Kant on Connect09

"Making plans is often the occupation of an opulent and boastful mind, which thus obtains the reputation of a creative genius by demanding what it cannot itself supply, by censuring what it cannot improve, and by proposing what it knows not where to find."
Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (p. 10 in the Bobbs-Merrill edition of 1950)

Somehow reminds me of Connect09....and 'Do it Again in 2000 and Ten"

Not too barbed

I see that one of the blots we report has got airplay on one of the blogs we also report.
Check it here.

Two of our members have had a go at the Blogging Parsnip for his blog on fundamentalists. Watcher takes it further. We all wonder why the Parsnip didn't.

All down to the speed of the net and late night reading!!

Hey atheists [and theistic evolutionists], guess why?

As reported in Monday’s Jakarta Post, Kaing Guek Eav is the only Cambodian from Pol Pot’s killing fields who has confessed to his crimes. This 66 year old, better known as Duch, is on trial for being the former superintendent at the S-21 torture centre. Here they routinely tortured and murdered, inter alia, new-born infants, anyone wearing glasses and soft-handed people. The other co-conspirators still insist that they did nothing but right. Given this anomaly, one should surely enquire why Duch is up until now the only one of this regime to have expressed his guilt and contrition. The answer is quite easily discovered from his comments: He has recently become a Christian. His former colleagues in crime, partners in, arguably, the most violent social experiment in human history, remain atheists.

Atheists would reject the idea that “as a man thinks, so he is”, yet here is living proof that this is all too true. It’s not that atheism qua atheism makes a man necessarily inhumane…it’s just that there really isn’t anything in atheism as such that necessarily makes a man a good one. Chesterton stated this well when he said that when a man disbelieves in God it isn’t that he believes in nothing, but that he will believe anything…including the mass murder of his fellow human beings.

Jensen says

A recent post on another blog by Michael Jensen (son of the Lord High Poobah Jensen...see Matthew 23:5-12) as a comment on a discussion about imputation.

Who is denying imputation? Not me. Not Bird.

But getting it in its right biblical context is vital. As is understanding the texts in their own context and not squashing them into a pre-fabricated theology, which seems to be the go in some Calvinist circles these days.

Michael, how true, how true! I wonder if theistic evolution is a 'pre-fabricated theology'?

Interestingly in this same thread Michael very nicely mentioned that some ['laypeople' I would guess, in counter biblical terminology] can be quite intelligent. ("Far more dangerous to ordinary believers are those bible teachers who enforce a system on the text and force the text to say what it plainly doesn't. So-called 'ordinary believers', who are usually more intelligent than we give them credit for") See Matt 23:5-12 again...Michael.

Just for the record an excerpt of the blog comments, including the comment in point is here

Sydney Anglicans' Towering Erection of Babel Proportions

Sydney Anglicans led by Archbishop Peter Jensen who hold to the abhorrent Theistic Evolution view of origins are either wittingly or unwittingly contributing to one of the most flagrant acts of idolatry and usurping of the authority of God that the world has ever seen.

Their attributing to God of a creative process replete with frustrations, mutations, disease, suffering, survival of the fittest and death is an assertion that God could not or would not create pure and complete in the beginning.

These Sydney Anglicans have ventured out upon the branch of faith and commenced cutting the branch behind them. The Atheists see this and are just waiting for the whole Church to do likewise and come crashing down. Once the Church has done this the Christian faith will have no credible argument against Atheism. The very mechanism Charles Darwin saw as the ordering of life and which prompted him to reject the God of Bible will never pass muster as the way of a God of love and omnipotency.

Compounding the problem for Sydney Anglicans are developments in gene technology. Scientific advances in genetic engineering and cloning point to the day when man will create life leading to a living organ or being. We are talking here of tens of years of development not millions of years.
On that day of achievement, Sydney Anglicans must bow to the might of Man and surrender all credibility that the Christian Church had claimed for the 'God' of the Bible because Man will have done far more efficiently and timely what the Church had claimed 'God' had done over millions of years.

Advances in gene technology have all the potential to revisit upon the world the arrogance of man demonstrated at Babel (Gen. 11). The Church will be defenceless if it relies on a corrupt explanation of how God created.

However, the picture is not so bleak. The one true God is not the product of faulty imaginings of the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and his followers. God will not submit to the elevation of man beyond his place. God will retain a remnant who will not bow the knee to Baal. Small it may be for a time but that remnant will survive and be blessed to multiply at the hand of the Lord. These are they who trust in the Word of God and will not reinterpret what God has clearly said.

Neil

Do the Sydney Anglican Heretics successfully wrest the epistemological highground from orthodoxy?

To all concerned, sorry for the delay but I have had to attend to some fairly urgent matters of health recently and this has eaten up my spare time. My mother, very early on, and doctor, most recently warned me about the dangers of reinserting my navel fluff. And now I reap the consequences.

1. I believe the following is a fair representation of Anonymous’ case against me.

a. I offered Kay’s paper as proof and argued that literary devices don’t
negate the claim of a passage to being history.
b. Dickson proposed the inclusion of so many literary devices means
Genesis 1 isn’t history.
c. I overlooked the subtlety of Dickson’s argument.
d. I‘m dumb as it’s not true truth.
e. QED, Dickson’s case is subtle and accurate.
f. Genesis 1 isn’t an historical report because of the large number of
literary devices
g. It is right to say that Kay’s case lacks a strong and sharp disproof to
Dickson’s thesis that Genesis is non-history.


2. To refresh everyone’s memory what Dickson wrote: “Genesis 1…is composed in a style quite different from the ‘historical narrative’ of, say, the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, for instance…Genesis 1, on the other hand, is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose…I will, however, draw attention to the number symbolism present in our passage. [John gives a number of examples of the number 7 and its multiples in the text and then concludes with] The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means.”

So, clearly Dickson is saying from “the lavish use of number[s]” alone that one can conclude Genesis 1 is not historiography. I’ll address this in a moment but, as you stated elsewhere, what’s good for a goose is good for the gander, and so I think it was entirely reasonable for me to argue (as Kay had in his paper) that individually these literary devices do not necessarily convey non-history.

Furthermore, as you have implied, these devices are found in historiographic passages. (Although, Dickson, by not actually exploring this “incidental” detail, seems hell-bent on not providing examples for the reader so they can at least make up their own mind as to the strength of his case. After all, if, for example, a clearly historiographic section of one of the Gospels were to contain several literary devices, I would assume that even the most zealously sycophantic of Dickson’s backers would be less inclined to argue for the soundness of his thesis. Hmmm, maybe not so on second thought, given their hitherto lending of unconditional support for just about any old excuse that maintains their obduracy and love of heresy) I would obviously concur. So the problem for you and Dickson is this: If the inclusion of one device does not in and of itself transform historiography to non-historiography, and the addition of another similarly doesn’t, and another etc etc don’t, why would the inclusion of all 6 suddenly tip the scale? If you reply that this “uniqueness” is the very characteristic that does turn historiography to non-historiography, isn’t that just simply a case of question-begging? Wouldn’t one need to provide several examples from other sources, particularly non-biblical ones, which demonstrate the soundness of this proposition?

Looking at it in a not entirely different way, Dickson has tacitly stated that, all other things being equal,

(i) 1 Literary Device = Historiography,
(ii) LD+LD = Historiography
(iii) LD+LD+LD = Historiography
(iv) LD+LD+LD+LD = Historiography
and
(v) LD+LD+LD+LD+LD = Historiography

yet he contends that

LD+LD+LD+LD+LD+LD ≠ Historiography

I am at a loss how 1,2,3,4, or even 5 pluses add up to a plus but an additional 6th makes it a zero. Along with destroying biblical facts, you guys seem to have the same menacing attitude to maths. This reminds me of Dallas Willard’s comment: “[U]nsound arguments are not to be expected by their collective force to prove a conclusion which none can establish by themselves."

3. So since you’ve admitted that literary devices are utilised by the author in historiography, where does Dickson (and you) draw the cut-off line? It seems that since these devices are everywhere, in historical prose and poetry alike, then the answer must be, “Well, anywhere I damn well please!” This of course demonstrates the arbitrary nature of your argument. That, putatively, these devices only appear in such numbers in Genesis 1 and no where else is not the clincher you imagine it to be. After all, breathing over its neck is a passage of historical narrative that has one less literary device. If none of the ancients were bothered with their inclusion why should we listen to Dickson and a nobody called Anonymous. All this to me seems like something new to tickle those who are easily dissuaded from the plain, straightforward, uncomplicated historical truth of the first page of God’s revelation to us. That the common ploughboy has never seen this wolf-in-sheep’s clothing “truth” you’re presently serving up to the Church only strengthens our resolve to root you heretics out.

4. While we are on the subject, I’d like to point out that neither Dickson nor Anon never actually identify where these literary devices appear in the text. I suppose we’re to just take their word that all 6 actually appear in Genesis.

So, would either of these two heretics (or the Dickson sycophants over in the Sydney Diocese) change their view if just one of the mooted devices didn’t appear in Genesis 1? That is, based on Dickson’s thesis, if the sum total of these devices were 5, would these heretics accept Genesis 1 as history or can nothing falsify Dickson’s proposition?

5. Just on this issue, a few years ago an Israeli Oxford Hebraist academic informed me that sustained rhythm, the type that non-prose should contain if it does have rhythm, is not in Genesis 1. What rhythm there is, is far too brief to be important and is a chance by-product of speech in general. In other words, one would be drawing a really long bow to claim that rhythm is a salient literary device in Genesis 1.

6. But just to fulfil my epistemic obligation, let me provide you with a few passages where there is a preponderance of literary devices. To make it easier for me I’ll be borrowing considerably from Dickson’s paper.

The Flood Narrative

It is well known that in Hebrew thought the number 8 symbolises new beginnings, resurrection or regeneration and 13 betrayal. A well-known example for the former is many baptismal fonts are eight-sided, as is the baptismal cross, while the latter is the number of people at the Last Supper.

In the narrative of Noah, which contains the Flood account, multiples of 8 appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of 8 conveyed a powerful message. Its omnipresence in many chapters of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the ultimate authorship of the Bible itself. Consider the following in this account:

a. The “berit” (covenant) stem appears 8 times
b. The number of people saved on the ark was 8
c. The sign of the covenant, “qeshet” (rainbow) has a numerical value in Hebrew
of 800
d. The Flood was 40 days (i.e. 5 x 8) upon the earth
e. Noah waited another 40 days until he opened the window
f. He then sent out a raven, numerical value 272 (i.e. 8 x 32)
g. Noah’s name is occasionally spelled with a vav and thus his name has a
numerical value of 64 i.e. 8 x 8
h. From Adam to Noah’s Flood there were 1656 (207 x 8) years

And btw,
i. Indeed, Jesus’ very name in Greek numerical values has the value of 888,
which also equals in Hebrew Yeshoth Elohenu i.e. Our God’s Salvation
j. Jesus appeared to Thomas on the 8th day
k. Pistis (faith) has the same numerical value as Kurios (Lord) i.e. 800

As to the number 7,

a. The clean beasts were taken on in lots of seven
b. Assuming 30 days in a lunar month, the fountains of the deep were broken up
on the 2nd month, 17th day of Noah’s 600th year i.e. the 77th day
c. The Ark came to rest in the 7th month
d. The tops of the mountains were seen on the first day of the 10th month i.e. (
10 x 30) +1 = 301 = 43 x 7
e. The seventh occurrence of the name Noah is in Genesis 6:9 and here he is
called ‘perfect’. The Hebrew word here is thammim which has a numerical
value of 490 i.e. 70 x 7
f. The number of times that God spoke to Noah was seven.

Any other literary devices? Sure.

• A play on words: In Hebrew the name ‘Noah’ is an anagram of ‘Grace’. The first appearance of ‘grace’ is in Genesis 6:8: ‘But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH’. The numerical value of YHWH is 26. The word ‘grace’ is found in 26 (13 x 2) verses in Torah.

• Parallelism: In Genesis 6:9 "perfect in his generations" acts as a parallel thought to Noah being "a just man."
• Parallelism: In Genesis 7: 6-10, 11-16 this device can be discerned as re-emphasising and enlarging upon the same ideas.
• Chiasmus:
Genesis 7:10 – And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
Genesis 7:12 - And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:24 – The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3 – The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
Genesis 8:6 - After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark
Genesis 8:10 - He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.

Here’s another:
Introduction (6:9-10)
1. Violence on the earth (6:11-12)
2. First speech: intent to destroy earth (6:13-22)
3. Second speech: go into the ark (7:1-10)
4. The Flood starts (7:11-16)
5. The flood rises (7:17-24)
Climax-God remembers Noah (8:1a)
5a. The Flood recedes (8:1b-5)
4a. Drying off of the earth (8:6-14)
3a. Third speech: leave the ark (8:15-19)
2a. Will not destroy earth again (8:20-22)
1a. Fourth speech: the covenant (9:1-17)
Conclusion (9:18-19)

There is a chiastic structure in the genealogy: Noah's sons are listed in this order: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; then they are discussed in reverse order.

• Repetition
(i) The destruction of life
(ii) Establishment of the covenant
(iii) The types of animals on the ark

What then can we at this blog conclude? All of this definitely will convince the heretics in the Sydney Anglo Fun Park that Noah’s story and the Flood specifically are not historical or historiography.

When I previously pointed out that the Flood account contains all the features Dickson has said tell the reader to think ‘non-history/non-historiography’, Anon’s remark was “ROFL.” In fact, Anon went on to suggest these chapters of Genesis were on the sae level as a fairy tale like Goldilocks and the 3 bears.

I suspect Anon will mock my argument, as he has done previously (he poured scorn on my comment and said I had a weak argument when I offered Jesus’ and Peter’s testimonies as proof that the Bible’s account of the Flood should be taken as history), but this behaviour is what one expects from heretics. As we progress through the Bible more and more chapters start to be transformed from historiography to myth or some other liberal nomenclature.

Abraham

• Numbers

a. There are 613 commandments in Torah. Of these 248 are positive and 365 negative. Abraham, the first Jew, was called righteous before God and is regarded as the paradigm of perfection. His name has the number value of 248 (31x 8), the number of positive commandments.

b. The son of Abraham, Yizhak, has 4 letters to his name each with a numerical value of 10, 90, 8 and 100 respectively. The first refers to the 10 commandments, the second to the age of Sarah when he was born, the third, the age at his circumcision and the last to the age of Abraham when he was born. A miracle performed for a mother and father was for the sake of a child who would be circumcised and enter a covenant.

c. Concerning the number 13, circumcision for Ishmael was carried out when he was 13, the word for covenant, berit, is mentioned 13 times in Genesis 17, the chapter which sets out the circumcision command.

d. In Genesis 14:14 there are 318 men who went out to rescue his relative. Interesting, Eliezer the servant of Abraham, the “heir” of Abraham, has a numerical value for his name of 318.

• Chiasmus:

A Display of faith: Abram leaves his homeland; the first promise 11:31–12:3
B Abram sojourns in Canaan 12:4-9
C The stay in Egypt; Abram passes Sarai off as his sister 12:10-20
D The separation of Abram, who has the promise, from Lot, who does not
have the promise 13:1-18
E The rescue of Lot 14:1-24
F Abram’s fears of infertility are allayed by the promise of a
son; God makes a covenant 15:1-21
G Sarai’s attempt to get a son: Ishmael 16:1-16
H THE COVENANT; Abram’s new name,
etc. 17:1-10
G´ Circumcision; the rejection of Ishmael and the
promise of a son through Sarah 17:9-27
F´ Sarah is told of the promise of a son, despite her fears of
infertility 18:1-15
E´ The rescue of Lot 18:16–19:38
D´ The stay in Gerar; Abraham passes Sarah off as his sister 20:1-18
C´ The birth of Isaac; the separation of Isaac, the child of the promise, from
Ishmael, the child outside the promise 21:1-21
B´ Abraham sojourns among the Philistines 21:22-34
A´ Display of faith: Abraham is willing to sacrifice Isaac; the final promise 22:1-19


And there are chiasms within chiasms. For example, Genesis 12:16 appears as an inventory but has been arranged chiastically. So, if Dickson’s rule is true then Abram’s sheep are not referring to historic sheep but artistic ones.

There are also significant and lavish use of numbers concerning the other patriarchs etc

a. Adam is 130 when he begot Seth and lives another 800 years.
b. Jacob has 1 daughter and 8 sons from his wives and 4 sons from the
shefahot i.e. 13 children.
c. When Jacob’s name is changed to Israel by God, then last time he is called
Jacob is the 130th appearance of Jacob’s name in Torah.
d. Jacob’s age in front of Pharaoh is 130 while Moses was 80
e. The only ages given for Joseph are 17, 30, 110, gaps of 13 and 80
f. Sarah was at her death 127 years old = 100 + 20 + 7. The gaps here are 80
and 13.
g. Circumcision is on the 8th day.

And I am more than sure that if I could be bothered – which I am definitely not – I could find far too many examples of devices which Kay listed in his article, including, parallel plotting with its ostensible appearance of simultaneity, delayed action and outcomes, asymmetrical and ironic juxtapositioning, convergence and retrospective alignment, sequential twists, temporal shifts, the omitting or ambiguating of causal links, temporal gaps and blanks, analogous or repetitive themes and incidents, alternation whereby the narrative sequence zig-zags between objective simultaneities, suspense-driven episodes, deep interlinear polarities of theme, foreclosure or premature curtain-dropping which “jumps ahead” in absolute time in order to synchronize effects, the establishment of contextual hierarchies of importance, shifts in focus, complex word plays, parataxis, and interepisodic suspense.

Matthew’s Gospel

The first 17 verses of the New Testament (The Gospel of Matthew) deals with a single principal subject: the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It contains 72 Greek vocabulary words in these initial 17 versus. The following structures are supposedly found.
• The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8. The Greek
word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8.
• The number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is exactly 7
• There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the
first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7 Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4
• The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3. The total
number of letters in these 49 words is exactly 266, or 7 x 38-exactly.
• The numbers of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20. The number
of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18-exactly.
• Of these 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5.
• The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x2.
• The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6.
• The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
• The number of 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6.
• The number of words which are not nouns is 7.
• Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or 7 x 5. These 35 nouns are used 63
times, or 7 x 9.
• The number of male names is 28, or 7 x 4. These male names occur 56 times or
7 x 8.
• The number of names which is not male is 7.
• Three women are mentioned-Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek
letters in these three names is 14, or 7 x 2.
• The number of compound nouns is 7. The number of Greek letters in these 7
nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.
• Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains
exactly 7 letters.

Matthew’s sectional use of 14 generations has been mooted to reflect the then current belief of the number of High Priests from Aaron to the establishment of Solomon’s Temple, from the establishment from the Temple until Jaddua, the last High Priest mentioned in Scripture. Others have argued that in his 3x14 division Matthew is reflecting a then already widely-held belief of a universal world-week patterned after the seven days of creation (i.e. 6x7), six “days” followed by a Messianic age i.e. a Sabbath, or a pattern following the formula used in Daniel. Whatever the case may be, it was not accidental.

Matthew begins the Gospel with a chiastic form in 1:1,17 (ABC, genealogy, C'B'A') for the genealogy in vv 2-16. In this case each half of the frame summarises the significance of the enclosed genealogy. There is also a chiastic appearance of Abraham and David in his genealogy i.e.

Jesus 1.1b
David 1.1c
Abraham 1.1d
Abraham1.2
David1.6
Jesus1.16

Breck holds that 3:1-17 and 4:1-17 form a chiasm centred upon John’s claim that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire, enclosed by 2 expressions of “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Fenton and Gaechter have argued that all of Matthew is chiastic, the latter also pointing out the numerical patterns that control the several parts of the whole. Others have stated that Matthew has complicated circles of chiasms within chiasms, and these too have chiasms controlling them.
Furthermore some have argued that there is a typological literary reflection in Matthew’s Gospel which looks something like this:

Matthew OT

1:1: Book of Genesis Gen 2:4; 5:1
(i.e. toledoth and sepher
toledoth)

1:1-17: son of Abraham Gen 12-26

1:18-25: Joseph the dreamer Gen 37

2:1-12: Magi Nations to Egypt for Joseph


2:13-15: Herod kills children Exod 1-2: Pharaoh
kills children


2:14: Jesus rescued, flees Exod 2: Moses rescued,
flees

2:19-23: Jesus returns to Israel Exod 3-4: Moses returns
to Egypt


3:1-12: John announces judgment Exod 5-12: Moses/Aaron
bring judgment

3:13-17: Jesus passes through Exod 14: Parting of the
waters waters of the Red Sea


4:1-11: Temptation in wilderness Exod 17-19: Travel in Sinai


4:18-22: Jesus calls disciples Exod 18: Moses appoints
rulers

chs. 5-7: Sermon on the Mount Ex 19 ff Sinai and the
and various explanations of Law giving of Torah

Matthew also demonstrates a reliance on the number three throughout his Gospel: 3 temptations, 3 illustrations of righteousness, 3 miracles of healing, 3 miracles of power, 3 miracles of restoration, threefold ‘fear not’, threefold answer to the question about fasting, 3 complaints of the Pharisees, 3 ‘is not worthy of me’, 3 parables of sowing, 3 sayings about ‘little ones’, 3 questions, 3 parables of warning, 3 prayers at Gethsemane, 3 denials of Peter, 3 petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, 3 aspirations in the Lord’s Prayer. There is also a triadic structure to the Sermon on the Mount which reflects a well-known triad of Jewish piety preserved in mAb. 1:2 (446).

There are also 7 demons, seven loaves, seven baskets, sevenfold forgiveness, seven brothers and seven woes. As Marshall Johnson wrote, “Considered in the light of this tendency toward numerical structure, the arrangement of the genealogy into 3 x 14 or 3 x 7 x 2 seems entirely congruous. The evangelist draws attention to the form of the genealogy because it is a survey of pre-Messianic history intending to underscore the predetermined character of the coming of Jesus, the Messiah.”

From the list of additional literary device Kaye supplied, in the first few chapters of Matthew one can see the following utilised by the Gospel writer when composing the text: parallel plotting with its ostensible appearance of simultaneity, delayed action and outcomes, convergence and retrospective alignment, sequential twists, temporal shifts, temporal gaps and blanks, analogous or repetitive themes and incidents, alternation whereby the narrative sequence zig-zags between objective simultaneities, suspense-driven episodes, parataxis.

So, what would a Sydney Anglican Evangelical following the much-heralded Dickson rule be forced to conclude? Matthew is neither prose nor historiography. Of course, similar material could be raised with reference to the other Gospels and similar conclusions stated.

As a liberal Dickson looks toward structure and not content (i.e. Don’t confuse me with the facts!). Kaye pointed out that Hebrew prose can be identified by the use of particular grammatical constructs. Anon and Dickson are oblivious to this (maybe they don’t read footnotes?) or choose to ignore it because it would destroy their case. Kaye wrote: “The particles ’et (the sign of the definite direct object), ’ašer (the relative pronoun), and ha- (the definite article) all have been identified as prosaic elements, not common in or suitable to poetry....In general, these particulars occur six to eight times more frequently in prose passages than in poetic ones. Statistically the results are even more important, since they establish beyond cavil that the occurrence of these particles is a valid discriminant, and the difference in distribution reflects an intrinsic distinction between prose and poetry. All these elements are present in Genesis 1.”

7. I believe Anon misunderstood a statement I made or maybe I didn’t explain it clearly enough. I suggested that liberals saw various parts of the Bible as historiographic which were the very sections that contain the literary devices that Anon and Dickson trumpet as being indicative of non-history. My point was not that these liberals BELIEVED these sections to be actual history, but that they saw it had the form of history i.e. historiographic i.e it resembled history writing. What the majority of liberals then do is provide a reason, any reason, to give their liberalism a veneer of credibility. In like manner, Dickson and Anon throw up this specious and contrived link between literary devices and non-history and non-historiography. That both these people state their case in a circular fashion and never once actually give evidence for it is lost in the debate. Anon further arrogantly tries to make us orthodox prove our case, another clear indication of his liberal and heretical view of Scripture. Anon, like Dickson, never actually supply any evidence for their belief.

8. So that clarified, Anon wanted to see some evidence that liberals accept the earliest parts of the Bible as historiography.
(i) Meir Sternberg understood the Bible to “transmute even invention into the stuff of history”
(ii) Robert Alter, the well-known literary theorist, calls Genesis and Exodus “fiction in the guise of history” and “historicized prose fiction.” Elsewhere he writes concerning Judges, “It is perhaps less historicized fiction than fictionalized history – history in which the feeling and the meaning of events are concretely realised through the technical resources of prose fiction.”
(iii) In other words, even an uber-liberal like Alter can see that this writing possesses the appearance of historiography, though, of course, denying its objective factuality. Dickson, however, denies that Genesis 1 even takes the form of historiography because – and let’s take him at his word here – it’s lumbered with too many literary devices. At least Alter is a tad more convincing because he denies it’s true but says it was written to appear like history. This is not all that dissimilar to the High Priest of atheism Richard Dawkins who many years ago, speaking to Phillip Adams, stated something to the effect that he understood from the text that the writers of Genesis 1 believed that what they wrote was literal and had occurred, unlike the dishonest contemporary Christian interpreters who try to make days seem like ages.
(iv) Even Adele Berlin agreed that despite the Bible being fiction and denying the miraculous, the stories were presented in a realistic narrative. Go figure, Anon.

9. Just a comment on a rather confusing point Anon made. He said that I was “incapable…of escaping from the simplistic but entirely spurious disjunction [I]’ve sought to establish between literal history and non-history.”
Now, I may have misunderstood Anon’s point here, but it seems to me that this is exactly the liberal cake-and-eat-it-too doctrine that the Sydney Anglo Heretics are becoming quickly famous for. I believe it was Warwick who first pointed this out on the Blog. They call Genesis 1 truth but not true truth. Anon’s comment seems to be a variation on this.
In any case, this is begging the question that Genesis is not historiography and history, and is another example of the hubris of these heretics who, while denying the traditional Church’s statements concerning the historical truth of Genesis 1, maintain that theirs is the right and only view of Genesis 1. They throw in all the usual red-herrings like the Good Samaritan Parable and pose all the hollow questions like “Was there really a certain man on the road to Jericho?” etc, as though this actually nullifies Genesis 1’s claim to being an accurate record of the Earth’s history.
No, Anon, it’s you and your postmodern, neo-orthodox mates over there in Anglo ga-ga land which have to prove the novel idea that there is no disjunction between literal history and non-history.

10. In summation, it is apparent that people like Anon and Dickson believe that art in writing spells the death of historiography. Or it may be the case that too much art is incommensurate with the writing of history (neither ever flesh their argument out). Now, maybe this is the case in contemporary history writing – I am not sufficiently adept to pass opinion – but, and my case presented here is hardly exhaustive, it would hardly seem that this was true in antiquity. Why, then, would Anon and Dickson make such a song and dance concerning literary devices in Genesis 1 when these, and more, appear throughout Scripture far more abundantly and in exceedingly more complex application? The answer is hardly rocket science. They disingenuously are led by the conclusions of materialistic science, notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary. It’s heresy business as usual with these guys!
I want to finish this thread by quoting the arch-liberal Bultmann. He wrote that “the literary devices with which [the author of John’s Gospel] builds the discussions—the use of ambiguous concepts and statements to elicit misunderstandings—are indicative that he lives within the sphere of Gnostic-dualistic thinking.” These ambiguities and misunderstandings are not “merely formal technical devices. Rather, they are the expression of his underlying dualistic view.”

As we know, Bultmann did not really care for any talk of the Gospels being history, just as Dickson and his zealous supporters truck no argument that Genesis 1 is history. It is indeed one of those queer coincidences of history that both Bultmann and Dickson identify the catalyst for the removal of the historical as the inclusion of literary devices by the authors of the biblical text.

11. Conclusion

Let me borrow heavily from Dickson’s own argument and, mutatis mutandis, present a more likely conclusion:

The chronology of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of history, sharing in the temporality of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: the inclusion of a prescript for the benefit of modern readers would be unnecessary because the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is historiographic rather than literary and ahistoric.”

Moreover, one can’t but help be reminded of C.S. Lewis’ trenchant censure of these Anglicans who seek to present another Gospel, a Gospel that robs Christ of his nature and office:

“Whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading…These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.”

Finally, a word from Peter, the disciple who was mocked by Anon:

"First of all you must realise that in the last days cynical mockers will undoubtedly come - men whose only guide in life is what they want for themselves - and they will say, "Everything remains as it was since the beginning of creation!" They are deliberately shutting their eyes to the fact that there were heavens in the old days and an earth formed by God's command out of water and by water. It was by water that the world of those days was deluged and destroyed."

Sleeping with the atheists

Did anyone catch last Saturday’s Herald an article ‘When extinction becomes a heresy’? It was an edited extract from an essay titled ‘Empathy for the enemy’, which, as I’ll soon explain, is manifestly ironic.

The article was jam-packed with the usual maudlin and irrational animal “rights” rhetoric that is endlessly promoted nowadays in mainstream media. More outrageous was its attempt to compare the necessary elimination of rabbits and foxes from Australia with the barbarism of Auschwitz. This elevation of animal rights, I may add, is entirely consistent with Nazi practices and their obsession with all things green.

Notwithstanding this attempt to muddy the clear line of separation between man and animal, attention needs to be called to the only theoretical basis on which such a move can be reasonably postulated, that being the “truth” of evolution. In other words, all life has common ancestry, and this was clearly reiterated in the article.

As a related aside, the Evangelical Union of Sydney University recently had their perennial compromising science/religion lunchtime talk. One of the scientists on the panel of “experts”, when asked about evolution, gave it an unqualified thumbs up. I couldn’t help but notice the confused look on the atheist’s face who asked the question. Quite rightly she instantly realised the incommensurability and the procrustean explanation of a putative marriage between Christian theism and this materialistic worldview.

One last jibe at the essay’s author Clive Marks. Marks is blissfully and philosophically unaware that just because something is the case (i.e. rabbits suffer when exposed to Myxomatosis), that this is sufficient epistemic justification to derive moral condemnation concerning this fact (i.e. it’s morally reprehensible to expose rabbits to Myxomatosis because rabbits suffer). And certainly, on an evolutionary epistemic in which the fit win and the weak are removed, I can’t see how a reversal of nature’s norm is at all warranted.

Now to the real comment I wish to make.

What grabbed my attention was the article’s opening sentence: “Time and evolution have been detached creators”

This blog has endlessly pointed out that the heretics over in that other world of Sydney Anglicanism have robbed Christ of his glory and office by substituting another creator for Him. These wolves neither read the Bible properly nor listen to commonsense and advice and thus, in chasing after the world’s wisdom, they “are deluded by specious arguments…and fall prey to hollow and misleading philosophy.” Rather than wholeheartedly upholding Paul’s statement that “everything was created through him”, these rascals have deceived others that the gods of time and evolution can act as a surrogate for Christ. Not content with their own evil thoughts, they pour scorn on and try to silence any who oppose their ideas.

That atheists openly worship time and evolution as the “gods” of materialism only makes the SADs enlisting of these very same “gods” inexcusable.

The obstinate making the blind

In the latest edition of Moore Matters: the Moore College bulletin, Dr Woodhouse makes the statement:

Today's atheistic secularists consistently assume that the future of the human race will be the complete triumph of secularism and the abolition of every kind of belief in God...

Now, why would they assume that?

It might be because they have said in their heart that there is no God. Now, what does that mean "there is no God"?

As God's chief credential, repeated throughout the Bible, is that he is creator, then it must mean that there is no creator: secular humanism claws after neodarwinian evolution to provide evidence for its rejection of God.

But SADists adopt the same end result: the universe as it appears was made from other things that are within the universe (contrary to Hebrews 11:3) and so is identical to a universe made without God; effectively, to all appearances, then, they must say that there is 'virtually' no God.

Are the SADists then found out to be fools of the Psalm 14:1 variety?

Just for the record, I should add that Dr Woodhouse, the principal of Moore College, once debated on the veracity of Genesis 1. He exhibited in this debate (at Christ Church St Ives) a degree of biblical illiteracy that is astonishing for an OT scholar. He seemed to think that the Bible had multiple creation accounts! He seemed to include the psalms in his list. Hmm, odd!

Blot saving

I saw this post from Critias on the Son of Peter blot. Just thought I'd save it in case it was removed by MJ in a fit of the 'boo hoos' (refer to MJ's old comment on this blog where his incisive comment was ... "boo hoo"... yep, that's what they must teach at Moore!).

The blog its from is the Evangelical Manifesto

"I like it that it doesn't mention 'creationism' "... [quoting another comment] do we also like it that it doesn't set our faith on the ground of God's creation as he sets his 'manifesto'; that is, the Bible?
No. . .well, ho hum, another human attempt to substitute for the word of God and appeal to the world in its terms, instead of God's.
But, that said, I don't see the point. Who is the M supposed to influence? World media? They won't care. It certainly will have no effect on the next taxi driver I ask "so, do you think we descended from monkeys?".

The some bright spark, with no irony function, scolded for the 'evolved from monkeys' faux pas, and Crit, said:

Mike, I am aware of standard evolutionary doctrine on this point. However, if discussing with a taxi driver, my conversational tactic is to arouse a response that will enable me to steer a conversation to Christ. This is a pretty reliable opener.
If I was writing a paper on the matter I would adopt a diffent course.
Incidently natural selection is a conservative, not an innovative process: it selects and eliminates from the gene pool, but does not expand it. It was first discussed in any detail, to my knowledge, by Edward Blyth, who influenced Darwin. More on Blyth here: creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/

Packer packs it in.

Famed Theologian Quits Anglican Church of Canada!!!

I was interested to read this article by Lillian Kwon, Christian Post Reporter dated Mon, Apr. 28, 2008, on Packer (not Jamie, but James I) quitting the Anglican Church of Canada.

“Packer, who has outlined a conservative Christian theology in his 1973 bestseller Knowing God, described the Bible as "absolute" authority on divine truth and that it clearly describes homosexuality as a grave sin, reported by The Vancouver Sun. The Rev. Kevin Dixon, priest at St. Mary's Anglican Church in Kerrisdale, meanwhile believes Packer is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible. "It's important for people to understand that the Holy Scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding," said Dixon, the local newspaper reported.

I’ve got to stick up for our dear brother here. He is reading the Bible ‘naturally’. The term ‘literalistic’ has a bovver boy pejorative flavour that sets out to discredit one's opponent. Here it consciously disregards Packer’s great learning and intellect, as well as his spirituality, I dare say. The term also betrays a hollow dismissive rhetoric at work, not engagement or real debate. It says that we're sewn up before we've cut the cloth.

But how amazing it is, that when it comes to the Spirit’s revelation about creation, the SADs do just what Dixon does!

I could hear any Sydney Bishop say: oh dear, those ‘creationists’ (as though there is an alternative in Christian theology), they adopt a "literalistic" reading of the Bible. "It's important for people to understand that the Holy Scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding," For instance, we need to absorb the conclusions of materialism into our theology; we need to be able to disregard those parts of the Bible that attract the scorn of people who deny that God is or that he can speak clearly to us; we need the freedom to be able to blur people’s generative relationship with their creator and help them head to hell on rails. We just need to relax, unhinge, and be cool about the prophets, apostles and our Lord’s teaching, because, after all, science proves…”

And there we have it. A critical disengagement from what ‘science’ is, a failure of intellect in cultural analysis, and a refusal to bear the prophet's burden and speak God’s words, instead of man’s.

Come on in, Canada

"In his Easter 2005 message he [Michael Ingham] approvingly quoted Diarmuid O’Murchu saying “we should stop thinking of God as a supernatural Being located outside the universe… we should think of the universe itself as a pulsating, vibrant dance of energy alive with benign and creative potential in which God calls to us from within, not without.”


O'Murchu has arrived! He has travelled the conceptual road that the SADists are on. They are heading to the destination that O'Murchu so clearly and openly describes. The result of God 'using' evolution, is that God merges with materialism, to be ultimately subsumed by it.

Ironically I lifted the quote from the SAD website where an article discussed the parlous state of Ingham's diocese in Canada and how conservative Anglican congregations there are suffering from his 'heresy' as the Sydney writer put it. They simultaneously see heresy and decry it with one hand, while promoting it with the other!

Jensen at Abbotsleigh

The Lord Archibishop of Sydney (Anglican) recently spoke at that centre of Anglican humility and equity Abbotsleigh girls' school in the very ordinary working class suburb of Wahroonga . . . hang on, no I got that all wrong. It should be:

True to the Anglican obsession with privilage, wealth and elitism, Peter spoke at the exclusive and very expensive Anglican girls' school Abbotsleigh, which is impossible for ordinary folks to use, breeds a contemptuous and unbiblical superiority and keeps Christian families from being an influence in public schools . . .that's better.

He was on the subject of 'The Holy Spirit' [I always regarded the Spirit as a person, not a subject!]. He said:

If the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, think how you can depend on the bible. If you get the big picture straight, you won't be led astray as easily by the details of Scripture.

Except of course, when you read Genesis 1, the meaning of which is only available to the highly schooled academics at Moore, not ordinary folk.

Now, when ordinary folk read Genesis 1, they pretty much think that the Holy Spirit wants us to understand that God created the world by fiat in six days. We read other parts of Torah, and find out that he wants us to understand that the creation event occured about 6000 years ago.

Assuming that the Holy Spirit does everything on purpose; I expect he wanted Genesis 1 to say what it says on purpose: for our instruction, not as a distraction.

Question for Mike Pagett

Mike, around the time you went to Summer Camp I asked you to consider a proposition on origins and respond when you get back on deck in Feb 2008. We are now well into Feb and I raise again here the proposition for a response from you.

I note your belief in an old age for the earth is shaped by contemporary science but I earlier noted that Scripture has shaped your life, even to the extent of giving you new life.

This brings me back to my first question to you and it centres around what we both regard as an instructive passage in the origins debate - Exodus 20:11. This passage contains a direct statement of God to Moses, a statement which was intended to shape the life of Israel.

Some other Christians in Sydney, Sam Drucker and myself are agreed that language must have meaning because language is an information system. The arrangement of words by a sender must avoid ambiguity to facilitate an appropriate response. Meaning will exclude propositions while, at the same time, make proposition(s). God is the source of meaning and the author of language. He above all message senders will be expected to get meaning right for the recipient of His word.

I am not sure what views of origins Israel confronted prior to assembly at Sinai. Whether there were similarities with what we confront today is not clear but we share with Israel in that we all have our origin in the same creative act of God. Therefore the message of God concerning His creative activity will have the same meaning for us as for them.

This statement of God recorded in Exodus 20:11 concerning His creative work has application to such theories as Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, Day-Age and Progressive Creation are excluded.

God ordained the order of weekly living for Israel with a Sabbath and He founds this upon His creative activity: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Ex. 20:11 NIV)

In the following I propose where the aforesaid theories are negated by what God has said (and done):

Theistic Evolution - Creation occurred in a six day period not the time frame required for the theory of evolution.

Gap Theory - An earlier but subsequently destroyed creation for which fossils found today are a remnant is excluded because all that was ever made by God has its origin in Creation Week.

Day-Age Theory - The six days of work followed by a Sabbath for Israel have no meaning or validity if the 'days' of Creation Week were not similar in duration to the days experienced by Israel.

Progressive Creation Theory - As with the Theistic Evolution Theory this is negated by the creation of all things in the heavens, the earth and the sea in the six days of Creation Week.

Mike, it reads to me that you set the minds of men on a higher plane than the Word of God. Worse still, you acknowledge that the status of the minds of men on origins is only something tantamount to 'a work in progress'.

I am concerned about you giving offence to God. I am concerned about the glory of God being diminished but I am also concerned about your welfare and the impact your 'world view' will have on young Christians and inquirers after the Lord.

When you get back from your January commitments will you consider the meaning of God's words recorded in Exodus 20:8-11 as pertaining to current 'old earth' views and then let me know how you see the situation.

Neil Moore

Shrill the whistle blows

Over on our nemesis forum: run by the SADists; there was a comment (I'll grab the link later) as to how we cast aspersions and rant rather than debate.

I must say, I think the boot is on t'other foot. This blog's authors and commenters go a long way to reasoning out their position, but no matter how much we put forward our reasons, there is scant intellectual engagement. Mr Baddeley comes the closest to dealing with our discussion, but even he took his bat and ball when challenged on the fathers' writings. He went on to win the Baddeley award with his lengthy discussions (which I'm still to fully consider) on his objections to something we don't happen to be: creation scientists. So he thoroughly missed the point while calling the kettle black.

Long time readers will recall Michael Jensen's fabulously insightful comments . . . I say no more, or the sharp debates of one Mr Cheng . . .ditto. But who will recall the discussive engagement of dealing with arguments? No one, I fear!

Perhaps one of the early commenters who went right past the Bible to cosmic rays zapping from outerspace to explain creation wins the day? Irrationality triumps over biblical fact in the SAD, it would seem.

I think the real reason is that SAD runs on 'priestcraft' even if with another name, and only those who've been given magic hands can study the Bible and talk about it.

Someone also suggested that if only we knew the Archbishop, we'd know what a fab guy he is.

I've met and spoken to the AB on many occasions, I've served on church committees and mission teams with Phil. I've heard many of Peter's sermons (and Phil's) at St Matthias and the Cathedral. Indeed, I've been to the odd ordination where a Jensen spoke. One of my nearest misses was when I was in a mission team, and confronted by a problem no one seemed to want to answer, I rang Moore and asked to speak to Peter; after all, he was one of the teachers at my church. His gatekeeper laughingly dismissed me ("what, speak to Dr Jensen, he's far too important for the likes of you" was the implication), and I was left as dead meat for the people I'd be assigned after our mission. But perhaps I, as a young Christian then, was not aware that the lowly should not presume to ask of the lofty!

But that's not what got this blog going; it was the quasi-Barthian compromise with materialism and the rejection of the gutsy historic position on Genesis 1 from which springs all our theology, in one way or another. Peter is complicit in this, as are other bishops: none, in personal corresondence, discussion or formal exchanges seems to want to correct the Lord Archbishop's wrong teaching that evolution and creation are in different realities: evolution in this one, but creation in some ethereal 'reality' that we, and those who are lost from Christ, cannot touch.

Psalm 104

There was a reference on Craig's blog to the ConfessingEvangelical blog on Psalm 104. An interesting discussion then ensued. As it was in September last year (an eon ago in Internet time) I thought I'd take it up here, rather than attempt to join an old discussion.

As a matter of interest, I googled over to Spurgeon's Treasury of David on the psalm.

From the introduction:

"Here we have one of the loftiest and longest sustained flights of the inspired muse. The psalm gives an interpretation to the many voices of nature, and sings sweetly both of creation and providence. The poem contains a complete cosmos sea and land, cloud and sunlight, plant and animal, light and darkness, life and death, are all proved to be expressive of the presence of the Lord. Traces of the six days of creation are very evident, and though the creation of man, which was the crowning work of the sixth day, is not mentioned, this is accounted for from the fact that man is himself the singer: some have ever, discerned marks of the divine rest upon the seventh day in Ps 104:31. It is a poet's version of Genesis. Nor is it alone the present condition of the earth which is here the subject of song; but a hint is given of those holier times when we shall see "a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, "out of which the sinner shall be consumed, Ps 104:35. The spirit of ardent praise to God runs through the whole, and with it a distinct realization of the divine Being as a personal existence, loved and trusted as well as adored."

The original blog on this was a question about the use of this psalm in our reflections on creation, and that it had not figured in much of the debate. Interesting thought. While my reading is slowed down by the demands of my work (paid work, that is; I've got a pile of articles, theses and books to get through before I retire), I hope to get to recent theological reflection on the creation. I must say, I agree with Mr Baddeley that there is a dearth of theological work done in this area and because, as Baddeley says, we are of puny mind, we daren't even think of undertaking it. The dearth results, perhaps, from the widespread acceptance of the assertions of materialism as being conclusive and factual, and so eliminating the need to consider Genesis 1-3 theologically; also, of course, if this passage is not the account of creation, then theological work is sort of pointless, because it makes no contact with our real world, it becomes a sort of story telling: comforting, perhaps, but of no concrete relevance to us here and now.

Nevertheless, there is grist for the mill in Psalm 104.

I think that Spurgeon gives a lead in that the Psalm makes assumptive reference to the creation, and is more concerned with straddling from normal providence (that is, post creation) and the new creation. However, it underscores the biblical signficance of the creation account and encourages us to deal with that account seriously; not dismissing it as some sort of side show, which Jensenism tends to do; making its content subservient to current materialist conceptualisations.

One of the comments on the original blog related to animal carnivory mentioned in the psalm (v. 21) as somehow undermining the contention that a 'very good' creation excluded animal carnivory (on the basis of Genesis 1:30). It was a long bow, I think, as the psalm clearly refers to the world as it stands, while harking back to the orginal creation of it. As it stands now, the world bears the marks of that great cataclysm, the fall; the rejection of relationship with God. The psalm is a 'post fall' document and so recognises the world post fall, wherein, by the operation of common providence, animals must 'look' to the creator for sustenence: see Spurgeon on this, for example.

Some of the comments on confessingevangelical suggested that Psalm 104 shows that God's sustaining work (in common providence) is behind the normal flow of 'cause and effect'/'purpose and result' in our everyday experience, non-miraculously; so simultaneously, as if in two parallel realities, there is God over there, and there is nature over here. Therefore, it seems some might hold that God's statements about creation in Genesis 1 can take the same form: God's action and its results as stated in the account coexist with but are separate from the normal flow of cause and effect described by Evolution as we would see it. So yipee (as my young son says) we can both be right!

The trouble is, for practical evangelism, both being right just leaves the average materialist with his/her materialism and no compelling reason to question or reject it. After all, it simply means that some story has been crafted to 'stand behind' the real world but the real world is what it is, independently of the story. The dependence of the world on God, at least at its creation, is therefore, in real terms, obscured. And so, our connection with God, is similarly obscured and the whole salvation project is thrown into the dark.

I think it is the notion of independence which is critical for Christian reflection. If the real world can be conceived of as independent of God, and practical denail of the concreteness of the creation account results in such a conception, then we are truly cut adrift, theologically and evangelistically. Paul the apostle certainly thinks that we are, in fact, not cut adrift (Acts 14 & 17 as examples of his reliance on the creation account, by implication, 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, for his reliance on the fall in his theology); nor does the author of Hebrews (4:3, 11:3). Wright has an essay (chapter from his book on Paul) that touches on this in some ways.

Moreover, the 'stand behind' theory of interpretation gets us nowhere if it cannot make the case that the genesian text gives due reason for that theory. I don't think it does. The grammar of Genesis 1, as I read, is not consistent with metaphor, but with historical account. Taking a more theological perspective, as the Genesis 1 account is the only point for an ontological link between us and God, it must make the link in terms that are congruent with our current time-space world and not need to transmogrify that world into some spiritualised thing that we would find in neoplatonic thought.

Just as an aside:
Found on Jordon Cooper's site:

" 'Jews see water, sea as dark and evil. Look at Noah, Jonah, Moses and the sea as the dark chaos of creation. '
My apologies, but you misunderstand Wright.
Jews thought of the material world as good. They did not believe God had created an evil thing.
It was Gnostics who thought of the material world as evil, created by a Demiurge."
a comment on his blog.

News Flash, January 8, 2018: Moore College takes its lead from science – It’s official: “Jesus did not resurrect,” says new principal, Mike Paget

It appears that our amicable and open-minded Sydney Anglican Heretics’ representative, Mike, has strung together a mini-treatise criticising our use of Lactantius and Theophilus as evidence that the belief in a young earth was the norm rather than the exception for the early Church. (Of course, Mike and his Moore mates would prefer to convince us that, just as they see it today, the issue of age was not an issue way back then. But even Mike’s chutzpa wouldn’t extend that far; for the mere fact that it was brought up by these first Christians evinces it WAS an issue.) I’d like to closely examine Mike’s [para]logical thoughts because like all sophists their strength never lies in what they say but in their capacity to make a listener lose sight of his own argument.

Mike’s attitude to Lactantius, to contextualize it, is that he regards him as somewhat of a dropkick loser, theologically speaking that is. From this Mike concludes that Lactantius can’t be trusted regarding the earth’s age. What can I say, old chap? Well, if you were in one of my logic classes I’d make you sport the dunce’s hat and, mirroring your own paternal discipline, have you sit in the corner for a lesson or two!

You see Mike has just committed the classic fallacy of argument ad hominem in which irrelevant circumstances are thrown in the ring and then the actual argument is dismissed as though these circumstances have somehow weakened or even overturned the argument. Mike’s attitude to logic at this point reminds me of the man who took his car to his local garage but was warned off by a friend because “Joe, the mechanic there, bashes his wife.” Mike presents exactly the same obtuse rationality when he claims that “Lactantius was a B-grade public debater whose extant writings are about as useful for determining early church thought as my quiet time notes would be for understanding early 21st century eccesiology[sic].” Thus, according to Mike’s specious insight, before one is granted imprimatur a man’s theological credentials must be of a certain standard [non-Moore graduates need not apply, thank you very much!], in addition to possessing silver-tongued interlocutory skills.

Apart from his fishy response that begs the question that there is a plethora of early Church writing attesting to Mike’s long-age view, Mike willfully disregards the implicit point of Lactantius’ statement: If you read God’s Word free of external philosophical influences it plainly says that the world is young. Here are Lactantius’ words once again:

"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete.”

By now Mike’s sour grapes are fairly well obvious to those who have been following the debate. The challenge from the heretics was that our position is somehow the new kid on the block (in some quarters of his tribe our crime of speaking out loudly is perceived as that of an enfant terrible!), yet we’ve shown that on the contrary theirs is the novelty (not to mention being the unorthodox and embarrassing view). What rattles Mike – though he can’t admit it - is that even a theologically impoverished bloke like Lactantius took at face value the biblical passages that dealt with the age of the earth (after all, from where would he obtain the 6,000 years?). So to cripple Lactantius’ testimony Mike has to accuse the man of committing the theological equivalent of wife bashing or tax cheating. The question was not whether a man gets all his theology perfect, but whether the text at Genesis 1 can be read as Moore College heretics teach. The historical testimony of the Church says it wasn’t. To repeat our argument: the Moore College view of Genesis 1, that it is not an historical report, is a modern perversion.

Mike’s next attack is even more unacceptable. But before demonstrating Mike’s illogic on this matter, I want to point out another instance of his dishonesty.

Mike, like his heretic mates, misrepresents young earth creationists and constructs a straw man. He implicitly argues that because we hold that Genesis 1 should be read straightforwardly, then, in order to be consistent, it follows that all passages of the Bible should be read that way. (This is the enthymematic message behind his frequent mention of geocentricity, domes of water encircling the earth and flat earthism.) Others on this site have reacted to this clear deception by demonstrating that this is a caricature of our position so I won’t spend any time going over the same ground. However, I need to stress that this display of intellectual lassitude toward our actual argument is more or less indicative of the character that Moore College produces in its graduates. (Hence Mike’s alarming remonstration that he is not on earth to jump through, what he perceives as, my hoops.)

Mike imputes to an early Church father – this case, Theophilus – flat earthism. Mike’s general disregard of scholarship raises its head once again. For if Mike had read the whole of the 32nd chapter (in addition to several preceding ones) in Theophilus’ 2nd book, he would of understood that Theophilus was making a rhetorical point. I know that the subtlety of this argument will escape Mike because like all cult members they only want to prove what they have been told to stand up for. And judging by Mike’s attribution of flat-earthism to Theophilus’ text, when it clearly does not even mention these words, I suspect Mike’s source is one of the atheist or heretical theistic evolutionary websites.

So what did Theophilus actually say?

While Theophilus’ entire book is an attack on the competency of pagan ability to accurately record history, the 32nd chapter acts as a mini-conclusion to a very long argument that he has set down prior to that chapter. Unlike the followers of Jensenism (that eponymous heresy sourced in Moore College’s then principal’s Doctrines 1), Theophilus took the first 11 chapters of the Bible as straightforward history. In the 27th chapter he begins to discuss the creation of man. He follows with chapters that carry the reader through all the ancient historical characters, tribes and places mentioned in Holy Scripture. Along the way Theophilus periodically ridicules pagan writing and its erroneous statements which masquerade as true “history”. It is at this point in his 32nd chapter that Theophilus mentions the world being viewed by pagans as a sphere or a cube. By unconscionably ascribing flat earthism to Theophilus Mike misses the wit of the rhetorical purpose behind his statement. After all, no where does Theophilus actually state the world is flat: that’s something Mike has deliberately and erroneously inferred (through mimicking his atheist bovver boys’ websites).

The statement that Mike rips from its context shows that Theophilus is mocking the pagans at this point because they are unable to accurately record even a small “visible” thing as the history of man, yet they issue apodictic statements concerning a far more complex subject, namely the shape of the world. Hence, “But how can [the pagans] say what is true regarding [the shape of the earth] when they do not know about the creation of the world and its population.” In other words, are we really sure we can trust the pagans for cosmological truth when they present such an emaciated understanding of our own history.

One last thing. Mike states that “the only way we can recognize these statements as metaphorical is by the benefit of modern science.” Elsewhere he writes, “I guess my understanding of the mechanism or physical process of creation is quite shaped by contemporary science. A lot of that is obviously highly provisional and still in debate, but I'm happy with current proposals, for example, of lengths of time.” He then goes on to claim, “I would characterise Gen 1-3 as a kind of impressionistic portrayal of the truly important aspects of that creation, drawing attention to it as something genuinely creative, in a language accessible to believers throughout history. These aspects which have been highlighted are almost entirely theological rather than, for example, methodological.”

At last, here we have it: Mike admits that his epistemology is that science should control the Bible’s meaning. In this instance, the short age earth isn’t true because science says the earth is old. All those passages taken at face-value, which appear to say that the world is young, must be understood to be merely a picture of reality and do not contain a straightforward history of events.

Of course, Mike’s epistemology is inconsistently applied. This is exactly what Bultmann, Spong etc take as their epistemological basis for understanding the Gospels: According to science dead people don’t walk out of tombs and so we should take the resurrection accounts as metaphor. It’s the Christ event which is the important thing, not whether Jesus really resurrected and the Gospels are an impressionistic portrayal of the truly important aspects of that seminal moment, drawing attention to it as something genuinely creative, in a language accessible to believers throughout history. These aspects which have been highlighted are almost entirely theological rather than, for example, methodological.

Well done, Mike. You’ve just taken an axe to the tree of Christianity. A heretic you remain.

09 As A Derivitive of 10%

Don't just stand there ... do something! Anything! Even if its the same old thing.

Leaders of Sydney Anglicans are whipping themselves and their flock to achieve their 10% growth by the ten year target date. 'Connect 09' is the jingoistic slogan adopted to inspire pew sitters to get out there and get results.

Having abandoned trust in God's Word written from the very first pages of the Bible, leaders are bereft of new ideas that will work. As such they must resort to things tried previously in the wistful hope it will work.

Oh, that they would take God at his Word rather than insulting him by saying that he doesn't mean what he says. Why should the Lord God accede to those who reject his very utterances? Why should he answer their prayer requests for success in this venture? They are only after an empire built on their devices - not on trust in the Word of God.

So they shall be confused to employ strategies which are a mix of that which has not worked in the past. Remember the bicentenary (1988) evangelistic enterprise whereby New Testaments were printed and purchased by the churches to hand out in door-knocking encounters? It's on again for Sydney Anglicans with the jingoistic 'Connect 09'. Remember the 'funnel' analogy of making contact, relate and feed into evangelistic events? It's on again in the jingoistic 'Connect 09'.

Oh, that they would remember the words of the Lord God uttered to Solomon (1 Kings 9:6-7) "But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples."

Sydney Anglicans have made up a god who is not the God who has spoken in his Word written. They therefore render themselves objects of the same judgment spoken of by the Lord God to Solomon.

Sydney Anglicans may well put prayer central to their endeavour but if they are not prepared to listen to him why should he listen to them? Indeed, just who or what are they praying to anyway?


Neil Moore