.
>Doubleday, New York, 1969,p.62.)
>I see nothing in the Bible that contradicts experimental science; only
>the story telling that goes in the guise of historical science.
I think you mean that you see nothing in _your interpretation_ of the
Bible which contradicts experimental science.
But, of course, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about
virtually all of modern experimental science.
I'll expand on that if anyone wants to disagree or asks for details.
>Don
Salaam
Ken Smith
Br@dley
<>
> We haven't even started to talk about science yet, Sean.
> When we do I hope that you'll join in.
> I hope we can persuade Don that simply because science works entirely
> within the natural world, that implies neither denial nor acceptance
> of anything outside the natural world.
>
> Just as when I write a program in C it says nothing about the
> existence or non-existence of Pascal or Fortran.
Perhaps. Or maybe it means C is a more appropriate/powerful way of
describing/achieving what you want to do? :)
<>
--
regards,
Bradley
A Christian Response
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response
Ken Smith
"Rowland Croucher" <rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote in message
>news:1115100950....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Athanasius wrote:
>>> On 2 May 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christ is Risen!
>>
>> He is risen indeed!
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up, Athanasius. I appreciate knowing that I have
>> at least one friend on this forum!
>Don, make that two (I have many friends with whom I might disagree). And
>you'd better add Gladys: she's been a lone voice here pro-creationism... and
>will no doubt be encouraged by your participation...
>BTW: it's a good protocol in newsgroups to put at the top the person/post
>you're responding to, as you've done in this one...
>> And we don't *have* to agree on
>> *everything* to recognize each other as brothers in the Lord.
>It will be interesting to see what we come up with in terms of a 'minimal
>creed' on this question. For example, Mark Tindall is a self-confessed
>liberal Christian who acknowledges Jesus as Lord, but whose 'Christian'
>credentials are mostly (always?) denied by fundamentalist Christians... (One
>or two of them are also praying for my conversion to Christ, despite my
>evangelicalism - and being a critic of theological liberalism: see
>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm ).
I've been delving through the selection of items posted to a.r.c that
I have at home.
Last night I scanned the files (going back to some time in 1998 when I
acquired a computer with gigabyte hard disk to replace the 200 Mb
machine) for "inerrancy", and there was a thread you started early
last year with the subject "Biblical inerrancy".
I haven't looked at the whole thread, but is it worth you posting your
initial article?
All told, the words "inerrant" or "inerrancy" occurred nearly 200
times.
We seem to have spasms when inerrancy surfaces, but they subside.
>>But
>> acceptance of the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection would have
>> to be a necessity, I think we would agree. But from what you have
>> already said, I'm sure that there is much, much more that we would
>> agree upon.
>Is Spong a Christian then? He believes Jesus 'appeared' to the disciples as
>he 'appeared' to Paul - not necessarily physically...
>> Blessings in Jesus,
>>
>> Don
>Thanks for all this Don: when do you leave for overseas? We need to make the
>most of your contributions before you go, unless you participate in
>newsgroups while you attend conferences :-)!!!
>--
> *
>Shalom! Rowland Croucher
> * *
>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
>(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
Salaam
Rowland Croucher
elsewhere].
Here's a little thing I wrote about biblical inerrancy, in response to Ken’s
request… For the full version visit http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12125.htm
And for many more articles start with the keyword index
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/keyword/i-3.htm
When posted originally I began: You'll note I'm to the right of Mark and to
the left of Bob: exciting for mature discussion. I love this diversity - it
reminds me of the rich
diversity of the early churches described in the NT!.
~~~
The subject of 'biblical inerrancy' is still a hot topic on newsgroups and
in conferences of evangelical Christians. Here's an abridged version of my
thoughts on the matter (from my book 'Recent Trends Among Evangelicals').
Of the three 'canons of authority' in Christian thinking - reason, tradition
and scripture - evangelicals have always affirmed that scripture is 'God's
word in our words' and therefore is always our primary and supreme authority
for all matters of faith and conduct.
[Another ‘canon’ added by some Wesleyans and others would be ‘Christian
experience’].
Although reason and tradition may have been illumined and guided by the Holy
Spirit, they have a secondary and subordinate place to scripture. Why?
Because this was Christ's view of scripture. John Stott, for example, puts
it simply in several of his books: '[Our] view of scripture... is [to be]
Christ's view of scripture. He endorsed the Old Testament, made provision
for the New Testament, and because of Christ we accept the authority of the
book.'
But to affirm the authority of holy Scripture carries with it an obligation
to understand and to interpret it. And we travel this road with some fear
and trepidation. If God has 'yet more light and truth to break forth from
God's holy word', then we must face the hard questions and continue to
wrestle with them.
If the Bible is 'God's word in our words', we are immediately presented with
two dangers: biblical docetism, which to varying degrees denies the real
humanness of the written documents; and biblical Arianism, which denies that
Scripture is truly the word of God.
But if Scripture is truly the word of God, what do we mean by 'truly'? The
founder of L'Abri, Francis Schaeffer, used to ask: 'Is the Bible "true
truth"?' The issue, he said, is whether the Bible gives propositional truth
where it touches history and the cosmos... or whether it is only meaningful
where it touches that which is considered religious. For Schaeffer this was
the watershed issue: 'We draw the line here with love and tears, even if
evangelicals have to separate from one another.'
So for very conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists the authority of
the Bible is an outcome of its inerrancy: 'If you don't have an inerrant
Bible, you don't have an authoritative Bible' (Boice). Mainline evangelicals
object to this elevation of inerrancy over authority as the first claim to
be made for the Bible. For them, to concentrate on inerrancy as the sole
decisive issue is to wage the battle on too narrow a front.
Billy Graham's position is similar to his mentor, Carl Henry's: He has
written and said many times: 'I believe the Bible is the inspired,
authoritative word of God, but I don't use the word "inerrant" because it's
become a brittle, divisive word.' Graham believed that the key issue between
evangelical Christians in the 1980's and 90's would be hermeneutics, or how
to interpret scripture properly and apply it to personal and social life.
The inerrantist view assumes that unless the Bible can be shown to give
trustworthy information on non-religious matters, then it can't be trusted
in the more important religious realm. The neo-orthodox view says the Bible
is a witness to God's primary revelation in Christ, but as all human words
are fallible it is not helpful to speak of the Bible as being in itself the
word of God. It may _become_ the word of God as we encounter God himself in
Jesus Christ through its preaching.
A third model we might call 'progressive evangelical'. We find an exposition
of it in John Stott's chapter, 'The Authority and Power of the Bible', in
Rene Padilla (ed.), 'The New Face of Evangelicalism' (Hodder and Stoughton,
1976). Commenting on the Lausanne Covenant phrase 'without error in all that
it affirms', Stott writes: 'Not everything included in scripture is true,
because not everything recorded in scripture is affirmed by scripture.' It
would be naive, he argues, to declare that 'every word in the Bible is
true'. Consider, for example, the Book of Job. Of the speeches recorded
there God says, 'You have not spoken of me what is right' (42:7). So in
declaring that the Scripture is 'without error in all that it affirms', we
are committed to 'the responsible work of biblical interpretation, so that
we may discern the intention of each author and grasp what is being
affirmed'.
Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) has a helpful comment on these three models.
He says all three are useful inasmuch as they are seeking to answer
different questions. The first model asks the question: Is the Bible an
authoritative and trustworthy revelation for all of life? We can answer with
the inerrantists: 'Yes!' The second model asks: In whom is God most fully
revealed? We should answer with the neo-orthodox: 'Jesus Christ, to whom
scripture bears unique and authoritative witness.' The third model asks yet
another question: How is the Bible most helpfully to be interpreted? Answer:
'It is a divine message given in human words which are best understood in
their various historical and cultural contexts.'
Rogers goes on to illustrate the three models by analogies. The first model
is like the President of the US dictating a letter to his personal
secretary. Thus the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy's Chicago
Statement, Article VIII, states: 'God, in causing these writers to use the
very words that he chose... ', thereby asserting a notion of dictation.
However, in affirming that 'what scripture says, God says', this declaration
also denies that in choosing the words, God overrode their [the writers']
personalities.
The metaphor suggested by the second model, says Rogers, is that of an
incumbent President running for re-election, with editorial writers who
report on and interpret his sayings and doings. These biblical editorialists
encourage the readers to meet the candidate in person and give him their
allegiance.
The metaphor suggested by the third model is that of the President's press
secretary speaking to the public. Such a person has been with the President
and knows his inmost thoughts. When the press secretary speaks, he carries
the authority of the President. But he uses his own words and adapts them to
the questions being asked by the public.
'The issue', says Rogers, 'among evangelicals is not whether there is
transcendent truth in the biblical revelation, but how that truth is
incarnated in human, literary forms. The problem is not one of authority,
but of interpretation' (J. Rogers, 'Mixed Metaphors, Misunderstood Models,
and Puzzling Paradigms', unpublished paper, Fuller Seminary, 1981).
The whole issue has become very complex. One of the problems with the
inerrancy position is that it is but a short step away from validating
biblical statements about the cosmos from contemporary science. Hodge and
Warfield, two evangelical theologians, for example, believed that the Bible
specifically predicted the results of nineteenth-century science. Very few
inerrantists would now agree with them. But might not some aspects of
today's 'creationism' become similarly dated (foolish?) in a few years?
Some other concerns with the inerrancy position include the following:
* Inerrancy, in its modern form, is not spelt out like this in the Bible
itself. It would be ironic to claim something for Scripture which it does
not claim for itself. Nowhere do words like 'infallible' or 'inerrant' occur
in Scripture. Indeed, such a negative, abstract form of thinking was quite
alien to the biblical writers. They preferred concrete concepts like
'inspired' (God-breathed). Jewish rabbinical thinking in Jesus' day was
'inerrantist': they viewed every word of their scriptures as equally
revelatory. But Jesus rejected this position, contending that some
scriptures reveal the will of God more perfectly than others (see for
example Matthew 23:23, Mark 10:4-9, John 7:22).
* Historically, the major creeds of the church have not included any notion
of biblical inerrancy nor, in pre-Reformation creeds, any statement at all
about Scripture. Throughout most of its history, the Christian church has
looked upon the Bible as a source rather than as an object of belief.
* No one has a copy of the 'original autographs', so any notion of these
being inerrant is a matter of theory rather than reality. Certainly we have
a remarkably reliable Bible in our hands today, but no one believes that the
text/s from which these Scriptures are translated into English are
errorless. Look at the footnotes in all our modern translations for
verification of that fact! Scribes are fallible and always have been. In any
case, such inerrant originals would be mostly in Hebrew and Greek; as soon
as translators get on with their job, we have variations in our texts.
* For some, irreconcilable difficulties in our Bibles preclude any belief in
inerrancy. However, just as we believe in the love of God as incarnated in
Jesus in spite of the problem of evil, so we might also believe in the Bible
as God-breathed in spite of its apparent contradictions. To suspend
commitment to one or the other until all our questions are answered would be
naive and faithless. And yet, even if all these problems were resolved, many
argue, this would not necessarily prove inerrant originals.
There are many other issues, e.g. the pros and cons of 'propositional
revelation', which are relevant. Let us conclude this discussion with the
most important issue of all. We can only state it briefly - another book
would be needed to do it justice.
In essence, I believe, the inerrancy debate is a function of two important
and more fundamental issues. First, logic can be the enemy of truth. Every
logical/rational human system will have its day. That's why, as Henry Ford
said, 'History is bunk'. The problem with all our explaining the Bible -
about any doctrine - is that we can be tempted to become wiser than God. One
of the axioms of theological thinking, is that because God's thoughts are
higher than our thoughts, we will always have to live with antimony or
paradox. We will never resolve all the theological riddles in our minds -
nor are we meant to! This temptation to become 'like God' could be called
the 'A,B,C, therefore D' approach. If the Bible is clear about A, B and C,
who gives anyone a mandate to add 'therefore D'? A case could quite easily
be made to support the idea that this kind of rationalising is at the root
of every issue that divides biblical Christians.
Now to the second issue. Whoever would have a vested interest in causing
Christian people to fight one another, usually over partisan interpretations
of our most important doctrines? A further question: Which two books of the
Bible are evangelicals most prone to argue about? Genesis and Revelation -
concerning the proton and the eschaton. What are these two books mainly
about? The triumph of God and his Christ, and the downfall of Satan and
evil. I believe there's a clue there somewhere. Of course, in the final
analysis, the practical question for Christians is not so much what we say
about the Bible, but what we do with it. How committed are we to the serious
study of the Bible? How regularly do we hear the Lord in a disciplined
reading of and reflection upon God's Word? How obedient are we to the
Bible's clear commands to live a godly, just and humble life? How willing
are we to live _under_ the authority of God's Word, (rather than, as
critics, living solely _above_ the biblical text)?
Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, had a 'high' view of Scripture. So must
we.
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Rowland Croucher
elsewhere].
Here's a little thing I wrote about biblical inerrancy, in response to Ken's
request. For the full version visit http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12125.htm
Chris Bell
> [Note: we’re now limiting this discussion to ARC to avoid noise/trash from
> elsewhere].
>
>
>
> Here's a little thing I wrote about biblical inerrancy, in response to Ken’s
> request… For the full version visit http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12125.htm
>
>
>
> Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, had a 'high' view of Scripture. So must
> we.
>
>
I find all this to be too academic (interesting comment coming from
me!), and I prefer to follow Jesus in looking at the actions and
behaviours of those who follow different views (ie look at their fruits).
It seems to me that most fundamentalists cannot possibly believe in an
inerrant bible, simply because they do not follow what it demands. As
such, they then appear to be hypocrites, and on an enormous scale.
It is difficult to know where to begin, although Mark has detailed most
of this before. They do not live a communal life, sharing all they own.
They do not give freely, only owning one of everything because if they
have two, they should give one of them to someone who does not (forget
tithing). They have not given up their wealth and left their families to
follow Jesus. And so on, just from looking at Jesus teaching.
If we go back to the OT, we know that the dietary laws and circumcision
were reviewed by the apostles and discarded, but there was no such
abrogation for many of the other laws. How many churches refuse entry to
menstruating women, or demand the use of headcoverings? How many
fundamentalists have bank accounts, supporting usury, specifically
condemned time and time again in both the old and new testaments (and
banned in Christendom for over a thousand years, and still banned by
Muslims)? How many fundamentalists shave or cut their hair? You can be
sure that neither Jesus or any of the apostles did, so who negated this
sign of faith in God? And how many wear clothes made from two types of
fibres, another interesting restriction from the OT. How many follow the
Sabbath and Jubilee laws, forgiving debts every seven years, and only
working six out of seven days and years? Who cancelled these obligations
for believers? - Jesus appeared to support them.
If it is by their fruits you shall know them, then I think I find it
difficult to find anyone who actually believes in an inerrant bible. (I
do realise that there are some churches who do all or most of this, but
they are very few and far between, but I can at least respect their views).
Chris
ps I am sure we will get lots of justifications about the above, but
they are just that, justifications, not a holistic view of scripture.
Mark T
> [Note: we're now limiting this discussion to ARC to avoid noise/trash from
> elsewhere].
"Okily dokily" - Ned Flanders
> Although reason and tradition may have been illumined and guided by the
> Holy
> Spirit, they have a secondary and subordinate place to scripture.
I am beginning to think that Reason / Wisdom / Logos has a higher place than
either tradition or scripture as it was Reason / Wisdom / Logos that helped
write the scriptures and informed tradition. Neither scripture nor
tradition would exist without Reason / Wisdom / Logos.
> If the Bible is 'God's word in our words', we are immediately presented
> with
> two dangers: biblical docetism, which to varying degrees denies the real
> humanness of the written documents
I think this is a very real problem with fundamentalism which tends to
overspiritualise the bible and treat the bible as a substitute idol for the
One God.
> and biblical Arianism, which denies that Scripture is truly the word of
> God.
Then I am a biblical Arianist ... and proud of it. A finite fallible book
cannot exhaustively represent an infinite spirit - The One God.
> But if Scripture is truly the word of God, what do we mean by 'truly'? The
> founder of L'Abri, Francis Schaeffer, used to ask: 'Is the Bible "true
> truth"?' The issue, he said, is whether the Bible gives propositional
> truth
> where it touches history and the cosmos...
It doesn't always. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>or whether it is only meaningful where it touches that which is considered
>religious.
The religious ideas within the bible change dramatically from Genesis to
Revelation. This is where Reason / Wisdom / Logos is required in
interpretation (... and it is always a man made fallible activity)
> So for very conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists the authority of
> the Bible is an outcome of its inerrancy: 'If you don't have an inerrant
> Bible, you don't have an authoritative Bible' (Boice). Mainline
> evangelicals
> object to this elevation of inerrancy over authority as the first claim to
> be made for the Bible. For them, to concentrate on inerrancy as the sole
> decisive issue is to wage the battle on too narrow a front.
Christianity is far more than the bible.
> Graham believed that the key issue between
> evangelical Christians in the 1980's and 90's would be hermeneutics, or
> how
> to interpret scripture properly and apply it to personal and social life.
....
> Stott writes: 'Not everything included in scripture is true,
> because not everything recorded in scripture is affirmed by scripture.' It
> would be naive, he argues, to declare that 'every word in the Bible is
> true'. Consider, for example, the Book of Job. Of the speeches recorded
> there God says, 'You have not spoken of me what is right' (42:7). So in
> declaring that the Scripture is 'without error in all that it affirms', we
> are committed to 'the responsible work of biblical interpretation, so that
> we may discern the intention of each author and grasp what is being
> affirmed'.
....
> The third model asks yet another question: How is the Bible most helpfully
> to be interpreted? Answer: 'It is a divine message given in human words
> which are best > understood in their various historical and cultural
> contexts.'
....
> The problem is not one of authority, but of interpretation'
"Discernment", "grasping what is said", "interpreted", "understood",
"interpretation" are mental activities which again point to the supremacy
of Reason / Wisdom / Logos over both tradition and scripture.
Hermeneutics is a man made fallible art. If it leaves out Reason / Wisdom /
Logos we are left with dogma rather than truth. All truth is God's truth.
> One of the problems with the inerrancy position is that it is but a short
> step away >from validating biblical statements about the cosmos from
> contemporary science. >Hodge and Warfield, two evangelical theologians,
> for example, believed that the >Bible specifically predicted the results
> of nineteenth-century science. Very few
> inerrantists would now agree with them. But might not some aspects of
> today's 'creationism' become similarly dated (foolish?) in a few years?
Yes! It already is in many parts of the Christian church. When I discuss
creationism with my Catholic friends they laugh derisively. (Creationism
only works for fundamentalists.)
> * For some, irreconcilable difficulties in our Bibles preclude any belief
> in
> inerrancy.
If I had to believe in the inerrancy of the bible (or creationism) in order
to be a Christian then I would reject Christianity.
> There are many other issues, e.g. the pros and cons of 'propositional
> revelation', which are relevant.
I think Schaeffer's theory about God speaking in propositional truth is a
myth. All ideas about God are filtered through the person's mind and are
always inadequate to express the fullness of an infinite spirit. At best
they are good metaphors.
> First, logic can be the enemy of truth.
Logic is never the enemy of truth.
Dogma is the enemy of truth for dogma can never be questioned.
The search for truth requires logic so that it is not sidetracked by
unquestioned dogma.
Throwing away logic and rationality means throwing away the only tools at
our disposal to understand things.
> Every logical/rational human system will have its day.
That includes evangelicalism and fundamentalism. ;-)
One can only use the best tools available to one within one's own period of
history.
God gave us a mind to use.
> The problem with all our explaining the Bible -
> about any doctrine - is that we can be tempted to become wiser than God.
Being wiser than statements in the bible is not the same as being wiser than
God.
God is not the bible.
The bible is not God.
The people who wrote and edited the bible were ordinary people like us.
It is not sinful to question their man made fallible opinion for it is not
the same as the Word of God.
The infinite infallible One God is infinitely more important than the finite
fallible bible.
I can easily do without a bible (just like Abraham) but I cannot do without
God.
> One of the axioms of theological thinking, is that because God's thoughts
> are
> higher than our thoughts, we will always have to live with antimony or
> paradox.
That is not so with the bible for if the bible is a man made fallible
creation then the paradox may be a result of faulty thinking on the part of
the writer(s).
The infinite infallible One God's thoughts cannot be confined to a finite
fallible book (the bible).
> We will never resolve all the theological riddles in our minds -
> nor are we meant to!
We are meant to use our God-given minds and not passively accept man made
dogma as truth ... even if that dogma is found in the bible.
> If the Bible is clear about A, B and C,
> who gives anyone a mandate to add 'therefore D'?
If the bible is clear about A, B, C who says A, B , C are true??????
The truth of A, B, C is not conditional upon them appearing in the bible but
whether in fact and in reality they are "true truth". This is another
pointer that Reason / Wisdom / Logos has a higher place than either
tradition or scripture
It is no longer a valid reason to say something is true "because the bible
says so". (It never was a valid reason!)
> A case could quite easily be made to support the idea that this kind of
> rationalising > is at the root of every issue that divides biblical
> Christians.
On the contrary, fundamentalism is about NOT using one's God-given mind but
relying solely on literalist man made fallible dogma.
> Which two books of the Bible are evangelicals most prone to argue about?
> Genesis and Revelation - concerning the proton and the eschaton. What are
> these > two books mainly about?
METAPHOR!!!!!
Fundamentalists are unable to think metaphorically. Literalism is opposed
to metaphoric understanding.
> the practical question for Christians is not so much what we say
> about the Bible, but what we do with it.
Fundamentalists are world renowned for "bible bashing", shoving bible verses
down people's throats as if it were some type of magical medicine and
mantra.
> How committed are we to the serious study of the Bible? How regularly do
> we hear the Lord in a disciplined reading of and reflection upon God's
> Word?
Reading and understanding the bible may be a different thing than listening
to God. Abraham did not have a bible but listened to God.
> How obedient are we to the Bible's clear commands to live a godly, just
> and humble life?
>How willing are we to live _under_ the authority of God's Word, (rather
>than, as
> critics, living solely _above_ the biblical text)?
If you mean the bible by "Word of God" then very unwilling for the bible
writers condone slavery in both Old And New Testaments. I reject slavery as
not something that the One God condones. i am therefore at odds with this
part of the bible.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists are quick to reject parts of scripture that
they don't like while simultaneously advocating that one should follow the
bible. (Jesus of Nazareth would rightly condemn such practice as hypocrisy.)
( A fundamentalist is a militant evangelical.)
I don't want to follow a man made finite book ... not even the bible.
I am fascinated by the One God.
I am totally bored by parts of the bible.
If God is as boring as parts of the bible then God should be completely
rejected.
I want to follow the One God. I make my own heart felt response to God.
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
#################################################
My Testimony at http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
Mark T
> It seems to me that most fundamentalists cannot possibly believe in an
> inerrant bible, simply because they do not follow what it demands. As
> such, they then appear to be hypocrites, and on an enormous scale.
I agree!
When I confront fundamentalists with ......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... none are prepared to do so though it is a command by Jesus in the bible.
Fundamentalists are selective in what they choose to follow in the bible.
> It is difficult to know where to begin, although Mark has detailed most of
> this before.
I am an ex fundamentalist who now, although I call myself a Christian, am
drifting farther and farther away from following the bible or from ever
again attending any type of orgainsed Christian church. I am finding myself
agreeing more and more with the critics of the church.
> They do not live a communal life, sharing all they own. They do not give
> freely, only owning one of everything because if they have two, they
> should give one of them to someone who does not (forget tithing). They
> have not given up their wealth and left their families to follow Jesus.
> And so on, just from looking at Jesus teaching.
... and yet one looks at the life of the Catholic Mother Teresa whom
fundamentalists do not recognise as a "true Christian" ... or Martin Luther
King whom the white Protestant churches in the USA largely rejected until
after he was assassinated.
I am more impressed with the Hindu Ghandi than any TV preacher.
I am not convinced that the One God has only chosen to reveal himself
through Christianity and to confine his poronouncements only to the bible.
The One God is much greater than the bible.
> If we go back to the OT, we know that the dietary laws and circumcision
> were reviewed by the apostles and discarded, but there was no such
> abrogation for many of the other laws.
Yep!
> How many churches refuse entry to menstruating women
I dare fundamentalists to ask women if they are menstruating before allowing
them into church ... or before sitting next to them on the same seat!
> How many fundamentalists have bank accounts, supporting usury,
> specifically condemned time and time again in both the old and new
> testaments (and banned in Christendom for over a thousand years, and still
> banned by Muslims)?
I quote (again!) .... Fundamentalists throw homosexuals out of the church
but make any userer a member of their church board! Bank Managers
welcomed!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
25 " If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall
not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest.
26 "If you ever take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return
it to him before the sun goes down.
27 "For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will
he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am
gracious. (Exodus 22:25-27)
----------------
35 ' If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you,
then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live
with you.
36 'Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother
may live with you.
37 'You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a
profit. (Leviticus 25:35-37)
---------------
19 " You shall not charge interest to your brother -- interest on money or
food or anything that is lent out at interest.
20 "To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall
not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which
you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.
(Deuteronomy 23:19,20)
--------------
10 "I also, with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and
grain. Please, let us stop this usury!
11 "Restore now to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their
olive groves, and their houses, also a hundredth of the money and the grain,
the new wine and the oil, that you have charged them." (Nehemiah 5:10,11)
-------------
5 He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe
against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved. (Psalm
15:5)
------------
8 One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for
him who will pity the poor. (Proverbs 28:8)
-----------
24:1 Behold, the LORD makes the earth empty and makes it waste, Distorts its
surface And scatters abroad its inhabitants.
2 And it shall be: As with the people, so with the priest; As with the
servant, so with his master; As with the maid, so with her mistress; As with
the buyer, so with the seller; As with the lender, so with the borrower; As
with the creditor, so with the debtor.
3 The land shall be entirely emptied and utterly plundered, For the LORD has
spoken this word. (Isaiah 24:1-3)
-----------
10 Woe is me, my mother, That you have borne me, A man of strife and a man
of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent for interest, Nor have
men lent to me for interest. Every one of them curses me. (Jeremiah 15:10)
----------
7 If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And
covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his
hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully -- He is
just; He shall surely live!" Says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 18:7-9)
---------
13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall
not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His
blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)
---------
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or
increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes -- He
shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! (Ezekiel
18:17)
--------
12 "In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you
have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me,"
says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)
---------
> If it is by their fruits you shall know them, then I think I find it
> difficult to find anyone who actually believes in an inerrant bible.
Yep!
#################################################
My Testimony at http://www.christian-life.us/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
#################################################
Athanasius
>I am not convinced that the One God has only chosen to reveal himself
>through Christianity and to confine his poronouncements only to the bible.
>The One God is much greater than the bible.
You may not realise it but you are on a one way track to becomming a
Muslim Mark.
Remember my gentleness with you when you are decapitating the fundies
whom you have grown to hate.
May peace and grace be yours.
Mark T
>>I am not convinced that the One God has only chosen to reveal himself
>>through Christianity and to confine his pronouncements only to the bible.
>>The One God is much greater than the bible.
>
> You may not realise it but you are on a one way track to becomming a
> Muslim Mark.
I think Moslems do have part of the truth. We are to be submitted to the
One God - not to the bible or to tradition or to anything else. The One God
alone is worthy of our submission.
I could easily become a Moslem or Catholic were it not for some of their
other doctrines.
> Remember my gentleness with you when you are decapitating the fundies
> whom you have grown to hate.
I don't hate fundies ... I just have no respect for them.
The Koran speaks of treating captives fairly ... not merely decapitating
them.
Have you ever read the Koran form cover to cover? I have. It contains much
wisdom.
Athanasius
>"Athanasius" wrote:
>
>>>I am not convinced that the One God has only chosen to reveal himself
>>>through Christianity and to confine his pronouncements only to the bible.
>>>The One God is much greater than the bible.
>>
>> You may not realise it but you are on a one way track to becomming a
>> Muslim Mark.
>
>I think Moslems do have part of the truth. We are to be submitted to the
>One God - not to the bible or to tradition or to anything else. The One God
>alone is worthy of our submission.
>
>I could easily become a Moslem
Allahu Akbar!
>The Koran speaks of treating captives fairly ... not merely decapitating
>them.
>
>Have you ever read the Koran form cover to cover?
Yes I own a copy at home. Not really impressed since it is devoid of
either prophecies or miracles.
But for those who chose to apply only reason to the Mysteries of God,
it became their supreme book.
Barry OGrady
>"Rowland Croucher" wrote:
>
>> It will be interesting to see what we come up with in terms of a 'minimal
>> creed' on this question. For example, Mark Tindall is a self-confessed
>> liberal Christian who acknowledges Jesus as Lord, but whose 'Christian'
>> credentials are mostly (always?) denied by fundamentalist Christians...
>
>I notice that Don has addressed none of my concerns that creationism only
>works for fundamentalists and that all truth is God's truth.
What does all truth is God's truth mean?
Are all lies God's lies?
Are all mistakes God's mistakes?
>>>But
>>> acceptance of the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection would have
>>> to be a necessity, I think we would agree. But from what you have
>>> already said, I'm sure that there is much, much more that we would
>>> agree upon.
>>
>> Is Spong a Christian then? He believes Jesus 'appeared' to the disciples
>> as he 'appeared' to Paul - not necessarily physically...
>
>I believe likewise ... which is why I use the comment by Australia's living
>heretic ...
What you believe means nothing.
Barry
Barry OGrady
As a Christian you have no right to talk about science.
>Just as when I write a program in C it says nothing about the
>existence or non-existence of Pascal or Fortran.
Programming requires logic which you lack.
>>All the best to both participants,
>
>Thanks, Sean.
>I think it's about time I got the system to use a random number
>generator (seeded with the Unix time in seconds) to change my
>signature.
>Having done that, it came up with one of the more suggestive
>quotations I have stored.
>So as not to offend the more conservative Christians reading this I'll
>have another go.
You don't might offending scientists.
>>Sean McHugh
>--
>Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
Make up your mind.
Barry
Barry OGrady
>"Chris Bell" wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that most fundamentalists cannot possibly believe in an
>> inerrant bible, simply because they do not follow what it demands. As
>> such, they then appear to be hypocrites, and on an enormous scale.
>
>I agree!
It must be wrong then.
Barry
Don
> It seems to me that most fundamentalists cannot possibly believe in
an
> inerrant bible, simply because they do not follow what it demands. As
> such, they then appear to be hypocrites, and on an enormous scale.
>
> It is difficult to know where to begin, although Mark has detailed
most
> of this before. If we go back to the OT, we know that the dietary
laws and
> circumcision were reviewed by the apostles and discarded, but there
was no such
> abrogation for many of the other laws. How many churches refuse entry
to
> menstruating women, [snip]
Chris,
My, how well you know me: I *am* a low-down, scum-sucking hypocrit!
It's just as well that God is in the forgiving business and Jesus has
made that possible. Thank you Lord.
Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. He did so and consequently, the
Apostle Paul said,
(Ephesians 2:10-21 ESV) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should
walk in them. Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the
flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the
circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that
you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,
having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus
you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of
Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has
broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing
the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself
one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile
us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the
hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and
peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in
one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and
aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the
household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole
structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
The OT law has been abolished, Chris, for those who are in Christ. You
can see more at http://www.ariel.org/ffruit.htm#top (by a Messianic
Jewish scholar). This is what the Bible teaches. So I am not actually
a hypocrit for wearing a shirt made of poylester and cotton (although I
cannot claim to be without fault in the things that matter now, such as
loving one another).
Blessings,
Don
Mark T
> My, how well you know me: I *am* a low-down, scum-sucking hypocrit!
The real issue is fundamentalist Christianity vs science by all other
people (including other Christians)
Science is not theology.
Theology is not science.
All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts on
how the bible is to be understood.
All error is not God's truth ... even if it is found in Genesis!
I notice that Don has not addressed any of these claims.
Don
Rowland Croucher wrote:
> [Note: we're now limiting this discussion to ARC to avoid
noise/trash from
> elsewhere].
There's plenty of 'noise' here!
> Here's an abridged version of my
> thoughts on the matter (from my book 'Recent Trends Among
Evangelicals').
>
> Although reason and tradition may have been illumined and guided by
the Holy
> Spirit, they have a secondary and subordinate place to scripture.
Why?
> Because this was Christ's view of scripture. John Stott, for example,
puts
> it simply in several of his books: '[Our] view of scripture... is [to
be]
> Christ's view of scripture. He endorsed the Old Testament, made
provision
> for the New Testament, and because of Christ we accept the authority
of the
> book.'
Amen.
> Billy Graham's position is similar to his mentor, Carl Henry's: He
has
> written and said many times: 'I believe the Bible is the inspired,
> authoritative word of God, but I don't use the word "inerrant"
because it's
> become a brittle, divisive word.' Graham believed that the key issue
between
> evangelical Christians in the 1980's and 90's would be hermeneutics,
or how
> to interpret scripture properly and apply it to personal and social
life.
If you (truly) believe Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, you will
be very careful how you deal with it. You will also be much more
likely to study it diligently and apply it to your life. This is a
false dichotomy drawn here.
> The inerrantist view assumes that unless the Bible can be shown to
give
> trustworthy information on non-religious matters, then it can't be
trusted
> in the more important religious realm.
Well, if you can't trust it in earthly things that you can test, why
should you trust it in the heavenly things that you can't test? How
can spiritual truth be contained in factual error? This is only
logical and Jesus reflected this logic in John 3 when he spoke to
Nicodemus.
> The neo-orthodox view says the Bible
> is a witness to God's primary revelation in Christ, but as all human
words
> are fallible it is not helpful to speak of the Bible as being in
itself the
> word of God. It may _become_ the word of God as we encounter God
himself in
> Jesus Christ through its preaching.
Those who affirm inerrancy also recognize that the prime purpose of
Scripture is to reveal Christ. Amen. So this is a false dichotomy
also. But the notion of the witness being carried in fallible human
words readily becomes 'anything I don't like is the fallible words of
men; the bits I do like are the word of God'. You quickly have a
religion of your own design; an idolatrous religion where you become
God, deciding what you will or won't believe.
> A third model we might call 'progressive evangelical'. We find an
exposition
> of it in John Stott's chapter, 'The Authority and Power of the
Bible', in
> Rene Padilla (ed.), 'The New Face of Evangelicalism' (Hodder and
Stoughton,
> 1976). Commenting on the Lausanne Covenant phrase 'without error in
all that
> it affirms', Stott writes: 'Not everything included in scripture is
true,
> because not everything recorded in scripture is affirmed by
scripture.' It
> would be naive, he argues, to declare that 'every word in the Bible
is
> true'. Consider, for example, the Book of Job. Of the speeches
recorded
> there God says, 'You have not spoken of me what is right' (42:7). So
in
> declaring that the Scripture is 'without error in all that it
affirms', we
> are committed to 'the responsible work of biblical interpretation, so
that
> we may discern the intention of each author and grasp what is being
> affirmed'.
This is not a third model as such; the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
covers these issues. It's pretty obvious, really, that the Bible
records the errant thinking of people (another example is slabs of the
book of Ecclesiastes; it's really only at the end that truth ultimately
asserts itself over meaninglessness).
> Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) has a helpful comment on these three
models.
> He says all three are useful inasmuch as they are seeking to answer
> different questions. The first model asks the question: Is the Bible
an
> authoritative and trustworthy revelation for all of life? We can
answer with
> the inerrantists: 'Yes!' The second model asks: In whom is God most
fully
> revealed? We should answer with the neo-orthodox: 'Jesus Christ, to
whom
> scripture bears unique and authoritative witness.' The third model
asks yet
> another question: How is the Bible most helpfully to be interpreted?
Answer:
> 'It is a divine message given in human words which are best
understood in
> their various historical and cultural contexts.'
And the Chicago statement covers all three bases. Innerrancy does not
involve ignoring context, etc.
> 'The issue', says Rogers, 'among evangelicals is not whether there is
> transcendent truth in the biblical revelation, but how that truth is
> incarnated in human, literary forms. The problem is not one of
authority,
> but of interpretation' (J. Rogers, 'Mixed Metaphors, Misunderstood
Models,
> and Puzzling Paradigms', unpublished paper, Fuller Seminary, 1981).
If someone truly accepts the authority of the Word, then issues of
interpretation can be discussed on the basis of what Scripture says and
we can debate just what it is saying. However, if someone does not
accept the authority of Scripture (e.g., Mark T on this forum), then we
have no common ground for discussion. We end up like ships passing in
the night.
> The whole issue has become very complex. One of the problems with the
> inerrancy position is that it is but a short step away from
validating
> biblical statements about the cosmos from contemporary science. Hodge
and
> Warfield, two evangelical theologians, for example, believed that the
Bible
> specifically predicted the results of nineteenth-century science.
Very few
> inerrantists would now agree with them. But might not some aspects of
> today's 'creationism' become similarly dated (foolish?) in a few
years?
Yes, of course. I agree. It's crucially important that our historical
models, which might be consistent with the clear teaching of the Bible,
are not equated with that teaching. That's the mistake that the RC
church made in Galileo's day: their thinking had become so wedded to
Aristotelian philosophy (the academic consensus of the day) that they
ended up rejecting Galileo's sound observational science. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp Those who wed the
Bible to the big bang or evolution or whatever today will find their
Bible widowed tomorrow. In our creationist fraternity, catastrophic
plate tectonics seems to explain a lot of earth history in a way that
is consistent with the biblical account of the flood, but the Bible
does not teach catastrophic plate tectonics. We endeavour to be very
clear about such things. See for example, this editorial:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp
> Some other concerns with the inerrancy position include the
following:
>
> * Inerrancy, in its modern form, is not spelt out like this in the
Bible
> itself. It would be ironic to claim something for Scripture which it
does
> not claim for itself. Nowhere do words like 'infallible' or
'inerrant' occur
> in Scripture.
A little logic needs to be applied here. Here are statements for the
Chicago statement:
"WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is
infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in
all the matters it addresses.
"WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from
all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."
A principle of logic is the law of the excluded middle. Now if
Scripture claims that it is wholly reliable and accurate in all that it
affirms, which it does in various ways, it also affirms that it is
without error---i.e., inerrant. There is no middle ground to stand on.
It is merely word games to claim otherwise.
> Indeed, such a negative, abstract form of thinking was quite
> alien to the biblical writers. They preferred concrete concepts like
> 'inspired' (God-breathed). Jewish rabbinical thinking in Jesus' day
was
> 'inerrantist':
Rowland, you've just contradicted yourself here. You say that 'such an
abstract form of thinking was quite alien to the biblical writers' but
that the 'Jewish rabbinical thinking of Jesus's day was inerrantist'.
Jesus learnt at the rabbi's feet and the apostle Paul who wrote much of
the NT was a trained rabbi.
BTW, 'inerrancy' here is painted as 'negative', but it is merely the
flip side of a coin where the other side is 'accuracy'.
> they viewed every word of their scriptures as equally
> revelatory. But Jesus rejected this position, contending that some
> scriptures reveal the will of God more perfectly than others (see for
> example Matthew 23:23, Mark 10:4-9, John 7:22).
Jesus affirmed the rabbinical view that it was all inspired, even down
to the smallest letter or mark on a letter. But of course that did not
mean that all scripture was of equal importance and the Chicago
statement recognizes that also:
"WE AFFIRM that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was
progressive.
"WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation,
ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative
revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament
writings."
> * Historically, the major creeds of the church have not included any
notion
> of biblical inerrancy nor, in pre-Reformation creeds, any statement
at all
> about Scripture.
That is simply because it was never an issue until Reformation times.
The creeds dealt with heresies of the day (denial of the deity of
Christ, as per Mark T, for example). They did not deal with issues
that no one dissented on. The reliability and authority of Scripture
just was not an issue that needed defining. However, the writings of
the church fathers showed that they certainly viewed Scripture as
wholly reliable in everything it touched upon (putting in the positive
expression).
> Throughout most of its history, the Christian church has
> looked upon the Bible as a source rather than as an object of belief.
The Chicago statement says:
"WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the
Church's faith throughout its history.
"WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic
Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to
negative higher criticism."
Some top scholars signed this statement.
BTW, I do not look at the Bible as an object of belief. This is
another false idea of inerrancy. Christ is the object of my belief,
but I only know of objectively of Him through the Bible.
> * No one has a copy of the 'original autographs', so any notion of
these
> being inerrant is a matter of theory rather than reality. ...
The Chicago Statement also deals with this issue.
> * For some, irreconcilable difficulties in our Bibles preclude any
belief in
> inerrancy. ....
The Chicago Statement also addresses this issue.
> In essence, I believe, the inerrancy debate is a function of two
important
> and more fundamental issues. First, logic can be the enemy of truth.
Every
> logical/rational human system will have its day.
This is about the only thing that I agree with Mark T about. Logic is
*not* the enemy of truth. Unsound logic is, for sure. But the only
way you could prove that 'logic is the enemy of truth' is to use logic
and that would only prove that logic is not the enemy of truth! It is
a self-defeating proposition. See the article "Loving God with all
your mind" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/logic.asp This
attempt to deny logic seems like an admission that inerrancy is an
inescapable logical deduction from biblical teaching about inspiration.
> The problem with all our explaining the Bible -
> about any doctrine - is that we can be tempted to become wiser than
God. One
> of the axioms of theological thinking, is that because God's thoughts
are
> higher than our thoughts, we will always have to live with antimony
or
> paradox.
Of course there will be mysteries that we cannot fully understand. But
that is due to our incomplete knowledge, not the failure of logic.
I can only say Amen to those sentiments. It was not until I came to
submit myself to the authority of the whole of God's Word, not just the
bits that I found to my liking, that I found true freedom as a
Christian. I thought I believed, but I discovered that I really
didn't. How could God create everything is six days? Impossible! I
could not imagine how all that could happen in that time. When I came
to realize that He did as he indicated, suddenly God was the awesome,
all-powerful One who could do anything, including answer prayer. God
was out of the box of my own limited understanding. Furthermore, I
found a zeal for studying and obeying the Word that I had lost. If you
think the Bible contains errors (i.e., is not inerrant), then studying
it loses a lot of its attraction.
>
> Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, had a 'high' view of Scripture. So
must
> we.
Amen. That's one of the major points of my submission on why I take
Genesis as history.
Blessings,
Don
Barry OGrady
>Chris,
>
>My, how well you know me: I *am* a low-down, scum-sucking hypocrit!
>It's just as well that God is in the forgiving business and Jesus has
>made that possible. Thank you Lord.
Are you able to forgive God for making you that way?
>Don
Barry
Don
Ken Smith wrote:
> Accepting the Bible as authoritative is not the same as accepting it
> as inerrant.
Ultimately it is, because if it is not regarded as without fault, then
the person reading it has to decide what is true and what is false. The
Bible is not then the authority, but the judgment of the reader is.
You are sitting in authority over the Bible instead of the other way
around. You effectively make up your own religion. I was doing that
before I was confronted with what I was doing. My academic pride would
not allow me to believe some of the things taught very clearly in
Scripture. Augustine put it pretty clearly:
"For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon
our be lieving that anything false is found in the sacred books: that
is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and
committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is
one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to
deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty
of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another
question - it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such
a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of
duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if
appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not
by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which,
intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was
not true." (Augustine's first letter to Jerome)
This statement not only shows that 'inerrancy' is not a modern
invention, but that Augustine understood the consequences of not
accepting inerrancy (logically 'there will not be left a single
sentence').
> Most people are aware that many great scientists from the past were
> Christians. But stating that they were "creationists" in the modern
> sense of that word is another matter entirely.
Au contraire, some of the greatest of these scientists showed in their
writings that they believed Genesis as I do: six day creation, global
flood, thousands of years of earth history. Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630) calculated a creation date of 3992 BC (Ussher did not
work in a vacuum). Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) is widely regarded
as the greatest scientist of all time, but he wrote more on biblical
history, and vigorously defended a biblical chronology against
challenges such as claims that the Egyptians dated back before the
Flood. in 'The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended', published
posthumously 1728, cited in Renfrew, C., 'Before Civilization', Penguin
Books, UK, pp. 22-23, 1976.
> People are always influenced by the culture in which they live.
> And since the great scientific societies were formed in the
> (relatively) early days after the Reformation, it's not surprising
> that they were influenced, at least in their public utterances, by
the
> religious culture.
Ken, so you are admitting that these great scientists might just have
been creationists? But if they were, you will put it down to their
beliefs being the product of the culture of the day? No, these people
were not just nominal in their faith, merely reflecting the culture of
the day. Was Newton a creationist only because there was no
alternative or he was a product of his culture? See above and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_29July2002.asp
> I think you mean that you see nothing in _your interpretation_ of the
> Bible which contradicts experimental science.
'That's just your interpretation' is fallacious reasoning and
borders on postmodernism, where objective truth is denied. I'm
surprised a mathematician would resort to that one. One does not need
to be an infallible interpreter to be able to interpret the meanings of
most passages accurately, any more than one needs to be an infallible
mathematician to know that 1+1=2. The accuracy of interpretation of
Scripture is determined by how it matches the intended meaning of the
author. This is determined by rules of grammar and historical and
literary context. Those who wish to deny a particular interpretation
of Genesis need to find a basis in the biblical text from the
application of these rules; an appeal to general human fallibility is
simply not sufficient. A major point of my case is that you have to
*demonstrate*, using proper hermeneutical procedures, that my
understanding of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible where it is
relevant, is faulty. And I expect you to supply an alternative
understanding that is consistent with the rules of hermeneutics and
consistent with the grand sweep of Scripture.
It's also worth noting that such post-modernist claims are
self-refuting. When a post-modernist writes 'it is impossible to
know 100% how to correctly interpret a piece of writing', he
certainly intends that people correctly interpret this particular piece
of his own writing. But he has no basis for objecting when an opponent
throws his post-modernism back at him and decides to 'interpret'
that statement as meaning, 'A piece of writing has an objective
meaning which is usually possible to interpret correctly.'
> But, of course, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about
> virtually all of modern experimental science.
Unless of course you accept the materialistic notion that because
science has never observed anyone rising from the dead so therefore it
could never happen. Many atheists and 'liberals' argue that way. Or
that because scientists do not see people born blind seeing again that
Jesus could not have performed the miracle.
But as I have said, it's in the area of historical claims that conflict
occurs. And science is rather short on credentials when it comes to
history, cf. experimental / operational science.
Regards,
Don
Don
Mark T wrote in response to Rowland's post on inerrancy:
> Logic is never the enemy of truth.
I think this is the first thing you have said that I agree with (and I
have amplified on this in my response to Rowland)
> I notice that Don has not addressed any of these claims.
I have refrained from answering you until now, in spite of the
restatement of your beliefs over and over again, for several reasons:
1. I have sensed such bile, such venom, coming from you, that I could
think of nothing I could say that would not inflame you further and I
could see no good purpose in doing that. You obviously think that
people like me are the scum of the earth. I'm sorry you feel that way.
2. We have practically no common ground where we can move forward
together. We are like ships in the night, on very different courses.
I get my ideas from what I take to be God's revelation; your ideas come
from within your own head. There is no common authority that we can
both appeal to.
3. You said,
> Dogma is the enemy of truth for dogma can never be questioned.
But that's about all you have contributed; dogmatic statements with no
justification. The statements read like mantras. It's been like a
one-way shouting match. I've no intention of trying to shout you down.
For example, in my original submission, I presented the url of an
article that demolishes the J,E,D,P idea. Your reponse was to trot out
the usual claims, stated as dogma, clearly having not bothered to read
the refutation of this stuff. You did not engage the arguments; you
just shouted your position.
But maybe I am just a sensitive soul and I am misreading you.
BTW, I read your testimonial.
Regards,
Don
Don
I accept all the responsibility for my sinfulness. I don't blame
anyone.
Don
Sean McHugh
Ken Smith wrote:
<snip>
> We haven't even started to talk about science yet, Sean.
> When we do I hope that you'll join in.
> I hope we can persuade Don that simply because science works entirely
> within the natural world, that implies neither denial nor acceptance
> of anything outside the natural world.
I'm flattered by the invitation. Thanks for your input in the other
thread. I am convinced that Creationism messes up the mind.
> Just as when I write a program in C it says nothing about the
> existence or non-existence of Pascal or Fortran.
> >All the best to both participants,
>
> Thanks, Sean.
> I think it's about time I got the system to use a random number
> generator (seeded with the Unix time in seconds) to change my
> signature.
> Having done that, it came up with one of the more suggestive
> quotations I have stored.
> So as not to offend the more conservative Christians reading this I'll
> have another go.
I tried a random generator for my sig but it kept spelling my name
wrong.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
g
Mark T
> However, if someone does not
> accept the authority of Scripture (e.g., Mark T on this forum), then we
> have no common ground for discussion.
Creationism only works for biblicists.
As such it doesn't appear to have anything to do with science.
> The creeds dealt with heresies of the day (denial of the deity of
> Christ, as per Mark T, for example).
The creeds were fallible and man made.
Fundamentalism is heresy according to the Catholic church.
> BTW, I do not look at the Bible as an object of belief. This is
> another false idea of inerrancy. Christ is the object of my belief,
> but I only know of objectively of Him through the Bible.
Abraham had no bible but knew God (not the Christ / Messiah) and is called
the father of faith.
> I can only say Amen to those sentiments. It was not until I came to
> submit myself to the authority of the whole of God's Word, not just the
> bits that I found to my liking, that I found true freedom as a
> Christian.
I am very glad you take everything in the bible seriously.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
... or do you not take ALL scripture that seriously?
Mark T
> Ultimately it is, because if it is not regarded as without fault, then
> the person reading it has to decide what is true and what is false.
God expected everyone to use their God-given mind.
> The Bible is not then the authority, but the judgment of the reader is.
The final authority is God.
> You are sitting in authority over the Bible
No ... discerning truth from error by using one's God-given mind.
> You effectively make up your own religion.
Fundamentalism is a distinct modern religion apart from Catholic and
Orthodox religion.
> before I was confronted with what I was doing. My academic pride would
> not allow me to believe some of the things taught very clearly in
> Scripture.
You substituted your God-given mind for a fallible finite man made book.
That's fundamentalism!
> Augustine
Augustine was likewise a fallible finite human.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
St Augustine had no time for those who preferred dogma over reason and
evidence. He did not believe that Christians had a monopoly on the truth,
and insisted that if there's a clash between dogma and reason, it's the
dogma that has to go.
"Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience," he wrote grudgingly, "Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics."
.....
Presumably he actually meant the Book of Genesis; whatever: he was implying
that a nation of godly people must also be a scientifically ignorant one.
Complete nonsense, of course: many of the greatest scientists, including
Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, had religious convictions that helped to propel
them towards their discoveries. Indeed, two of the most profound advances in
scientific knowledge - the discovery of genetics and the development of the
Big Bang model of the universe - were made by ecclesiastics: the Austrian
monk Gregor Mendel and the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre.
....
The origins of Creationism are far more recent, and far more bizarre. During
the 1840s, an American teenager in Maine named Ellen White began having
visions, including what she took to be a divine revelation concerning the
Creation. This led her to become convinced of the literal truth of the
Biblical account, and in 1863 she helped to establish a new fundamentalist
Christian movement known as the Seventh-day Adventists. By the turn of the
century, it had become the driving-force behind the Creationist movement
that thrives to this day, especially in the United States.
Ms White's autobiography suggests that her visions were linked to profound
psychiatric problems, and possibly also epilepsy - hardly an ideal basis for
a new approach to biology, geology and astrophysics. Still, it is barely
worse than the literal-minded reading of the Bible of Dr Colic and her ilk,
and their belief that evolution is "just another theory".
In the fifth century AD St Augustine called for Christians to stop bringing
their faith into disrepute by talking scientific twaddle. More than 1,600
years later, he would be horrified to find that most of those responding to
his call are dyed-in-the-wool atheists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con要ected/main.jhtml;sessionid=ES胤M0DGMS5E...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Sean McHugh
Don wrote:
<snip>
> Ken, so you are admitting that these great scientists might just have
> been creationists? But if they were, you will put it down to their
> beliefs being the product of the culture of the day? No, these people
> were not just nominal in their faith, merely reflecting the culture of
> the day. Was Newton a creationist only because there was no
> alternative or he was a product of his culture? See above and
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_29July2002.asp
People are largely products of their environment and the perceptions
of that environment. This would also apply to Newton. With his
discovery of the laws of motion, calculus and his investigations into
the nature of light, he made extraordinary leaps from relative
ignorance. I think it is rather desperate of Creation Science to
effectively hijack his unfamiliarity with (or provision of) subsequent
scientific advancements, as lending credibility to Creation Science.
The question isn't whether Newton, without the information we now
have, was a Young Earth Creationist. The question is, whether he
would be one now, given what we now know. For instance, do you
seriously think that Newton, if he knew we were receiving light from
stars millions of light years away, would conclude that the earth and
universe are 6,000 years old? Do you think he would dismiss the
findings of biology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and radiometric
dating.
I don't think so, Don. Newton was a scientist who used science so
he could contribute to science. He was in stark contrast to
Creation Scientists.
AiG would have us believe that there are a lot of Creation
Scientists who are qualified scientists. OK, then, what has Creation
Science itself contributed to the world's scientific knowledge? You
should be able to provide a long list of impressive examples. Please
make sure that each example _is_ a product of Creation Science.
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Mark T
> I have refrained from answering you until now, in spite of the
> restatement of your beliefs over and over again, for several reasons:
>
> 1. I have sensed such bile, such venom, coming from you, that I could
> think of nothing I could say that would not inflame you further and I
> could see no good purpose in doing that.
QUE? What bile and venom????
I have poked multiple holes in your argument and am waiting for a reply.
> You obviously think that people like me are the scum of the earth.
No. I love everyone though i sometimes use tough love. I used to be a
fundamentalist creationist. I am an Liberal Christian evangelist to
fundamentalist Christians. I believe fundamentalists substite a fallible
man-made finite book for use of their God-given minds.
> 2. We have practically no common ground where we can move forward
> together.
1. We are both Christians. (I accept you as a Christian though I am aware
that fundamentalists sometimes think they are the only Christians in the
world.)
2. We are both interested in truth.
3. We both value logic.
4. We both speak English and Christianese (I still remember Christianese
from my fundamentalist days).
5. We have both read the bible multiple times over many years from cover to
cover.
6. We both understand fundamentalist dogma.
Those 6 points are enough common ground for me.
> I get my ideas from what I take to be God's revelation; your ideas come
> from within your own head.
That staement is bile and venom. ;-)
> There is no common authority that we can both appeal to.
Truth. All truth is God's truth. All error is not God's truth.
Do you believe this? If not, why?
>> Dogma is the enemy of truth for dogma can never be questioned.
>
> But that's about all you have contributed; dogmatic statements with no
> justification.
Ask me for justification on specific points ... as I will for you.
> For example, in my original submission, I presented the url of an
> article that demolishes the J,E,D,P idea. Your reponse was to trot out
> the usual claims, stated as dogma, clearly having not bothered to read
> the refutation of this stuff.
I read it but didn't agree with it.
I am not that interested in your opinion of the bible for creationism is
supposed to be about science, isn't it?
My interest (and background) is in education and philosophy.
So I again restate the problem as I see it in concise terms. Feel free to
ask me to justify any point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. All truth is God's truth. Truth outside the bible (eg science) impacts
on
how the bible is to be understood. All error is not God's truth ... even if
it is found in Genesis!
This is my primary and foundational thesis regarding creationism.
This needs to be examined before any other point.
2. The real issue is fundamentalist Christianity vs science by all other
people (including other Christians)
2a. Science works for ALL people but creationism only works for
fundamentalist
Christians. Creationism does not work for an atheist / Moslem / Buddhist /
Catholics etc
2b.One does not "do science" by looking up the bible! Creationism is about
the defence of a fundamentalist view on the bible more than anything
remotely concerned with science. It places the bible above God as the final
authority.
3. Science is not theology. Theology is not science. Pseudo-science is not
science.
3a. The biggest lie of creationism is that "modern science" has
"antitheistic
presuppositions".
3b. Modern science is opposed to pseudo-science.
3c. Fundamentalist creationism as falsely claims to represent ALL
Christians.
One of the biggest Christian denominations, Catholicism, has no problem with
evolution or an old earth. Fundamentalist creationists exclude all
Catholics! Fundamentalist creationism is not taught in Catholic Schools.
Mark T
[snippeth ACE as requested]
> People are largely products of their environment and the perceptions
> of that environment. This would also apply to Newton.
...
> Newton was a scientist who used science so
> he could contribute to science. He was in stark contrast to
> Creation Scientists.
As I stated previously ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 1690 Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of
the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was
entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."
Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to
profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too
dangerous. Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting
him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years
later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of
it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin
and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication.
Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of
Scripture".
Newton on I John 5:7
Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third
edition of Erasmus's New Testament.
"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their
manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such
shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in
religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity
in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the
"three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth
and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been
so too with them, had it been in their books.
"Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make
none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not
by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in
disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the
temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion
ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they
understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I
have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and
therefore take that to be his which is the best." [1]
Newton on I Timothy 3:16
"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came
into play....they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of
the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business."
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and
the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The
exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that
dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false
God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." [1]
Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had
attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not
all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority.
Newton wasn't a fundamentalist!!!!!!
I quote from http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html used in Microsoft®
Encarta®.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newton left a mass of manuscripts on the subjects of alchemy ...Most
importantly in the "Queries" appended to "Opticks" and in the essay "On the
Nature of Acids" (1710), Newton published an incomplete theory of chemical
force, concealing his exploration of the alchemists, which became known a
century after his death. ....
Newton sought to reconcile Greek mythology and record with the Bible,
considered the prime authority on the early history of mankind. In his work
on chronology he undertook to make Jewish and pagan dates compatible, and to
fix them absolutely from an astronomical argument about the earliest
constellation figures devised by the Greeks. He put the fall of Troy at 904
BC, about 500 years later than other scholars; this was not well received.
...
Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was
essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. ... Its message was that
Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of
Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full
extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century:
but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of
Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and
accepted its account of creation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a result Newton would not be accepted as a member in any fundamentalist
creationist's church.
> AiG would have us believe that there are a lot of Creation
> Scientists who are qualified scientists. OK, then, what has Creation
> Science itself contributed to the world's scientific knowledge?
Herein is the crunch! Nothing of major importance!
Mark T
>> We haven't even started to talk about science yet, Sean.
>> When we do I hope that you'll join in.
>> I hope we can persuade Don that simply because science works entirely
>> within the natural world, that implies neither denial nor acceptance
>> of anything outside the natural world.
>
> .... I am convinced that Creationism messes up the mind.
Ditto! I would also add that Creationism requires an absolutist Christian
fundamentalist mind in which to take root. Without the absolutism of
Christian fundamentalism, creationism falls to the ground.
Philosophy of Science is one of the areas that should be addressed ... in
particular the totally false claim that "modern science" has "antitheistic
presuppositions".
Creationism is the product of the current Fundamentalist Dark Age which has
not been sufficiently addressed and combatted in the Christian Church.
Barry OGrady
>Barry,
>I accept all the responsibility for my sinfulness. I don't blame anyone.
So you don't believe in the creator God of the Bible?
>Don
Barry
Chris Bell
missed much of this discussion.
I'm sorry, Don, but I haven't looked at that website, but I think your
own post denies this position. Jesus fulfilled the law but didn't
abolish it. Why else would the ten commandments (even the one about
boiling a kid in its mothers milk!) be so important to modern Christians?
Lets keep this on a concrete level. Don, do you shave? If you do, how do
you justify that act? How did Jesus incarnation affect the law about
shaving? He didn't shave - why are you allowed to shave when orthodox
jews, for instance, don't? Could there just possibly be some sort of
gradual revelation?
Chris
Rowland Croucher
"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote in message
news:1115371884.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Rowland,
>
> Rowland Croucher wrote:
>> [Note: we're now limiting this discussion to ARC to avoid
> noise/trash from
>> elsewhere].
<>
> This is not a third model as such; the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
> covers these issues. It's pretty obvious, really, that the Bible
> records the errant thinking of people (another example is slabs of the
> book of Ecclesiastes; it's really only at the end that truth ultimately
> asserts itself over meaninglessness).
Don, I've been busy saving the world the last couple of days, and OE is
playing up (stalled 20x in one day) so I've been time-poor and
tech-handicapped...
You're learning in this discussion that some people post stuff, not for a
response as such, but to bait you. They're best ignored. However, others
might bait you but have some cogent material hidden in there: I've found
myself ignoring the vituperative/ repetitive material but responding to the
serious questions...
I'll respond to your response-to-me a point or two at a time, to make it
more manageable...
I've not read the Chicago Declaration for a while and will revisit that...
The point here is: *why* is Ecclesiastes sometimes/mostly wrong? What is our
standard here? What else is 'wrong' in the Bible? Is the wrong stuff only in
the area of Ancient Near Eastern philosophy (presumably in Ecclesiastes) but
*not* ANE science? Why/why not?
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14700+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Mark T
>*why* is Ecclesiastes sometimes/mostly wrong?
Or rather "IS Ecclesiastes wrong?" ...supposedly written by the wisest man
in the world, Solomon ... but it doesn't fit into fundamentalist dogma.
Sean McHugh
> We haven't even started to talk about science yet, Sean.
> When we do I hope that you'll join in.
> I hope we can persuade Don that simply because science works entirely
> within the natural world, that implies neither denial nor acceptance
> of anything outside the natural world.
Hi Ken,
Would you or someone else have a rough idea of the percentages for
Creationist Christians and those who believe in evolution? Though
I am now an atheist, I went to a Christian school and I was taught
evolution. Nearly everyone I knew was, to one degree or another, a
Christian, however, I didn't know of even one of them disbelieving
in evolution, let alone considering it evil. The first time I
ever became aware of an opposing minority, was when I found a
Jehovah's Witness flyer on the footpath. Perhaps Australia was
different in this regard.
The irony is, that Creationists hardly acknowledge that evolution
is accepted in Christendom, at all.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Mark T
> Though I am now an atheist, I went to a Christian school and I was taught
> evolution.
Teachers in christian schools diverge widely on belief in creationism /
evolution.
In the schools I taught in both were done side by side ... without
explaining the inconsistencies of holding both views together.
> Nearly everyone I knew was, to one degree or another, a
> Christian, however, I didn't know of even one of them disbelieving
> in evolution, let alone considering it evil.
The classroom teachers I worked with in Christian schools believed in
evolution. Parental expectation dictated that creationism was to be
included in the curriculum of Christian Community Schools (more Baptist
based) ... but less so in Christian Parent Controlled Schools (more Dutch
Reformed based)
> The irony is, that Creationists hardly acknowledge that evolution
> is accepted in Christendom, at all.
So true!
Sean McHugh
Mark T wrote:
>
> "Sean McHugh" wrote:
>
> > Though I am now an atheist, I went to a Christian school and I was taught
> > evolution.
>
> Teachers in christian schools diverge widely on belief in creationism /
> evolution.
>
> In the schools I taught in both were done side by side ... without
> explaining the inconsistencies of holding both views together.
In science class?
> > Nearly everyone I knew was, to one degree or another, a
> > Christian, however, I didn't know of even one of them disbelieving
> > in evolution, let alone considering it evil.
>
> The classroom teachers I worked with in Christian schools believed in
> evolution. Parental expectation dictated that creationism was to be
> included in the curriculum of Christian Community Schools (more Baptist
> based) ... but less so in Christian Parent Controlled Schools (more Dutch
> Reformed based)
"Parental expectation"? Was this a majority or minority?
Mark T
>> Teachers in christian schools diverge widely on belief in creationism /
>> evolution.
>>
>> In the schools I taught in both were done side by side ... without
>> explaining the inconsistencies of holding both views together.
>
> In science class?
Unfortunately ... yes.
>> The classroom teachers I worked with in Christian schools believed in
>> evolution. Parental expectation dictated that creationism was to be
>> included in the curriculum of Christian Community Schools (more Baptist
>> based) ... but less so in Christian Parent Controlled Schools (more Dutch
>> Reformed based)
>
> "Parental expectation"? Was this a majority or minority?
Substantial. Every parent is important for their $$$$ in keeping the school
going ... and all must be appeased.
Sean McHugh
Mark T wrote:
>
> "Sean McHugh" wrote:
>
> >> Teachers in christian schools diverge widely on belief in creationism /
> >> evolution.
> >>
> >> In the schools I taught in both were done side by side ... without
> >> explaining the inconsistencies of holding both views together.
> >
> > In science class?
>
> Unfortunately ... yes.
Ouch! I can't imagine being taught about the Garden of Eden in
science class. Did the students generally buy such stories?
Mark T
> Ouch! I can't imagine being taught about the Garden of Eden in
> science class. Did the students generally buy such stories?
The fundy types and the younger kids ... unfortunately yes.
Rowland Croucher
"Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:427D6B25...@shoal.net.au...
<>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Would you or someone else have a rough idea of the percentages for
> Creationist Christians and those who believe in evolution? Though
> I am now an atheist, I went to a Christian school and I was taught
> evolution. Nearly everyone I knew was, to one degree or another, a
> Christian, however, I didn't know of even one of them disbelieving
> in evolution, let alone considering it evil. The first time I
> ever became aware of an opposing minority, was when I found a
> Jehovah's Witness flyer on the footpath. Perhaps Australia was
> different in this regard.
>
> The irony is, that Creationists hardly acknowledge that evolution
> is accepted in Christendom, at all.
If a 'someone else' might respond:
Of fundamentalist Christians who believe in a doctrine of inerrancy - high
90s%
'Evangelicals' (like me) who distinguish themselves from 'Fundamentalists'
as a genre (but not from some Fundamentalist doctrines) would mostly have an
open mind, or if they come down anywhere, a majority would be open to God's
using some sort of evolutionary process in creation. Most of these would
agree with my thesis that the proton (in the Genesis saga) and the eschaton
(apocalyse/Revelation) do not address the questions 'When?' and 'How? but
two others: 'Who?' and 'Why?'
Mainline Christians, especially those who've had a formal theological
education, would not be creationists at all - or only a small minority - in
single figures - might. Just about all those in this latter group I've met
became very conservative theologically after a charismatic experience! Work
that out!.
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14800+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Barry OGrady
wrote:
>"Don" <d...@answersingenesis.com> wrote in message
>news:1115371884.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Rowland,
>>
>> Rowland Croucher wrote:
>>> [Note: we're now limiting this discussion to ARC to avoid
>> noise/trash from
>>> elsewhere].
><>
>> This is not a third model as such; the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
>> covers these issues. It's pretty obvious, really, that the Bible
>> records the errant thinking of people (another example is slabs of the
>> book of Ecclesiastes; it's really only at the end that truth ultimately
>> asserts itself over meaninglessness).
>
>Don, I've been busy saving the world the last couple of days, and OE is
>playing up (stalled 20x in one day) so I've been time-poor and
>tech-handicapped...
So you are the reason we don't have any wars or hunger now.
Good job. You achieved something that God could not or would not.
>You're learning in this discussion that some people post stuff, not for a
>response as such, but to bait you. They're best ignored. However, others
>might bait you but have some cogent material hidden in there: I've found
>myself ignoring the vituperative/ repetitive material but responding to the
>serious questions...
Asking serious questions will get you kicked off Christian irc channels
and ignored in usenet.
>I'll respond to your response-to-me a point or two at a time, to make it
>more manageable...
>
>I've not read the Chicago Declaration for a while and will revisit that...
>
>The point here is: *why* is Ecclesiastes sometimes/mostly wrong? What is our
>standard here? What else is 'wrong' in the Bible? Is the wrong stuff only in
>the area of Ancient Near Eastern philosophy (presumably in Ecclesiastes) but
>*not* ANE science? Why/why not?
The Bible is 'wrong' in the areas that the individual Christian disagrees with.
>--
>
>Rowland Croucher
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og