My dear old friend Matt, who is about the same age as I (50 this spring), reckons he has an idea or two about how it’s done. He swears by this as an intellectual way around the problem that has plagued Christendom ever since Charles Darwin first proved that we came from pond scum. The problem for Christians was of course, if it all looks like one long naturalistic process, where can we slip God in so as to keep God, God, and which will simultaneously intelligently and spiritually equip ourselves to speak the Gospel in order to maintain the rage against those silly atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who want to claim evolution for themselves? I don’t know why I didn’t see Matt’s solution long before. He reckons, once a year, God’s spirit enters every 10th or so person’s chimney and surreptitiously alters their genetic alphabet. He also, on a number of different days of the year, inserts himself down burrows, into nests, hives and the like, to cut and paste other life forms’ DNA with extra bits of information.
Of course, I don’t wholly subscribe to Matt’s theory – I’m merely positing it for consideration, demonstrating that one can solve this problem without resorting to the demonic and parasitic solutions expressed by us creationists.
OK, I know Matt’s theory sounds a bit way out there but don’t prematurely judge it. At least give him a chance by putting the latest Anglo solution beside it and see how his fairs.
Dave Lankshear (You do recall him on this site? He’s the guy who ducks and weaves, avoids all the important questions, slags off creationists with more earned scientific postgraduate degrees than he could obtain in 20 lifetimes, and who considers he’s grasped this whole creationist thing by reading just 2 books, one a biography and the other a rather outdated outline of the ideas) has now decided to take his football home with him to his mummy and hide behind her skirt. However, previous to his tantrum, for our intellectual consideration no less, he had tossed into the ring his dear old medical doctor and missionary father-in-law’s solution. Dave’s relative (he can console himself that it’s by marriage only!) likes to ruminate that God periodically uses cosmic rays projected from a far-flung star(s) to target every life form, these non-randomly hitting specific bases on their DNA rung, which will then transform that form into another, pushing it further along the evolutionary journey toward man, possibly even, and finally to, the Omega Man. To quote him exactly,
“See, the God I believe in is powerful enough to co-ordinate one star going supernova 300 million years ago to send out a cosmic ray that streams all the way to earth to hit a genetic marker just so, and then another genetic mutation to occur for other reasons just so, and for this to add up to new information.”
Dave then goes onto to give a “credible” 2 bob each-way support for his rel’s just so story:
“My point is not that we can see this happening in the small timeframes since we’ve started studying whether or not this process can even happen, my point is that Christian evolutionists don’t believe any of it is by accident. OK?”
No, Dave, it isn’t OK. Far from it, pal.
Come on Dave, man, ‘fess up, son: you’ve been smokin’ some of that whacky weed, sneakin’ in a few baker’s dozen midnight tokes of Mullumbimby Madness or was it that really rare (at least nowadays) stash, the almost mythical sticky, black Afghani hash, haven’t you boy?
I know their apologetics and understanding of God’s revelation seem topsy-turvy to us: there was no water above our firmament as Genesis 1 describes; a universal flood is an impossibility because ‘all land’ does not mean ‘all land but only ‘some land’; a short creation period is out of the question because a day is never a day and the real time frame is just so huuuuuuuge and those Jews were so uneducated that God had to use metaphorical language because their primitive minds would never comprehend this huuuuuuuuuuuge passage of time; and the first 11 chapters of Genesis lacks historicity, despite the inclusion of extended genealogical sequences that connect up the father-son dots in both Torah and Luke’s Gospel; but now, what could truly cement the whole biblical story together, is that God was not a master craftsman but a celebrated cosmic ray-gun wielder from star Zarkon.
And this is the problem with unseen cosmic rays and the like causing mutations to create life and usher forth newer and more complex life forms: it belies Paul’s words that the “whole” creation points to God’s handiwork. If undetected and/or undetectable (i.e. a process that can be mistaken for no process or a random, material, naturalistic process) then men have an intellectual excuse for disbelieving in God.
Furthermore, Dave’s father-in-law’s idea is unbiblical for other reasons:
1. It must argue that God continues to work and has not rested. In other words Genesis 1 is wrong when it states that God’s creation WAS finished and WAS perfect at the end of the 6th day.
2. That God is the author of death
3. That death-causing mutations are a very good thing
4. It reeks of ad hockery and ignores the demands of Ockham’s Razor
5. It’s spooky and should have instead formed an episode of The Twilight Zone rather than pretend to serve as the potential object of scientific investigation
But arguably the most vacuous thing about Dave’s idea is that he actually thinks he’s put God back in the driver’s seat by merely saying, “Look, you asinine creationists, if God directs cosmic rays from Zarkon, it can’t be construed as an accident. So there!” That’s just bloody word magic, pal. As someone once called it, voodoo formulas.
It’s odd that Dave and his hopeless gang of theistic evolutionists deny God the power to speak the whole creation into existence quickly, but is quick to delegate power to himself by saying he can make God do anything.
He now says that God wilfully brought genetic illness to His perfect creation. What blasphemous ravings of blind men. There’s no denying it: heretics you are! Your God is far too small for Christianity. You are an embarrassment to the Gospel, the very Gospel that says our Lord came to cure the whole creation of these ills. And worst of all, your mysticism offers zero solace to people who are suffering.
Without unnecessarily multiplying causes and effects as such highly preposterous explanations do, it is far better to understand mutations from a biblical perspective. Notwithstanding the small number of environmentally advantageous mutations, the existence of this evil can actually evince the creationist argument, prove a lot about God and the biblical explanation for origins, and goes a long way to foster a perfect theodicy. It not only is a clear reminder of a real Fall, but forms the backbone for the very reasonable arguments suggested by the orthodox Jew and now retired John Hopkins University scientist, Lee Spetner, and the revived Haldane’s Dilemma as proposed by Walter Remine. Both these men, in different ways, have shown that,
(i) there is no evidence of mutations actually adding novel information that moves life forms along an evolutionary path
(ii) there is insufficient time for evolution to occur
(iii) if genetic mutations are sped up, then genetic death will occur
In a nutshell, the existence of mutations and their relatively small number actually demonstrate a young earth, not the anti-God old age worldview that the Anglos love to get into bed with. Dave’s proposal furthermore increasingly resembles a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ remedy and is incommensurate with the scientific endeavour.
Of course, all of this will probably be wasted on Dave and his theistic evolutionary coterie. Since Dave and co. are unpersuaded by our pleas to let God speak for himself rather than forcing their bias onto Scripture, being tied down by formal rules of logic is merely an inconvenience to be sidestepped.
One last thing.
Dave’s dishonesty knows no limits. In a recent posting he has proffered up “geology, ice core samples, cosmology, the age of light reaching the earth, continental drift, and a dozen other scientific disciplines” as evidence for an old age earth. If Dave were actually seeking wisdom, swallowed his pride, and bothered to check out what the scientific arguments and evidence are against these, he would demonstrate a sense of Christian humility by really understanding his imagined enemy’s case. But instead, he refuses to examine the other, stronger proof for a young earth and has decided to run with the atheist philosophy that says if we replace God with lots of time then we have no need of that hypothesis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
What a presumptious fellow you are young Dave. I've worked for 30 plus years in various capacities-both paid & unpaid- directly in the promotion of the gospel. How typical of an AngloNasty -yes Dave you have earned that title- to attempt to belittle the ministry of others.
I have always sought to present the whole Gospel & the real Gospel which begins in Genesis. Any Gospel which does not begin in the real historical events of Genesis is another Gospel. You have chosen to re-interpret sections of Scripture with your own form of the Pescher technique- that technique being via evolution/old earth 'glasses.' If the plain reading of Scripture does not conform to your non-Biblical philosophy you (and others) disregarded it or distort it beyond recognition.
If your post was aimed at embarassing into silence those who oppose compromise then I am sure it will fail. I choose to defend the rock hard truth of God as opposed to the unstable opinions of men anywhere & at anytime I am able. Ridicule from a compromiser truly encourages me.
Your comment about 6000 books to read is truly childish Dave and disconnected from reality. It is an excuse springing from your fertile immagination.
BTW and FOL your 'you guys' comment is like much you write, not based in reality. I am an individual & not part of this or any other group. I believe what I believe & write what I write.
I guess Dave would show nothing but contempt for the New Tribes mission. The evidence should be clear that God has worked through them mightily in bringing remote tribes in places like New Guinea to the Gospel. Yet their lasting conversions come after the missionary explains the Gospel in its context of the whole of biblical history. That is, all people on earth come from Adam and Eve, and that their forefather's sin brought death into the world. The missionaries then preach from the whole Bible: the first they are told about the first murder, then the judgment of the Flood, and when it comes to Sodom, they confess that they deserve what the Sodomites got. The sacrifice of Isaac follows, and the notion of the substitute. So when they come to learn about the person and work of Christ, they have a firm foundation. Although Dave doesn't care, God spent 4000 years from creation to Christ, and this period constitutes 2/3 of His written Word. Less closed-minded people would think that God had a good reason for this.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/956
DL: "But then I started questioning some of the claims and ran them by a Christian mate studying his Masters degree in science. Some of it turned out to be outright fallacious."
Are we supposed to believe hearsay from an unnamed Christian mate who made unstated claims about errors in the one old creationist book Lankshear read (I don't count the biography book). And so what if he was studying for his masters? Many of the CMI staff have earned doctorates in science from secular universities.
DL: "I don't believe Creationism because I don't trust God's plainly metaphorical teaching to be literal in a few early chapters of the bible."
OK, what are the metaphorical things about the days in Genesis 1? What a shame that Josephus, most of the Church Fathers and Reformers didn't have your brilliant insights.
DL: "It's amazing that you guys can recognize that as a metaphor, but not "light" being created 4 days before the "sun"."
It's amazing that DL finds a problem with this, when early church writers such as Theophilus and Basil argued that this was a polemic to show the futility of sun worship because the plants existed for a day before the sun. Note that their polemic argument was totally dependent on Gen. 1 being a true historical record of the order of events. Nor was this a problem for Luther or Calvin.
So why does DL get on his self-righteous high-horse about it? Doesn't he think that God can create light without the sun, as Genesis plainly says He did on Day 1? And if this light had a preferred direction, a rotating earth would have provided the day-night cycle He declares was there from Day 1.
Dave, buddy, brother,
One reason why we protest so much is that you have access to young minds and are allowed to present them with ideas that transform God into some sort of evil scientist who for no purpose whatsoever gives people genetic illnesses and has death as a natural phenomenon. Then all you can say is "Trust in the Lord because he is kind and Jesus died for you."
Don't come complaining and take some sort of moral highground when it was you who offered up your father-in-law's "solution" that made God into the evil ruler of the universe. When I was at uni I heard EU and CBS regurgitate the same sort of naff, heretical and foul theology that you, Peter Jensen, Rob Forsyth now offer as an orthodox vision of origins.
Unlike you and your mob, we believe that the Bible is totally inspired by God. Rob Forsyth has admitted that he only believes some of it is inspired. Which parts of the Bible do you believe are and aren't inspired?
Not once have you tried to debate our argument seriously, but prefer to sling mud and whinge, making excuses that you don't know enough science. Please, mate, be a bit honest about your debating tactics.
Face it: you really don't trust God at his word in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, do you?
Dave-you are a whinger. English by chance?
So now I'm self-righteous & indignant. FOL
What truly bothers me-that's me the individual Dave not part of your imagined get Dave conspiracy- is what you are passing on to the young minds you teach. Though I respect & admire people who give time to help & educate others I am convinced if it isn't the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth then it's ultimately counterproductive.
Dave it isn't that you are important in the grand scheme of things, no more or less important than the rest of us. It is that error corrupts. And if just one young mind is corrupted by compromise then that's one mind too many.
I suppose it is about Jesus' comment- what you do to the least of mine you do to me. I am sure our Lord meant what you do either positive or negative.
Are you still on about the windows of heaven & light on day one Dave.
As a keen reader for many decades I am well aware that serious history contains statements akin to the the windows of heaven, slap bang in the middle of historical narrative. We have been through this before. The use of terms such as-all hell broke loose- does not imply that what we are reading is anything less than eye-witness fact. We all use such figures of speech in describing real events.
You must doubt that God has the creative power to light the world without the sun. So what is going to light heaven Dave? Have a read of revelation.
Gotta go.
This blog is fantastic! I love it! Having listened to the bashing of other Christians on the SydneyAnglican.Net site who sincerely hold to a literal 6 day creation is astounding.
Dave says "But (yawn), did it ever occur to you to, um, get a life?" well obviously he and other members of Sydney Anglcian.Net do not have one, because they spend in ordinate amounts of time directing invective at people who disagree with them. Christian love I think not. Commitment to witnessing I think not. It is an attempt by the Sydney Anglican intelligentsia to try to crush all opposition to there unbiblical view. Guess what just because you hang with and talk with people, who hold the same view as you, does not mean they hold the correct view.!!
Quote who ever you want as much as you want, human thinking, debate and thought has no affect on the perfect and inerrant Word of God.
Dave also says "Thanks for engaging me through private email contact first, as is the Christian practice when conflicts arise. ;-)" fine words and some that him and his mates Gordon Cheng and Craig Swartz should take on board!!
Intellectual arrogance only ends in sin. And I wonder who cast the first stone in this debate…… Oh wait, I already knew who did, and it wasn’t us!!
Yes Thommas some on the AngloForum are habitual abusers of their christian brothers but couldn't stand the heat when a little correction & ridicule was directed in their direction. Some became quite self-righteous & indignant when criticized. Being a newcomer to this site you may not know they scarpered in the heat of debate, actually removing their comments from this site. However the moderator has resurrected Michael Jensens comments in the blog above. In hindsight they are not worth reading & not even entertaining.
Maybe the reaction was fuelled by guilt? Maybe they thought it fair to continue ridiculing Christian brothers in the privacy of their own pages but became alarmed when the battlefield broadened to include this site. What's the saying- if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs the one who yelps is the one who got hit. Now just in case Dave the 'they are all out to get me' one is reading- this is a saying Dave and it does not infer that anyone is a dog. I hope we have that straight.
Even though I have endeavoured to write in a light-hearted way I none the less consider what the compromisers hold & teach to be a real faith killer. Some of them can't imagine how God could have lit the earth without the sun! The fact that God wrote that He did just this isn't good enough for them. What else do they teach their unsuspecting victims?
Lankshear once again plays his diversionary tactics (and I would say that peak oil stuff doesn't belong on this blog). But yes, he is denying God's word by subjecting it to the fallible theories of uiniformitarian scientists.
The message he gives to the kids in his Scripture classes (and a good reason why compromisers should never be put in positions of leadership) is that when "science" and Scripture disagree, go with the "science". Now when "science" says that homosexuals are born that way, well obviously the biblical texts that denounce homo-sex as an abomination have to be "reinterpreted" (a euphemism for disbelieved) in the same way.
About baptism, the disagreement would hopefully be based only on what the Bible means. This is a totally different thing from Genesis, which you disbelieve because of extrabiblical criteria. As the Creation magazine editorial End-times and Early-times:
"Bible-believing Christians can differ on their understanding of endtime matters (eschatology) and other things such as form of church government, mode and subject of baptism, and Sabbath observance. So why make an issue about the days of creation? Surely this is just another one of those issues where we can tolerate various views, without criticizing each other?
"On the surface, this sounds like a good argument. However, let’s tease it out. Christians generally differ in their understanding of eschatology on the basis of their different interpretations of Scripture alone. The differences in views do not originate from anything outside of the Bible. So, the Reformation principle, sola scriptura (‘Bible alone’), guides the various people in arriving at their conclusions. Disagreements over eschatology, baptism, etc. begin and end with the Bible—the authority of the Bible is not normally an issue.
"However, when it comes to Genesis, virtually everyone agrees about what Genesis says and how the writer(s) meant readers to understand it—six ordinary days of creation where everything was very good, and death and suffering entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve; the global Flood; etc. (see Hebrew scholar affirms that Genesis means what it says! also in this issue). But outside influences generate the differing viewpoints—for example, the conjectures of the historical sciences such as cosmology, paleontology and archaeology."
Warwick recently addressed your Chengite straw man about floodgates, which is thoroughly dishonest straw man argument. Once again, a historical report can use a metaphor "it's raining cats and dogs" and neither cease to be history nor give grounds to turn straightforward language elsewhere in the report into metaphors.
Dave said,
"What if God was saying – yes He made the world — but not giving a science lesson in the first chapter of Genesis. Is it THAT hard to imagine that tradition has got it wrong this far?"
Dave, I don't know if our arguments are too complex for you or if you are consciously creating a straw-man just to disingenuously dump on your brothers: creationists don't claim that Genesis 1 or Exodus 20 etc are science lessons - we're claiming that these are straigthforward HISTORY lessons which are written in plain language that even dim-wits can understand.
If you can't understand our argument, mate, you really shouldn't be teaching children.
That you (and your mates) continually misrepresent what we're saying is indicative of your insincerity and dishonesty. Either argue against what we say our case actually is or keep your mouth zipped. Misrepresenting us is hardly an oversight. If you aren't really as proud as you appear to be, meet us in honest and intelligent conversation regarding our position rather than the false one you pass off.
John
Folks,
You are casting pearls before swine when responding to the never changing, never understanding, ever confrontational Dave Lankshear.
You can do so much more in posting blogs than engage this 'time waster'.
He has more than enough opportunity to prove his sincerity but it just doesn't exist.
Sam Drucker
Lanky, your constant piteous squealing about our tone won't wash, since you ally with supporters of humanist Bible-mockers like Plimer and dishonest straw-man scoffers like Cheng. And you have made it clear that "science" (which you and your Anglocompromiser mates are not even qualified in) is your main reason for rejecting the plain history of Genesis 6-day creation and global Flood. If it were from the Bible, then how come the Anglocompromise was totally unknown to Josephus, the Church Fathers and the Reformers? Answer, because it has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with kowtowing to deist-founded uniformitarian "science".
And you keep lying by implying that we don't recognize metaphor, with your constant harping of Cheng's dishonest argument about windows of heaven. And yes, how could you not be misrepresenting us when you're too intellectually dishonest and lazy to read even one creationist book from the last 10 years? Conversely, we have not misrepresented the Anglocompromise at all.
What about the Gospel you claim to teach the kids? For Paul, it was not an isolated package, but "according to the Scriptures". What Scriptures? That there was a "first man, Adam", who sinned and brought death, "the last enemy" into the world. So Jesus, "the last Adam", brought resurrection from the dead, which was physical so the death that Adam brought must have also been physical. See 1 Cor. 15. But the Anglomoorite compromise entails that there was much animal and even human death before Adam, which entails that Adam really didn't bring death after all, so what then did the Last Adam die for?
You think that you can win over atheists by appeasing them on matters of "science"? Then as I asked, where do you stop? Must Christian teaching on homosexuality change because of the alleged science about gay genes and the like? And look how atheists respond to compromise, e.g. Clinton R. Dawkins in his TV diatribe against theistic religion called The root of all evil? (broadcast on Channel 4, 16 January 2006), he said:
‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!’
Jesus is called "the last Adam", not "the second Adam". God cursed the creation because Adam sinned, not because Eve sinned (Romans 5:12-19, 18:19-23). But as pointed out, and as Lanky would know if he actually read what he was criticising, he would know that the dating methods he accepts so dogmatically put human death before any possible date for
Adam. And pre-Adamite man doesn't work, because Paul explicitly calls Adam "the first man" http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/453
DL: "and our ability to give up precious traditions and dare I say it — self-righteous positions that let us TEAR into our brothers in Christ?)"
You mean like the Anglonasties recommending a book by humanist Plimer, calling those with the same view as the Chhurch Fathers and Reformers "hillbbillies", "morons", "parasites", "demonic"? That's what you mean, Lanky, isn't it?
"I've got better things to do today than commence 6000 books on a 6000 year old world..."
You have been asked to read ONE, you liar. I can't imagine any creationist who has read 60 books let alone 6000.
DL: "with my busy life,"
Oh yeah, so busy that you can spend time on the Anglocompromise blog allying with mockers and supporters of bible-scoffing humanists.
"I only get through about 4 Christian books a year, and I'm certainly not going to waste my reading time on your fundamentalist propaganda with a few very carefully selected scientists bucking the overall scientific community"
Translation: I am not willing to be confused by the facts, so I am going to continue arguing against a position which I wilfully refuse to understand first. So I will just believe what the evolutionary scientists tell me even though they reject divine intervention a priori as Lewontin admitted.
— especially when my reasons for reading Genesis 1 differently to you are more theological than scientific.
Translation: I know better about the biblical text than the Fathers and Reformers, and the only reason I do is because the deistic and atheistic uniformitarians have proven millions of years. But I will pretend that they were in Scripture all along, and these great exegetes were too stupid to see it.
Once more, Lanky is trying pseudo-Scriptural arguments to justify his unbelief.
To whom did God announce the curse of death upon? To whom does Paul relate the Fall to? Adam, the "first man". He was the Federal Head of creation, as shown by God parading animals He had formed before him to name them, which was an exercise of authority. Adam also named "woman", against an exercise of authority. So the judgement was not pronounced until Adam had sinned, and did so without being deceived as Paul states in 1 Tim 2, another testimony to the historicity of Genesis. No license at all by Paul -- we leave the licentious treatment to the Anglonasties.
Why did God take six days? Calvin explained that, to make a model for our working week, which he in turn obtained from Moses (Ex. 20:8-11).
All this is in the creationist books you arrogantly refuse to read before arrogantly debating us. An old book read perfunctorily then dismissed on the say-so of a student less qualified than the author won't do.
What dating? The dating that the Anglocompromisers treat as fact to justify their rejection of the biblical timescale. Yet if true, they entail humans long before a biblical date for Adam. Where would you insert the thousands of names to stretch out these genealogies (cf. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/).
"of 21st century questions being imposed on an ancient document"
What an irony, since it is the Anglocompromise eisegesis that's the novelty resulting from trying to fit Scripture into modern "science".
Dave, I enjoy & learn from most debate upon Christian matters but have no more to say to you after this as I have learned nothing of value from you. Let me be clear as to why: It gives me no pleasure to say you are untruthful & a deceiver. Do I say this to insult you? Not at all, it is just a description of reality.
I have engaged in communication with you & also carefully read the to & fro of the other communication you have had. Others more learned than I have dealt with all your objections & answered your questions in detail. But to what avail? None, like arguing with a brick wall, one that insults, adding 'trolls' to the growing list.
You continue to raise straw-man arguments attempting to put words in the mouths of others. You made the patently ridiculous statement that creationists believe Genesis to be a science text or lecture. I have never heard a creationist say this, only atheists & compromisers.
In fact your debating style( it is a stretch to call it debating) is very similar to that I have experienced from card-carrying atheists. Ducking & weaving, missing the point continually, misrepresenting the views of others then resorting to insults when it suits them.
In fact I once had an impromptu 2 hour debate with the president of an atheist group in the Domain & he was a gentleman in comparison to you. Your style reminds me of the way Plimer behaved when 'debating' Dr Gish at NSW university many years ago. Gish (right or wrong) debated the issue while Plimer abused & ridiculed him, later accusing Gish of having an improper relationship with young boys. At least you have n ot stooped that low, yet.
Dave,
a. Dave believes that Genesis 1(to chapter 11 also??) is “an allegorical or creative narrative history”.
I am not sure what that means. Please explain the following:
(i) What does the word 'history' mean to you?
(ii) If something is history the way you mean it, how can it be also allegorical?
(iii) And what exactly is “creative narrative”?
(iv) Tell us how “creative narrative” can also be history?
(v) Which parts of Genesis 1 actually occurred according to the way it is written down? How do you know?
(vi) Please provide an example of the 2 types of "history" you've mentioned from outside the Bible.
b. What does it mean when you say a text is read “hyper-literally” as contrasted with something being taken merely “literally”?
c. Tell me how the fourth commandment in Exodus 20 is an allegorical legal statute? In other words, to the Jew (orthodox, conservative, reform or atheist), explain how a real Sabbath, the one they practise in Israel and Bondi today, is based on an allegorical event.
d. No, Dave, Genesis 1 is not a science lesson. If you weren’t too busy filling kiddies’ minds with heresies like “Oh, well little Bobby and Annie, I’m not quite sure if Adam and Eve were or weren’t real people”, and bothered to read the science that working scientists have produced that helps demonstrate that the Bible is an accurate historical book, you’d recognise the difference. However, because you like telling porkies about your Christian brothers and distorting their case, you prefer to keep on writing the rubbish you do. Maybe that’s what it’s all about: you spend too much time with kids, don’t read at all (as you've admitted), don’t think deeply, and haven’t yet matured and progressed beyond the “baby food” that the writer of Hebrews discusses.
e. We creationists take Genesis 1 to be brief, straightforward and accurate history because there are no internal reasons to do otherwise. What are your internal textual reasons for
taking it figuratively or metaphorically?
John
Lanky is a self-righteous and arrogant compromiser. Now he will go back to sitting in the seat of scoffers like Cheng and fans of the humanist Bible-mocking Plimer such as Atkins. Of course, it is the likes of Lanky and his idol Cheng who refuse to deal with the floodgates, or explain why their liberal views on Genesis appeared only after "science" allegedly proved millions of years. It says little for the church that pretend-intellectuals like Lanky "I read four Christian books a year" are allowed to teach kids.
Dave,
Floodgates have been dealt. In any case, I do not see the problem here as we believe that large amounts of water did fall from the sky at the time of Noah's Flood, just as Jesus, Peter and Paul believed it to be, and just as 3 chapters in Genesis claim. What the source was is moot, but the inclusion of the word 'floodgate' is not a problem. As yet, neither you nor Gordon Cheng has provided why this is problematic for our case. Your argument needs some unpacking before it is even intelligible.
William Lane Craig likes to remind his readers that "logic keeps one honest". Nevertheless, I feel we are wasting our time with you Dave (well, probably not me because I'm at work and am getting paid to write this, so to speak!) because the laws of logic seem to be one of those inconvenient and unnecessary intrusions on how you want to manipulate and rework God's Word.
To argue as you do regarding 'floodgates' illustrates a perfect example of committing the fallacy of composition. That is, if this part of the Bible is metaphoric then we are forced to take all of it thus. Of course, as we have said over and over again, we do believe that someone can use a metaphor in an historical passage but that by no means indicates that the whole passage should be taken metaphorically and thus is not straightforward history. So figures of speech are not an indication of a hermeneutic principle that states 'all is metaphor'.
Furthermore, you have never given any POSITIVE hermeneutic for your case but a negative one that is merely a reaction against ours. If you actually possessed a sound principle you would set it out for us to view. Maybe it is sound but since you refuse to provide it but just keep on talking about 'floodgates' as though that somehow establishes yours, we are left in the dark as to what it could be. How can we test it if it is not known to us.
As yet, you have avoided providing the basis for your taking all of Genesis 1 allegorically. We have provided at least one reason as to why the passage should be taken literally i.e. when day and a number are put together, they are to be taken straightforwardly.
Thus far, you or any other person has not provided a reason why day+number should be taken allegorically. The best you can do is to try and undermine our case by claiming "Oh, look, over here 7 chapters there is a metaphor, so all of it 7 chapters back mustn't be history writing." This hardly constitutes a powerful intellectual argument. It reminds me of Lane Craig's debate with the atheist at Willow Creek and how Craig wanted the atheist positive case presented but all he ever got for his trouble was that atheism doesn't claim anything and so the onus is on the theist to give reasons. Surely, Dave, you can do better than an atheist and provide some sort of positive apologetic for your case.
If you would kindly answer my questions in my previous comment box, a real conversation could begin. After all, you have continually claimed that the tradition in the Church of taking Genesis 1 straightforwardly is now overthrown by your new "hermeneutic principle", so surely the onus of proof is on you to actually provide us with what that principle is.
I just had occasion to re-read the comments on this blog and note that at a stage after comment postings ceased Mr Dave Lankshear must have come back and deleted his comments.
I can only conclude it was an intention to avoid exposure of his logic.
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment