Chaps and Chapettes,
In the latest Journal of Creation there are quite a few goodies which may interest bloggers and commenters:
Reviews:
Secular sermons
A review of A Devil’s Chaplin: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Lael Weinberger
Theistic evolution—a greater fairytale for mankind
A review of Evolution from Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence by Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett
Book Review by David Stevens
Atheist with a mission
A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Book Review by Philip Bell
Good approach misapplied to get ‘analogical days’
A review of Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins
Book Review by Frank DeRemer
Evolution’s theological underpinnings
A review of Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science by Cornelius Hunter
Book Review by Chase Nelson
and articles:
The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4
Countering the Critics Article by Francis Humphrey
On literary theorists’ approach to Genesis 1: Part 1
Paper by Marc Kay
Both these articles touch on matters raised here: the former by a PhD on the language, the latter on the 'twisting of scripture' to use James Sire's book title.
There's a pile of other good stuff too: as usual.
I've also been reading Living Tradition at: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html which has some interesting articles on origins, theology and Genesis. It is a Roman Catholic journal, but I assume we're all consenting adults here and can read RC material. But, good stuff here on form criticism and Gunkel. What I particularly like is the demand for form critics to supply evidence for their indulgences: I'd like to see some commenters do the same!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I wonder if others who comment have read this? I'm not the other annonymous (or plural), but I don't like to ID on the web.
The language of almost all grieves me greatly. Come on folks. Be tough with ideas, for sure, but not with people. Just think: on the off chance we are all in Christ, we'll all be together for eternity: cleaned up, for sure, but lets not say what we might later regret.
Paul calls us to be at peace, to be kind, to above all, love: and that means put the best interests of the others first.
There's no milage in tough talk, in name calling (its petty and destroys credibility, IMO), in profanity, in playground games, in one upmanship or in other such silliness.
I would guess that no one knows who the other's are on this blog, they might, of course, but who knows what injury or offense is being done to a brother or sister: who knows what offense might keep another from thinking through to truth?
So, if we are bretheren, a call to peace, repentance for unkindness, and a hope that the game will lift so that Christ will be honoured in all that we do or say.
"It is a Roman Catholic journal, but I assume we're all consenting adults here and can read RC material."
No problem. In the following, one could replace "Traditional Catholic" with YEC, and it would apply to the Anglocompromisers just as much as to the form critics.
The critical element in Simon’s "critical history" and in the long series of historical-critical works that have succeeded it consists in the exclusion of biblical faith, and especially of Christian faith, from its set of presuppositions and from its technical frame of reference. In doing this it places human reason above Christian faith, and it subjects the objects of Christian faith, as they appear in the Bible, to a reasoning process that depends upon this set of false assumptions. Traditional Catholic exegesis, on the contrary, while it makes an exquisite use of human reason in its thinking about the text of Sacred Scripture, does not subject the text of Sacred Scripture to the judgment of a reasoning process depending upon a set of false presuppositions. From a viewpoint of faith and reason, traditional Catholic interpretation regards the Bible as a unified whole, written ultimately by God as its principal Author, and it, therefore, gives the benefit of the doubt to the text of Scripture, whereas historical-criticism tends of its very nature to arrive at a position in which it places the burden of proof on the Scriptures and gives the benefit of the doubt to the "critical" reasoning of the critics.
Anon: Jesus sometimes used ad hominem arguments as part of the challenge-riposte method in which He was skilled. Are we not supposed to be imitators of Christ? These passages said nothing about imitating only His gentleness with the downtrodden but not His satire and insults to the religiously pompous. See also the great book A Serrated Edge: A brief defense of biblical satire and trinitarian skylarking by Douglas Wilson and A Biblical Defense for Giving Offense By Doug Giles
Anon2 if it were simply a matter of whether we dip or sprinkle,or differeing beliefs about the timing of Jesus' return then I would accept your comments as apt.
However the matters debated here concern whether we follow God's Word or not, & where our beliefs are leading. Those denominations now lost to liberalism did not suddenly do a theological u-turn or even a 90 degree turn but from small beginnings they edged ever so slowly away fron Biblical Christianity. As just one example I listened in horror as a Uniting Church minister (on radio) told a listener that the Bible is not our guide in lifestyle & faith. He accepts that all faiths are part of the greater light. Do you imagine he was one day a Bible believer then overnight a deceiver? Is deceiver too strong a term for such a man? I don't think so as he will take people away from saving faith, causing them to follow him to hell.
How long until some influential Sydney Anglicans reach a similar position & likewise lead others astray? Should we speak up now or oppose them to their face, as I have done on numenous occasions.
As regards language I can only speak for myself, having called specific Anglicans AngloNasty, which they are both in their mocking attitude & the tortured theology they preach. One of them hopes that the Christian organization Creation Ministries International will be burnt or destroyed! What an evil attitude, straight from the pit. AngloNasty isn't name calling any mote than John the Baptists 'Synagogue of Satan,' or Jesus' 'blind fools.'
We are to tell the truth in love, (Eph. 4:15)noting that truth comes first.
There is more to be unpackaged in relation to the postings of the earlier Anonymous.
To avoid confusion and discomfort for the latest Anonymous correspondent could I suggest adopting a pseudonym if real identity is thought likely to attract nasty victimisation such as happened to Warwick.
As regards the other Anonymous (Martin Shields?), did anyone grasp what he was on about concerning "Once upon a time". I was otherwise indisposed so I didn't address it.
It seemed to me he was trying to say that that the connotations of using the phrase in fiction literature had application to the Word of God. However, to my knowledge the phrase is not used in the Word of God.
Please explain?
Neil
Neil I don't like your chances of getting an answer. Quite a few people who bob up here are hit & run merchants who appear just to tell us what a bunch of thouroughly unpleasant chaps we are, then fade into obscurity. I think most of them are 'set-ups' as they appear out of the fog fully versed in one side of the story. Hardly impartial people looking to discover the truth.
You may remember I asked SA's to explain the details of their T/E belief & only Craig attempted a reply which was no reply at all. He said T/E means God used evolution. Where's the detail?
I asked him to read the Briese report & let us know who Clarrie Briese says is in the right in this sorry AiG/CMI business. No answer. I suppose the fact that Clarrie Briese is known as a very straight & honest man, & a highly respected Anglican caused him to shy away. He wouldn't want to be seen to disrespect Clarrie Briese as well would he!
Then we had a Cheng attack during which attack he claimed that telling people God used evolution was a successful form of evangelism. I asked him if he had any testimonials to back this up & surprize, surprize silence.
I have quite a few letters from people giving explicit testimony that it was CMI (then AiG) material which lead to their salvation. I am sure if Gordon Cheng had the same he would have answered.
All this brought Martin Anonymous to mind. He was so sure of his correctness but made quite a few slip-ups. In trying to talk away the historical nature of the days of creation he said they were like the 12 days of Christmas in the song. He claimed the writer surely meant 12 literal days but they weren't real historical days. Just a story, just like Genesis, a story which illustrates something but not meant to be taken as history. But the 12 days of Christmas are definitely 12 real historical days, the song being based upon historical reality. And further they are consecutive real historical days just like the 6 real consecutive creation days in Genesis 1. He sort of dropped that idea didn't he.
He also had a go at people on this site who talked about the 6-days of creation rather than the real 7 days. I pointed out that we talk of six creation days because there were 6. He dropped that one as well.
Some of his writings were so convoluted & I have to admit I had problem following some. Poor simple me! But when I did follow I found him to be wrong, both in fact & logic.
I had my regular visit from JW's yesterday & their story is just as polished as Martin's & just as logically & factually wrong. I do admire the JW's for thir persistence in door-knocking, though reject their theology which is flawed like Martin's, as both ' have imported an alien philosophical proceedure into Scripture' as per Prof. Douglas Kelly.
But I digress. Back to your question- good luck!
Warwick, it seems you are right. Not a word from the recent anonymous.
I spoke to Sam today. He is working on a blog for the weekend. He seems to have the same trouble as me - to much happening to allow fulltime attention to this site.
Neil
Neil as I said they bob up then fade away after telling us what nasty folk we are. I couldn't believe the gall of one compromiser who objected to being described as a compromiser. If someone compromises the Word of God how else can they be described? I suppose the aim is to attempt to embarass us into silence. Well it failed.
If you listen to some bob & faders we are supposed to be quite happy that they hold & teach theistic evolution even though it undermines the foundation of the Gospel. I had lunch with a senior Presbyterian who was a 6-day creation man & he told me what caused him to come to that belief. One of those dastardly creationists pointed out that the T/E idea(& other compromise beliefs) places death & suffering in the world before sin, which is contrary to Scripture. They place the fossil record, a record of death & suffering before sin. This fossil record which contains human fossils one of which I have seen shows a human skull penetrated by the teeth of a large cat.
And some of these guys say that defending the foundation of the Gospel is a distraction.
Interesting isn't it that the last mention of the word Gospel in Scripture-Revelation 14 says to worship the creator.
Warwick, to avoid addressing the truth of God in creation many compromisers retreat to a defence of the New Testament and the gospel as it is revealed therein.
That is why there was as much activity as shuffling through an ants' nest when the Da Vinci Code publication was released, more when the movie came out.
The compromisers have abandoned defence of the glory of God revealed in His creative activity. They seriously overlook the impact on the whole gospel through a faulty interpretation of origins.
Neil
Warwick, to avoid addressing the truth of God in creation many compromisers retreat to a defence of the New Testament and the gospel as it is revealed therein.
That is why there was as much activity as shuffling through an ants' nest when the Da Vinci Code publication was released, more when the movie came out.
The compromisers have abandoned defence of the glory of God revealed in His creative activity. They seriously overlook the impact on the whole gospel through a faulty interpretation of origins.
Neil
Post a Comment