There are men who are sincere fools, while others are clearly dangerous. I’d really like to give the man the benefit of doubt but Bishop Rob Forsyth certainly hasn’t given us much of an option; for, quite adroitly, he manages to combine both these options in a single speech titled “Then a miracle occurs: The Blessing and Limitations of Science”. The again, I suppose I shouldn’t be too harsh on the man because the jury is still out on just what the proportions are. Is it more ass than enemy, vice versa or a surgical divide down the middle?
Unless I’ve misunderstood his most recent capitulation (read, suck-up; and, yes, this isn’t the first occasion he’s turned a trick!) to the boffins at the ostensibly Christian organisation ISCAST, Bishop Rob Forsyth has carried the Anglican Church a little further down the path of pagan worship. His incantation, delivered in October 2006 to the usual coterie of liberal wolves masquerading as orthodox sheep, is singularly startling due to its unabashed rejection for everything an evangelical is supposed to uphold.
The Bishop begins his case by asking whether we should “make the scientific way of knowing the only way of knowing?” Yes, Rob the bishop agrees there are limits to science but we shouldn’t hastily set them down in stone [like those creationists do] because, after all, “[w]ho can say today what it is we will know tomorrow”.
Rob, buddy, I wish you would come clean. Why don’t you admit that yours is just another disingenuous epistemological reliance on naturalism, a philosophy which limits explanation of phenomena to the material, holds to a reductionist view of things and thereby strives to silence God.
But of course the bishop couldn’t actually do that – he wouldn’t be a Christian, would he? So, in order to look like he really is a Christian trooper, he inevitably throws in the Sydney Anglican’s shibboleth: the resurrection. Rob, like the majority of SAs, believes that as long as you believe in the resurrection, you can believe anything you want to believe in, or not, as the case happens to be. For example, here’s old Rob, sounding more and more like a Jenkins of Durham fame, or Spong of Noiw Joisey, removing the miraculous from the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses: “By [genuine] miracle here I am talking not about events in which the remarkable timing of a natural event has significance, like possibly the wind blowing back the Red Sea in Exodus 15.”
‘Remarkable event’? ‘Remarkable event’! Are you mad or just plain illiterate, mate? Here’s ample proof that the bishop neither reads his bible too closely nor, like Gordon Cheng (Mr armchair naturalist who thinks that koala pouches are so poorly formed that babies must fall out of them all the time and that this proves God didn’t design them!), sees much of the real world.
It isn’t chapter 15, but the 14th chapter of Exodus which records the historical event of the sea’s crossing by the Israelites, another event, need I remind you Rob, that you or you ISCAST mates didn’t witness! If you’d actually read the correct chapter you would have noticed that it was God telling Moses to “lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it” in order to put the world on notice (‘cept Rob the bishop because he’s readin’ the wrong chapter!) that it was “the Lord [who] caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided” and that it was plainly bloody well obvious that it wasn’t reducible to a “[naturalistic] timing of a natural event” (whatever that means!), but plainly unobvious for the bishop because he was reading the wrong chapter.
Are you serious bishop Rob? Like, I get up on Sydney Head, wave my hand, a southerly buster rolls up, the waters between the two heads part, I walk across, the waters fall back into place, and you rationally conclude, “Great timing that wind eh John”?
Unlike the bishop and his side-kick Gordon Cheng, I’ve actually lived near the Red Sea and dived it on several occasions. Even off the shallow on-shore reefs, it’s quite deep and voluminous and I can’t conceive of any wind strong enough to naturalistically part those depths.
By why stop at a “little” miracle when you can claim all creation for naturalism. Why not debunk the whole idea of their being actual evidence for God’s designing the universe? Why not argue that it’s a waste of time and instead believe, as his hero Darrel Falk does, that given sufficient time we can explain all those scientific “mysteries” by science? That is to say, there cannot be any biological system in place that is so complexly irreducible that reductionism is unable to explain it.
Bishop, hate to be the one that first tells you, but you ain’t a theist. At this point in this sordid little talk of yours you’re maybe at best a deist, at worst, a pagan.
If you’ve accurately relayed Falk’s words, then I can say that Falk just hasn’t understood Dembski’s et al arguments properly. But then again, being virtually a full-blown naturalist, maybe Falk doesn’t need to and just believes like Cheng, Jensen and company, that God really didn’t do much apropos the creation. You guys aren’t even nobly ignorant – you’re all just out and out immitigably heathen!
I don’t want to complicate the matter excessively, but what followed in the bishop’s address is nothing short of a formal capitulation to pagan epistemology and its worldview.
The bishop believes that science, so-called, is the epistemic guide by which to check the accuracy of scripture. That is to say, if science definitely says scripture is wrong, then scripture is wrong. Perhaps ‘wrong’ is far too harsh…but maybe it’s not. Let’s hear what the bishop did say:
“[I]f, in fact, the earth was not old and life did not gradually develop, it would be a catastrophic blow to the [scientific] disciplines themselves. Quite a cost….One of the key assumptions in my approach…is that God does not teach what is false, and therefore the Bible, as the word of God, will not teach what is false. I think we can be certain that if the most basic observation tools or the most well-supported conclusions of science say that…[the earth] is very old and that life forms appeared gradually over a great deal of time, where the Bible appears to teach otherwise or to suggest otherwise, this cannot be what God is teaching. We have to change our interpretation of what God is saying to us in Scripture…It is much more certain that our interpretation of Scripture is open to question than the whole foundations of the entire discipline of modern science are faulty.”
No, ‘wrong’ really isn’t an exaggeration – it’s right on the money. The bishop believes that where the Bible speaks clearly concerning the world and this differs with human understanding of the world, human understanding trumps every time. Come on Rob, admit it, you’re really a humanist, aren’t you! What’s a humanist posing as an evangelical bishop for? I know. It’s that $100,000 a year, plus car, plus manse, plus, plus, plus. You cagey bugger you!
Finally, almost, Rob gives up on that other evangelical marker, the inerrancy of Scripture. Rob the bishop believes that if an author of scripture writes something that is scientifically at odds with our near-perfect knowledge of the cosmos, then this can’t be God speaking through this person but must be the person himself because God can’t be the author of a remark that is at variance with our near-perfect understanding of the cosmos. Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant. Well, Rob, you know where you can stick that bit of liberal and unevangelical BS!
And finally, like any true pagan, old Rob the Bishop, quoting that other well-known pagan, the Jesuit George Coyne, believes that the very articulation of whether human beings arose through chance or a designer is passé. Indeed, the bishop appears to tacitly approve of the Jesuit’s belief in the universe having a “fertility”, something of course every evolutionist upholds. All genuflect and sing praise to Sydney’s latest out-of-the-closet pagan bishop!
When are the rest of you Sydney Anglican leaders going to come clean as Rob the bishop has done? You have your cult leader Peter Jensen believing and promoting a pagan explanation of origins, your very own college teaching the atheistic and pagan view of the cosmos, umpteen ministers daily rubbishing non-evolutionary arguments, and goodness knows how many more pew sitters praying to the god(s) of chance and time, so why do you persist in this lie and subterfuge of pretending to be evangelical and orthodox Christians? Stand up and be counted the true liberal men that you are!
John
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
John, though I have agreed with the content of much on this site the language has sometimes bothered me- especially yours. I haven't read what the Bishop wrote/said but I don't doubt you have reported accurately. However I think the way you have written is counterproductive.
I have followed much of that written on the AngloForum and quite a few there write in a friendly way even when strongly disagreeing. I give it to you that some write in a condescending and ignorant way about those pond scum aka yecers or whatever they call those (like me) who consider the earth to be aged in the thousands of years.
None the less if you have a troublesome neighbour shouting over the fence is surely less productive than having a serious talk. So may I suggest more friendly language? After all they are our brothers in Christ and we will spend eternity with them.
John, though I have agreed with the content of much on this site the language has sometimes bothered me- especially yours. I haven't read what the Bishop wrote/said but I don't doubt you have reported accurately. However I think the way you have written is counterproductive.
I have followed much of that written on the AngloForum and quite a few there write in a friendly way even when strongly disagreeing. I give it to you that some write in a condescending and ignorant way about those pond scum aka yecers or whatever they call those (like me) who consider the earth to be aged in the thousands of years.
None the less if you have a troublesome neighbour shouting over the fence is surely less productive than having a serious talk. So may I suggest more friendly language? After all they are our brothers in Christ and we will spend eternity with them.
Warwick,
I know the language is a bit on the rough side, but it's my experience that when you're polite with these guys they see it as a sign of weakness and kick you when you're down. I've worked for them and I've talked with them, and I know them very well.
May I suggest that you go back on this site and see how rude they were well before I got heavy with them.
However, if they would ever have a beer and/or meal with us I'd be the first to lay down "arms".
They have never wanted peace and reasonable argument. If you could read my mind [love], what a tale I could tell. They have lied to us, abused us, physically assaulted us, refused handshakes of peace, taken moral highgrounds when they should have apologised. I think a few well-thought out and well-backed up accusations of heresy etc is not a bad trade-off for their nastiness and
John
John I haven't had your personal experiences with the AngloNasties but can see the unpleasant way certain AngloBlogers write about those who disagree. I suppose I was saying that others shouldn't descend to their level. I think we can have a bit of a stir but not overdo it. Maybe I have as well.
While we are on levels I have just been AngloForumCruizing and I wonder more and more about the rationality/logic/scientific knowledge/ Biblical knowledge of some AngloBlogers. Consider the following:
Derek Hazel says:
'Yes I'll agree that genetic information on this planet is indeed declining (not increasing as the evolution hypothesis would assert). The difficulty to me is in proving that macro-evolution is indeed impossible or at least highly improbable. Without (the possibility in the minds of some of) macro-evolution there is little logical alternative to creation by a designer.'
To which the ever misunderstanding Dave Lankshear replies:
'Hmmm, too simplistic. What level are you speaking on?
I may have misunderstood. If you are speaking about the sheer amount of "genetic information" in terms of the number of species on planet earth then I have to disagree that this disproves evolution because:-
1. The theory itself allows for some to die out as others prove more successful, and that nature could easily winnow down to less species in certain periods of history.
2. Mankind is currently causing the 3rd great extinction event on this planet.
* We invade a new territory,
* pave over it,
* thus removing habitats for other species,
* overconsume food sources,
* plough 70% of all the arable land on earth
* and then wonder why there's less biodiversity?'
BUT Dave is not alone! Owen Atkins ably demonstrates he hasn't a clue what Macro-evolution's about when he writes:
'I rather thought macro evolution requires not progression forwards, but change onwards. If the planet became the sort of place where simplke organisms had the best chance of survival, then that is the direction things would go."
Now Warwick replies- you don't have to be a genius to understand that Derek was discussing Macro-evolution- the idea that one animal i.e. a reptile has somehow gained enough totally new genetic information to sprout wings and fly away! Over a long long period of course working on the principle that the impossible somehow becomes possible if given enough time.
Apparently neither Dave or Owen know what Macro-evolution entails- lack of scientific knowledge.
____________________________
Then the entertaining Craig Schwarze writes: replying to Frank Savage I think.
'You want to say "Science can't investigate creation", but in the next breath you say "The scientific evidence supports YECS." '
Craig doesn't appear to understand the difference between scientific investigation i.e. the scientific method of testability, observability and repeatability and scientific evidence. Any reasonably informed person should know there is a total difference. Evidence is what we can glean from what we can see in the present and of course everything exists only in the present. It may have existed in the past but it is about the here and now. We can't go back and do tests upon it.
Then we have the scientific method -test-observe-repeat- where we can 'prove' that pure water always boils at 100c at sea level.
To explain to those who haven't got the point so far: Water boiling test is operational science and as the creation of the world is a past event as is the evolution of life from non-life neither can be tested by operational science or the scientific method if you prefer to call it that.
But we can look at the evidence and see which side it supports. To explain- imagine a creationist and an evolutionist standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon discussing its formation. The evolutionist says- I see that this canyon was carved by small amounts of water over vast periods of time. The creationist, thinking of Noah's Flood says -no I see that this canyon was carved by a lot of water in a short period of time.
One piece of evidence but 2 views as we all interpret evidence via our beliefs. Evidence doesn't interpret itself.
But what view does the Grand Canyon evidence best support? It supports the Biblical view for a number of reasons which any can investigate but time/and space preclude here.
Maybe someone can explain this to Craig?
_____________________________
Then Owen excells himself with this howler:
'I dunno that the literal Genesis account is very helpful in explaining evil either. it never spoke to me at all when explained as an historical event. In fact I found it incredible that someone could on the one hand say "God is loving" and then could tout this story where God punishes thousands/ millions of generations because of one person's (two persons) behaviour is, well, very difficult indeed.
OTOH, when that story becomes my story, and speaks of my own personal culpability before God. That makes sense.'
Despite the fact that the Apostle Paul uses the historical facts of Genesis as The foundation for Sin and salvation it ain't good enough for Owen.
He then says it occurred 'thousands/ millions of generations' ago- Maybe someone should ask Owen what he would tender as Biblical support for his thousands/millions of generations view. Biblical support man? No we don't use the Bible to interpret the Bible we use man's changing opinions to do that, the very idea. I know Owen didn't write that I just put the words in his mouth, which wasn't hard as they fit well.
He says the 'literal' events of Genesis didn't give him an understanding of evil? What the real events of Genesis don't give the explanation of why a real Jesus had to come and really die so that we may really ask for real forgiveness that we may spend a real eternity in a real heaven. You have to be joking Owen!
John I begin to understand that your writing style is born of frustration perhaps. Frustration with people who doggedly stick to their 'scientific' views while at the same time demonstrating precious little scientific knowledge. And attempting to belittle those who hold a more Bibliical view.
BTW John I noticed that Andrew Lamb from CMI gave an invitation for questions from those who untruthfully claimed that CMI (or AiG as they incorrectly call the organization) does not answer their questions. I wonder if any have taken up the offer? I doubt it, why spoil a good story with facts? Why indeed.
These Anglocompromisers are hypocrites. They whinge when one of the YEC bloggers propose a plausible reconciliation with uniformitarian "science" because it is not in the Bible. But then they believe in billions of years, which certainly is not in the Bible!
It's really simple. It is perfectly in order to propose an extrabiblical defence of the Bible as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, and as long as this defence is not held dogmatically as if it were a direct teaching of Scripture itself (e.g. the canopy theory not usually held by modern creationists -- see ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1305/). Creationists claim along with Francis Schaeffer that the Bible is true truth not exhaustive truth.
Conversely, the Anglocompromisers are actually contradicting the clear teachings of Scripture on the meaning of the creation days, death caused by sin, and a global Flood.
The CMI book Refuting Compromise (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/) distinguishes the ministerial and magisterial uses of science. The legitimate ministerial approach (as the YECs on the Sydney Anglo site use) allows science to help explain or elaborate on the Bible. Conversely, the errant magisterial use places science above Scripture and forces a meaning upon Scripture that is foreign to its historical and grammatical context (and that is what I think is the key failing of the Moorite Anglocompromisers).
Ktisophilos,
Well said!
Of course, I reckon that these guys really don't want to believe the Bible is accurate in the first place.
Tim
And BTW,
Fancy quoting Plimer as a reputable source of info.
Tim
Sort of proves the point of this site: that compromise never ends with Genesis, but always spills over into other areas. In this case, Owen's visceral hatred of biblical creation has led him to adulate a visceral hater of the whole Bible and the God who inspired it.
John, It occursto me that even the name of this blogspot is inapropriate. I feel it tars all AngloBlogers with the one brush, whether they be Biblically based or they be theistic evolutionists. Further i don't think it proper to refer to the theistic evolutionists as heretics but surely better to call them liberals. They appear to truly believe in Christ but have the Bible plus philosophy which makes them liberals as I see it. Of course you could fairly argue that liberals are on the road to becoming heretics. I think that's true but maybe a site name change would be proper.
However reading what Owen Atkins said earlier today-see below-the AngloForum may soon be AnglogGone. I think they may take their ball and go home. That would be sad as the misguided/ misinformed trivia which some have written has been of considerable entertainment value for me. Also I have found the lack of Biblical and scientific knowledge of some of the T/E blogers to be very encouraging.
Owen Atkins says:
'Go on Gordo
Bring out the Death Ray.I am quite happy to see this thread
"exterminated" (make sure you hear that with a Dalek voice OK). I keep coming back cos it has the macabre attraction of a public hanging. Mostly though, it's a waste of breath and e-space."
Translated by the T/E philosophy -i.e. that nothing in Scripture can mean what it clearly says Owen probably means --- let's get this off the air as we have no good arguments against these Yeccers.
And finally what good comments by Ktisophilos. This site seems to be attracting some knowledgeable people.
Thanx for your generous comments, Warwick.
I also agree that the term "heretic" is inappropriate for these Sydney Anglicans. "Heretic" should be reserved for those with salvation-endangering ideas about the person and work of Christ, e.g. the Arians who claimed that Jesus was a created being (like the JWs).
These Sydneyanglos are not there (yet). CMI has also said that one can be a genuine Christian without being a YEC, but death before sin of the first Adam destroys the logical consistency of the Last Adam bringing resurrection from the dead. As they put it:
"Note that we don’t claim that one can’t be a Christian and a long-ager. Many people are saved despite ‘blessed inconsistency’—there is no hint in the Bible that the ability to hold mutually contrary thoughts in the same skull is an unforgivable sin." [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4648]
Compromiser is better. However, the Anglomoores should learn from history that all modern denominations that are now heretical started down this path by compromise. The authority of Scripture, including Genesis, is what Francis Schaeffer described as a "watershed issue" in his book The Great Evangelical Disaster. He lived in the Swiss Alps, and a "watershed" seems pretty nondescript, but water on each side, only a small distance apart, will flow in opposite directions to end up in the ocean thousands of miles apart. And with both people and denominations, once they allow "science" to overrule Scripture in Genesis, there is very little to stop the overruling in the area of miracles and morality. So they flow down the slope into complete apostasy.
Moore is to be commended for its strong critique of the liberal wing of the Anglican Church, urging a return to biblical authority. But the liberals are merely following Moore's Scriptura sub scientia methodology they use for Genesis and applying it to the rest of Scripture, so the liberals are being more consistent.
Ktisophilos said:
I also agree that the term "heretic" is inappropriate for these Sydney Anglicans. "Heretic" should be reserved for those with salvation-endangering ideas about the person and work of Christ, e.g. the Arians who claimed that Jesus was a created being (like the JWs).
I'm only going to enter this debate once and then run (I know, I know, coward, coward!), but I think you restrict 'heretic' to too narrow a limit.
If a person believes that Christ created by being an incompetent and cruel overlord (they must if they are evolutionists i.e. chance and mutations), if he or she believes that suffering is a good thing (I've actually met one "important" Anglo who proclaims this), if he or she argues that it is rational to draw upon men like Plimer etc for information about God, then I have to agree with this blog that these Sydney Anglicans,when they profess such beliefs, are heretics.
What they have done is given a false witness about God. Furthermore, they say anyone who holds to God being a creator who created a perfect and finished world in 6 days is cultish. I think that this constitutes heresy. We are not talking about church order or child baptism, but making comments about our heavenly Father. Such a pattern of wrong theology and Bible exegesis can lead people away from the real God - it certainly can't lead someone to the right one!
Ktisophilos & Warwick, I think we can agree to disagree on this one.
God bless guys.
Hankinson
Hankinson, a lot of people in the Church simply haven't thought through these issues. That is what was meant through "saved through blessed inconsistency". Once the issues are pointed out, they often repent of not trusting God's word, and become biblical creationists.
Those that have thought through the issues and remain evolutionists often have real heresies at work. E.g. Allan Day of ISCAST, a group beloved by Moore, when YECs pointed out that Jesus believed in the plain meaning of Genesis, said that we know better because "we have the light of science". But it doesn't seem to bother the Anglosupercilious at Moore that this theistic evolutionist in effect denies the deity of Christ.
Another ISCAST sympathiser, Brian Edgar (now head of the self-appointed "Evangelical Alliance"), likewise asserted that Jesus might not have been infallible in His statements about creation in the past (even though He was the Creator!).
It's also notable that the "Evangelical Alliance" is soft on homosexual "civil unions". Hardly surprising when its leader denies that God created man and woman "from the beginning of creation", not billions of years after the beginning, which Jesus used as the basis of marriage (Mark 10:6 ff. citing Gen. 1:27 and 2:24).
Tell me where I am wrong but I see an Apostate as a salvation lost individual. A Heretic need not be so far down that road but, nevertheless, in danger of advancing down that road. The Heretic may not go all the way to Apostasy but could endanger others along the way.
My antiquated Oxford Dictionary says these words under the heading of 'Heresy' - "Opinion contrary to doctrine of Christian Church or to accepted doctrine on any subject."
The evangelical Sydney Anglican Church claims to hold to Protestant Reformed doctrine. On the matter of Genesis 1 people on the Anglican evolution forum show they have an opinion clearly contrary to the Reformers. Sam Drucker made a very good case of this in his earlier posting.
I am yet to be convinced that heretic is an inappropriate term in this instance.
Neil Moore
Then guys I am probably wrong. I suppose my Anglican upbringing lead me to hope that they weren't heading down-hill to damnation.
I'll just go back to share trading and polishing my Porsche. I'll take my bat and ball and go home.
Can we still burn heretics or have the looney Chardonnay left banned that too?
The Moore College Bible translation
Here's a list of some Bible verses that need to be re-written to fit in with what, in effect, the Anglocompromisers at Moore teach.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.
Compromise 1:7 The empirical method is the beginning of knowledge.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
Compromise 9:10 Methodological Naturalism is the beginning of wisdom.
Proverbs 29:25 The fear of man lays a snare, but he who trusts in the LORD is safe.
Compromise 29:25 The fear of man is most important for today's Christians to maintain academic respectability, but he who trusts in the LORD is naïve.
John 3:12 (Jesus to Nicodemus) If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Compromise 3:12 If I have told you earthly things like the fact that Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning of creation" and the global Flood really "occurred", and I'm wrong, don't worry; just believe me anyway if I tell you heavenly things.
John 5:47 But if you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, how will you believe my words?
Compromise 5:47 But if you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, it's not a problem, because you can believe my words anyway.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ.
Compromise 2:8 Imbibe modern philosophy, and make sure you follow the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and accordingly judge the teachings of Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:5 We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.
2 Compromise 10:5 We affirm arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and make Christian teachings captive to every thought.
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.
Compromise 12:2 Do be conformed to this world and be transformed by the renewal of your mind towards secular academic thinking.
Acts 17:11 Now these [Berean] Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Compromise 17:11 Now these [Berean] Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the word and the scriptures daily to test them against uniformitarian science and reinterpreting them accordingly.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Compromise 11:1 Now evolution is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of transitional fossils not seen.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
Compromise 11:3 By faith and modern science we really understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God in a round-about sort of way, so that the things which are seen were actually made of things which are visible.
Ex 20:8–11 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. ... For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Compromise 20: 8–11 Remember the Sabbath eon, long age, indeterminate amount of time, to keep it holy. Six eons, long ages, indeterminate amounts of time you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh eon, long age, indeterminate amount of time is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. ... For in six eons, long ages, indeterminate amounts of time the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath eon, long age, indeterminate amount of time and hallowed it.
Mark 10:6 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
Compromise 10:6 But billions of years after the big bang, God evolved people from a population of ape-life creatures.
Deuteronomy 27:8 And you shall write very clearly all the words of this law on these stones you have set up."
Compromise 27:8 And you shall write first book of this law in a non-narrative, poetic fashion (which merely has the earmarks of historical narrative so the Church Fathers and Reformers will be led astray into believing that it was historical narrative) so that we need to wait for astronomers 3300 years later who know not the LORD who will be able to truly understand them.
Romans 8:20-22 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Compromise 8:20-22 For we know that living things have always been tearing each other to pieces for billions of years, thus it has nothing to do with any "curse". Rather, death, disease, struggle and pain are 'very good'.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Compromise 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God, although tainted by fallible men, and so it is unprofitable for teaching unless geologists 2000 years from now who willingly ignorant of the Flood can tell people what God really meant to say. Thus the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work only if he has the insights of modern evolutionary biology.
Stop it, stop it. I can't stand it any longer. My sides are tearing at the seams.
John
The AngloForum is like an addiction drawing me back again & again as I just cannot believe some of the liberal anti-Biblical trivia that some post there.
Consider Ken Austin's last effort:
Frank Savage said:
Think of the massive geologic disruption which would be caused by a massive world wide flood.
Ken Austin says: "Frank, there was no world wide flood. THERE WAS NO WORLD WIDE FLOOD!!!
The flood 'story' which corresponds to other myths from other religions, is a theologically adapted religious story from pre-history.
There is no geological proof of a world wide flood, it is a theological myth.
It is believed the myth is based on a large water break through of the Black Sea thousands of years ago, where many people were probably drowned. The "world" at that time, was the known world of that region. People knew no world outside of their own civilized world."
To fully comment on the nonsense, Biblical distortion & Spiritual blindness contained therein would wear me out and cut into my Porsche polishing time. But;
1)Austin says- no world wide flood despite God giving over three chapters (6-8)of Genesis to the world-wide floods description. Saying over and over that everything on the whole earth, the whole face of the earth, everything- only Noah was left and those with him on the ark. Read it.
Austin leaves us with but two options:
a) That a man unaware of the facts scribbled the sorry tale down & God who cannot lie let the lie be fed to millions over time as God's Word.
b) That God directly lied, massaging a local flood into a world-wide catastrophe. So as to appear more powerful presumably?
This fits with the view of Austin et al that God isn't powerful enough to create as per His Genesis creation epic, so blatently fibbed about it- becoming a semi-powerful liar.
2) That God nicked the flood story from other people making him partly-powerful, totally dishonest & unable to think up His own story.
3) Austin powers on insisting there is no geological proof of the flood. Well I walked down into the Grand Canyon & there it was evidence of a massive flood in thick layer upon thick layer of sedimentary rock. Each section deposited upon the layer below with a sharp clean boundary. One layer upon another for about one mile down obviously laid down with precious little time in between, no erosion, tree stumps, animal burrows or any other thing we would expect to see if layer A sat there drying for a million years or so. And this sort of thing is world-wide. But Austin insists there is no geological evidence for the flood. Holy Moley what would the man accept as evidence.
Maybe God could speak directly to Austin about it. But on what basis would he accept God's spoken Word having rejected His written Word?
4) Austin makes God a liar again because God said He would not bring the flood upon the earth again but we all know massive floods are a regular occurrence.
5) I think it was Ktiso who pointed out that the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3: 3-67) wrote: 'First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever sinse our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.'
By this quote alone Austin et al are condemned as scoffers. Scoffers being those who preach uniformitarianism & no world-wide flood. Do they believe the world was made out of water or as the end result of the Big Bang.
Remember these words were written by Peter who walked and talked for years with the creator.
6) Austin says the flood was a local Black Sea event & Noah spent an extended life-time building a great big boat so he, his family & selected animals could escape a local flood. He could have hopped away on a pogo-stick. And tell me if the water rose over the tops of the mountains how could it be contained locally?
When you begin with man as your authority re-interpreting God's Word to fit in with the fleeting thoughts of man you pass through Scripture wreacking havoc as once off the track the seeds of liberalism leading to heresy are sown. There is no turning back.
So this Austin compromiser has twisted the global Flood of Noah into a Black Sea Flood? What a joke, when even the evolutionary geologists abandoned this idea over four years ago (Marine Geology October 2002, several papers; Noah’s Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=245&setappvar=page(1) 1 September 2002).
That's the problem with compromisers -- they reinterpret God's word to fit the latest scientific theory (or what they think is the latest), but when this theory is debunked, they have to reinterpret their reinterpretation!
Thus these scoffers within the church cause scoffing from without.
Ktiso- I am becoming more and more convinced that such people as Austin are 'wolves within the fold' as they clearly show God and His Word is not their authority but in this case preferring the out of date and implausible Black Sea flood ideas of sinful fallen man to the Word of the perfect God who makes a perfect eye-witness.
Quite a number of people on the AngloForum show sincere dedication to God's Word and a few others show that they are seeking. But the main protagonists such as Lankshear, Austin and Atkins (and a few hopefully forgettable others) et al show they are totally disinterested in reviewing their worldly (and often out of date/context)ideas with the Word of God, preferring to attempt to explain away any inconvenient bits as allegory, or poetry, or they wuz primitives who knew no better.
One of the AngloNasties muttered something about it being written so that the primitives could understand. That it is not truth but a story that their tiny brains could comprehend.
I think rather that Genesis was written simply so that 'modern' man who often appears incapable of clear thought, could also understand.
It all depends upon who is your authority and the AngloNasties are sadly very clear about that. And interestingly often show ignorance of the science they say has shown Scripture to be wrong.
Warwick,
This disparaging and dumbing down of the early Jews reminds me of an Anglican woman I was speaking to one day who insisted that Paul was uneducated and thus wouldn't have known that the Earth was billions of years old. When I told her that he had been educated under one of the 2 greatest rabbis at the time (excluding Christ, of course) and that he grew up in Tarsus (hence his knowledge and quoting of Epemenides and Aratus) which had the biggest universities outside of Athens, she still thought he was a hick Jew from the Levant. Such chuzpah! Such cultural arrogance! Kind of reminds me of the Sydney Anglos, yes?
John
I have to agree, Warwick. What could be the motivation of Owen Atkins pushing sites that attack the inerrancy of Scripture, or go to a former Humanist of the Year whose book mocked the Bible and suggested that belief in life after death is evidence that people have not been taught how to think? He is out to mock God's Word, and what might be even worse, the ostensibly evangelical Christians on the Angloblog haven't raised a peep. Yet Atkins' total departure from Scriptural truth is a logical step from denying Gen. 1-11.
Thank you for feisty review.
One point of clarification. I do not think Exodus 14.21 (thanks for the correction) is a miracle as such, but I do believe that the Lord did bring it about that the sea was turned into dry land, by providential use of so called 'natural' means.
And now a question to John. I see you deny my hermeneutical principle about what God by his word is teaching us. What is yours?
An example will make my point. Do you believe that the Bible is teaching that there is a large body of water above the sky of heavens as is asserted by Genesis 1:6-8 ( And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven.)?
Do you believe that the Bible is teaching that the stars and two great lights which are “in the firmament” are below this body of water which is above the firmament or Heaven as is asserted by Genesis 1.14-18?
If you do believe that this is what the Bible is teaching (as opposed to asserting) then do you believe it? If not why not?
cheers,
Bishop Rob Forsyth
Rob,
You ask me to outline my hermeneutic principle as though you have no understanding of it. I say that this implied nescience is contradicted by your asking me to explain whether I believe there to be a large body of water above the sky (as asserted by Genesis 1:6-8) because such a question is frequently directed to people, like myself, who view Genesis 1 as an unambiguous, straightforward historical list, from people, like yourself, who take a figurative view of the text.
Furthermore, you could have chosen any of the data of Genesis 1, particularly their order of appearance, because squaring the Genesis account with contemporary evolutionary and long age events and sequences would involve making a series of Procrustean compromises. The strength or weakness of your watery heavens’ point notwithstanding, the two origin accounts are incommensurable.
Which brings me to my major point regarding your argument.
Choosing the watery heavens as an item to overthrow the literal take on Genesis 1 wonderfully illustrates the ultimate philosophical basis behind your theology. This needs some unpacking, however, as your epistemic is enthymematic.
What is properly basic to your hermeneutic is clearly a complete reliance on logical positivism: If I can’t smell, touch or see it, it’s not actual. In other words, what is concealed by your asking me if I believe in a real watery world “above” the firmament of space is this: Since neither I, Rob Forsyth, nor the world’s scientists have actually observed water in the outer realms of our universe, it can’t exist; consequently, God’s Word can’t be an accurate record of real historical facts about the beginning of the cosmos but has to be a picture, a metaphor or, as current fashion in Anglican circles dictates, figurative history, whatever that oxymoron means.
The other attitude I see peering out from your post is your deep incredulity toward a Christian who just might trust God as being quite able to succinctly and accurately inform us of what He did in the first week without resorting to all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics. It is clear that the Anglicans (you touched upon it in your ISCAST address) have opted for a very uncircumspect theory that Genesis 1 is replete with literary devices and so cannot be historical or a straightforward list of what God actually did day-by-day. In a soon to be published peer-reviewed paper (I’ve recently read it) great evidence is provided that this principle is not only false for the Bible as a whole, but is belied by a wealth of proof from ancient historical and other non-fictional writing.
To answer your question.
Have you in recent years been following the discussion over whether Mars has water or not? The very latest opinion (as reported in this weekend’s SMH) is that, “Yes, there’s a mound of it at the poles, hidden, but nevertheless, truly existent.” Well, Rob, there may well be water there, but of course that’s not my point here. What is, is this: Are you, Rob Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney, telling us creationists that despite the hitherto lack of success for detecting water on our nearest planetary neighbour, there is absolutely no chance that at the beginning of cosmos’ creation there wasn’t any water lying well beyond the immediate visible firmament, despite God’s Word saying that there was? That is a very BIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGG call, Rob, a very big one. HMMM, let me see now. Guys, what are the odds that the bishop here is absolutely right and God’s Word is inaccurate, that the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean what He says and says what He means? Anyone of you willing to give me some odds? [Silence…more silence…even more silence.]
As for there being water presently at the outer reaches of the cosmos, well, maybe or maybe not. The Bible doesn’t tell us what the situation is now. In any case, why is it so strange that there may be a whole load of water on the outer edge of this cosmos which lies well beyond our instrument detection limits? Is it any stranger than, say, a God who incarnates, who dies for us in order to reconcile us to Him and then physically resurrects? Or stranger still, the virgin birth? (Unlike your friend John Polkinghorne who doesn’t, you do believe in the virgin birth, Rob, don’t you?)
BTW, don’t you think it rather rum that scientists are quarrelling over whether or not Mars was once a watery world, and whether all that surface geological formations are the result of massive flooding, of which the Bible says zip, yet, notwithstanding the casuistical gainsayers over at the forum at Sydney Anglicans (“Yes, ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all’ especially when ‘all’ is with ‘earth’ because….”), they resolutely deny there was ever a world-wide flood here on earth, despite God telling us that there was. And this is in addition to the plethora of geological evidence which supports the biblical account, like trillions of dead things laid down in sedimentary rock layers which were obviously the result of large amounts of water transporting the material around the planet.
Ever hear of the Oort Cloud hypothesis? I’ll assume you haven’t. This was invented because an old age cosmos would have meant that all the comets we see today, and which came into being at the beginning of our solar system’s formation, would have fizzled out long ago because all that ice and stuff would have, well, faded away. So, without any evidence whatsoever, a theory was constructed to get around this anomaly: We’ll posit a huge belt of ice and stuff, out there, somewhere, where baby comets are popped out, continually, and which will keep our old age cosmos robust. And you reckon a watery beginning for the cosmos, as per Genesis 1, is something one should be totally sceptical about.
I am quite content that we presently don’t know all the minute details of the early earth’s and the cosmos’ formation. I’m quite happy to rest in trusting God’s word and that it doesn’t matter if I haven’t got all the scientific answers at my finger tips. Of course, this doesn’t preclude working at it; it just means I’m not omniscient and that I can be assured as a Christian that Genesis 1 comes from the same Person who inspired John to write his Gospel and that the former is just as accurate and historical as the latter. After all, Genesis 1 is not a scientific document but a brief history of the cosmos.
Water in the outer reaches of the cosmos, light before the sun, earth before sun and stars, plants before sea creatures etc etc, I take these as being what God actually did. The reason? Because Genesis 1 is just like any other list in the Bible and should be read as is because the text is straightforward. Apropos this, Deborah Bennet makes a very good point about communication in her Logic Made Easy:
“Linguists note that a conversation is not simply an exchange of information. Two people engaged in a conversation have a shared understanding of the conventions used during the process of conversing. The cooperation principle requires that the speaker try to be as informative, truthful, relevant, concise, clear, and orderly as possible, and the listener interprets what the speaker says under the assumption that the speaker is trying to be informative, truthful, relevant, concise, clear, and orderly.”
Your hermeneutic principle overturns this commonsense convention and you refuse to accept Genesis 1 as history because, as I stated in my blog, you defer to a pagan and atheist myth of origins (as well as the positivist epistemic), not the biblical account.
But just to show you creationists aren’t fideistic and do grapple with the scientific aspects attached to the “waters above”, here are some reasonable, though by no means exclusive, links to possible answers.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3671
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_211-213.pdf
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_93-98.pdf
Regards
John
Peel off the evangelical veneer from these theistic evolutionists at ISCAST, and you will find a flaming liberal underneath. E.g. ISCASTians Allan Day and Brian Edgar agree that Jesus believed in a literal Genesis, but now we know better because than He did because we have the light of science.
Dear John,
Thank you for your further repose to my question. It is helpful and illuminating.
As I understand it, you answer to my question about the water above the sun and stars is an unequivocal “yes!”.
And faced with the prima face evidence that this is not the case you want to say that either (a) it was there but is now gone, or (b) that is there still but undetectable.
That is all I was asking. Thanks.
Rob
John, though not an academic I've read some heavy duty literature over the last 6 decades & am convinced I understood most of it. Discussions with my betters suggests I did.I have to admit though that Dr Zhivago beat me, as did Walter Remines book, the name of which has thankfully been forgotten. It gave me nightmares.
So what is this all about you may fairly ask? I think it's about understanding literature without pontifs, pastors,priests,prelates, Pesher Techniques, or even principles of hermeneutics. Just read it, & read it, & read it through & read it right through again prayerfully, letting it talk to you & it will interpret itself & by the power of the Holy Spirit we will understand it. Understand all you ask? No in any serious literature there will be things difficult to understand. Over decades of reading the Bible I made a mental in tray of things I did not understand & eventually the tray began to empty.
However Genesis one was never in the in tray as I found it easy to understand even before I was a Christian because it is such straight forward prose. In the beginning God created etc- right through to the end of the creation week. I believe the problem some of those on the AngloForum & Bishop Forsyth have is that they approach the Bible with a non-Biblical world view & secondly they have fallen into the common mistake of excessice academic thought. I think of the Catholics of old who stressed & strained over the puzzle of how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. Give me strength does it change anything important if none can?
But your view of Genesis will totally change your view of the whole of Scripture. We have seen the now liberal churches head off on this in the last some decades starting with rejecting the historical truth of Genesis & ending up with rejecting the historical truth of the resurrection. Our brothers on the AngloForum- the ones who promote evolution- are on this same path to liberalism.
God save us from those who compromise with the world & who feel the need to distort the clear meaning of Gemesis because of non-Christian ideas.
Rob,
I can only conclude from the brevity of your response that you have no desire to engage in a conversation because you know you're right and that is that. Careful, bishop, sounds like you're teetering on the edge of Cult Land.
I can also conclude from your terse reponse that you didn't bother to even look at the links I provided. Another sign of standing one-legged at the entrance to Cult Land.
You are a coy lad aren't you, mate. Keep your cards close to your chest. That's why people continually misunderstand your motives and position. That poor Sydney Diocese. Maybe you should hire a PR man. I'll offer my services.
Let me infer something from your very odd post.
Since you think I may be playing a bit of ad hockery with Genesis 1 (actually, it's you who is doing that, as I explained by your implicit love of logical positivism), I'll throw one your way.
I can't see Eden now, therefore the passages about Eden in Genesis must be all unhistorical. Do you agree? (BTW, I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer, your holiness and grace!)
John
John,
It is amazing how those who embark upon the course of liberalism use misty language to state a position or to offer an interpretation of a bible passage.
They create a mist or cloud which allows a person to visualize whatever they want to satisfy whatever audience they want to appease. Except, of course, those who take God at His word.
Gwen
The plot gets thicker. Today Dave L posted a beauty- 'Dannii, are you saying that we should rename "Forensic Scientists" that work for the Coroner?'
Is Dave ignorant of science or is he playing a debate game? Hasn't he read the posts which have explained the scientific method as opposed to a scientific hypothesis?
With the forensic scientist comment he shows he has no idea at all. In forensics the officers visit the site and collect evidence such as blood or DNA. These samples are then tested in the laboratory to see if they reveal usable evidence. They can test these samples again or even send them to another laboratory for testing if there is some doubt about the results. Do you follow that Dave tested, observed & re-tested- the scientific method.
Now the question for you Dave- If (for example) a reptile evolved into a bird (as many evolutionists claim) some hundred million years ago how can this be tested today in the laboratotry? You know it can't so testing blood or DNA samples today (by the scientific method) is the complete opposite of speculating about events which may have happened in the untestable past.
Dave as regards your other ideas about extrapolating backwards of course we can all do that but these are assumptiions as we cannot test what the rate of flow, or drift or erosion was 1000 years ago let alone millions of years ago. Speculation and assumption is not part of the scientific method. Surely to use your example the forensic scientist can speculate about events but it is cold hard testable repeatable observable science which puts criminals away. Hopefully not what some officer speculates has happened.
Dave you just don't understand the issue.
Warwick,
That's nothing. Luke, a former moderator of the Anglican Forum, has posted a link to an article in Newsweek Mag (as I recall) that discusses the DNA "proof" that connects us to those multi-million year old simian creatures, in addition to our other putative animal evolutionary ancestors.
So, Luke thinks that Jesus is physically and spiritually related to chimps, gibbons and Australopithecus!
What sort of Gospel is that? I can't find that in any part of the New Testament. Maybe 20th century Luke is rewriting 1st century Luke's genealogy. Man, aren't those Sydney Anglicans really punching outside of their weight now!
Writers on the blog,
Would you guys help Luke out and take a few moments to read his Newsweek article mentioned in his most recent comment on the Anglo site and count up the scientific and philosophical errors the author has made?
I counted 53, but some of them may be duplicated. Luke needs a whole lot of edgeukashun, so can we help him out and put him back on the right scientific and biblical track?
'One of the many fashionable excuses of our time is that some words or actions were "taken out of context." Those who say this seldom, if ever, bother to say what these words or actions mean when taken in context.'
--Thomas Sowell
What, they regard that christophobic rag Newsweek as a reliable source? Maybe Luke will also link to their attack on the virgin birth (cf. this refutation). I guess it shouldn't be surprising after his ally Owen "I love citing misotheistic books and sites" Atkins cited Ian "I'm a Professor" Plimer.
Ktiso, you can tell a lot about people by what pack they run with. The AngloNasties are obviously impressed by quite a few doubtful people and they have a deep and abiding respect for non-Christian sites.
Isn't it interesting how Dave Lankshear came on this site -if I remember correctly- saying he was a true seeker after truth and maybe even almost convinced by the Biblical creation position but now we see the real DL a passionate defender of error. I think dogged is better than passionate.
Methinks he was less than honest with us hillbilly's.
Re your Newsweek comment about the virgin birth, Ktisophilos, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some in the Sydney Diocese who didn't believe in it. After all, Rob Forsyth invited John Polkinghorne to speak to, I believe, young students a few years ago and he certainly doesn't hold to it. And - he can correct me if I am wrong - I don't believe Rob the Bishop would subscribe to it also.
No one should be surprised at that given that Bishop 'I-make-$80,000-a-year-live-in-a-manse-and-am-having-a-joke-at-Christianity's-expense' Forsyth believes that modern science is the yardstick of biblical truth and so, apart from lobsters and the like, virgin births are fiction, as science has told us.
Post a Comment