JD Harding misses the mark (Letters SMH 8 Sept 07) [His letter asserted that no atheist had ever killed for his beliefs!]
I’ve heard of plenty of murders justified on atheistic grounds. Including fascist and communist regimes that killed believers in a number of faith: because of their belief. Total murders? Around 250 million, according to some.
Take Stalin, for instance. Once a seminarian but he tossed that over after reading Darwin convinced him that godless competition explained the world: he proceeded to be godlessly competitive. Similarly Hitler. He used the word ‘God’ for political and rhetorical purposes, but despised the idea of a deity. Mao, Pol Pot, the North Koreans were other big players in the ‘trust us, we’re atheists’ game.
This bunch, in a few decades, has between them, in pursuit of their avowedly atheistic agenda, murdered more people than all the even vaguely ‘religious’ conflicts ever!! Then add the Caesars, Napoleon, the Paris Commune, all godly? All murderous!
Even most so called religious wars were simply political wars with glib or misplaced religious references.
Now I haven’t even started on the modern holocaust of aborted babies: most I would guess, aborted because of atheist thinking or its implications. That would rack up a few tens of millions annually. OK, only half were atheistically motivated: a few fives of millions. Last century estimates I’ve read put it near a billion abortions! That’s lots of dead babies, but not, I suspect because their mothers sought prayerful lives of devotion to God.
Atheism might not always be a clearly stated religious position, but practical atheism is blood red from tip to toe. And why not? It has no reason in its implicit materialism for any strictures.
To sum it up:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994
[Dahmer was a mass-murderer who ate his victims. He subsequently turned to Christ]
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Always be prepared to mystify and stupify
A chapter from a seminar booklet: “Always be prepared to give an Answer” St James Seminar (which St James, is unknown).
If this is how Anglican Christians are equipped for discussion with people in the world, then no wonder the 10 year plan of Peter Jensen is, at year 5, less than half baked (an article in a recent Sydney Morning Herald revealed that in the five years Anglican numbers had risen by 5,500 against a 10 year goal of 10% of Sydney in ‘bible believing [and there, I take it, not Anglican] churches. Now, let it be said. Any increase in Christian numbers is welcome. I just wonder how many more could be in that number if the Sydney Anglicans were attentive to all the scriptures, rather than seemingly disdainful of parts of them?).
I say this because, as you will find below, we have in the chapter quoted a mix of half-truths, distortions, illogicality, and misunderstanding, dressed up as ‘the fact’s, ma’am, nothing but the facts’. Selling facts and delivering wind is the predictable result.
The chapter is quoted below. Following are comments against selected sections.
THE CHAPTER
5. Hasn’t Science Disproved Christianity?
Notes: Key issue for readers of Dawkins, The God Delusion
Well answered by A. McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion
Recommended book: K. Birkett, Unnatural Enemies
Key idea: no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.
Science attempts to explain the “How?” but cannot explain the Why? or Who?
As you begin, acknowledge that in the past Christians have created an unnecessary divorce between science and Christianity, often based on a misreading of the Scriptures – e.g. Nicholas Copernicus (16th century) proposed a heliocentric solar system – rejected because of misreading of Ps 19:6.
This approach is perpetuated by some Christians – e.g. Creation Science movement – Nowhere in the bible does it say that Noah’s flood is the explanation for geological strata
“Two Books approach” – Galileo (citing Cardinal Baronius, 1598) “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
The earliest scientists were believers in God. The whole scientific endeavour got off the ground because people believed that God had made an ordered world, which operated according to his laws.
Science rests on the empirical method – developing and testing theories against observable results. It assumes a uniformity of cause and effect – every time I throw an apple up, it will come back down.
The limits of science
Epistemological
cannot answer ‘why?’ questions
cannot speak about ‘singularities’
Distinguish between science-as-method and science-as-philosophy. As a method, science relies on the predictability of natural laws and forces in the world. Science-as-philosophy turns this into a ‘closed system’. Everything that happens in the universe can (and must) be explained in terms of natural events.
Science cannot ‘disprove’ or ‘prove’ Christianity, because it cannot speak about non-observed, non-repeatable events. (e.g. the first supernova…). For example, focus on the resurrection of Jesus. The results of science tell us that people don’t rise from the dead … But if Jesus resurrection was a singularity . . .
THE COMMENTS
“Recommended book: K. Birkett, Unnatural Enemies”
1. This book is good as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go far enough. It fails as a critique of naturalism, it fails as a history of science (the author, who is a PhD in the history of science, doesn’t mention either Milne-Edwards or Edward Blyth (see "The Darwin Papers", "Darwin and the search for an evolutionary mechanism", by Noel Weeks, "Variation and Natural Selection" or "Darwin's illegitimate brainchild" and Blyth’s papers themselves are available here. Note, I don’t vouch for these sites, necessarily, just that they have content on Blyth) who were important pre-cursors of Darwin’s ideas).
2. Birkett also fails to deal with the Godless source of Darwin’s ideas and the religious tendentiousness of his whole project.
3. As the Chaser would say (ABC-TV satire): Book road test: FAIL
“Key idea: no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.
Science attempts to explain the “How?” but cannot explain the Why? or Who?”
4. No, no, no. There is absolutely no conflict between science and Christianity; just like there is no conflict between bicycle repair and Christianity. This answer starts to give the farm away right at the start! The first distinction that must be drawn is between science and scientific discourse stolen by religious naturalism. Now, that’s where the conflict is; and it is a religious conflict: between naturalism and Christianity, just like between Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Voodoo. Check out "Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth" and Norman Geisler's article in JETS "Beware of Philosophy: A warning to biblical scholars"
5. It is meaningless to mention that science cannot explain the ‘who’ because the premise of naturalism (which is what the question is really about) is that there is no ‘who’ Perhaps they don’t teach this at Moore College!
6. In fact, science (natural science as we know it today) sets out to understand how the physical world works. It is done following the instruction of Genesis 1 for us to ‘subdue’ the earth: to know, understand and manage/master/care for it. The genesian source of the impulse to question is ironic as it is indeed the explanation as to why people investigate to understand the world answering the ‘why?’ along the causal system.
“As you begin, acknowledge that in the past Christians have created an unnecessary divorce between science and Christianity, often based on a misreading of the Scriptures – e.g. Nicholas Copernicus (16th century) proposed a heliocentric solar system – rejected because of misreading of Ps 19:6.”
7. The problems in the past between science and Christianity have been because the ‘science’ was pagan. The debate between the Roman curia and early astronomers rested not primarily on the Bible, but on the acceptance of Aristotelianism. Pagan philosophy wanted a ‘perfect’ world that they explained as a geocentric solar system with all the heavenly bodies in circular orbits on the faces of so many spheres. This of course was not workable, so they kept adding circles to get to the elliptical orbits seen.
8. A similar thing was a problem in zoology. The later Aristotelians thought that ‘species’ were unchanging and then they blended that with God’s created “kinds”. So we had the silly dogma that species (a human idea) were unchanging (a pagan idea) and so the Bible got tossed when it was noticed that species do change! Today the church repeats its mistakes, accepting pagan views of the world and retrofitting them into the Bible (I refer to the attempt to meld the naturalism of evolution with Genesis 1)
“This approach is perpetuated by some Christians – e.g. Creation Science movement – Nowhere in the bible does it say that Noah’s flood is the explanation for geological strata”
9. Well, naturally this is a highly contestable, and I would suggest, ignorant, statement. The ‘creation science’ movement starts from the premise that God has spoken truth, meaningful in our world whenever he has spoken (Meaningful in a total manner; if only some of his statements are meaningful in our world, we set out on a journey of ‘pick and choose’, a journey that is fraught with disaster and is more likely to lead away from God than to him. It is the separation of ‘meaningfulnesses’ that marks the fork in the road between the ‘biblical realist’ and the neo-Platonist in biblical interpretation). The naturalist bent in science starts from the premise that “if there is a God, he has not spoken, but there is probably no God anyway, so let’s forget about such a being”.
10. So here we go, agreeing with the naturalist premise to try to argue against the logical conclusion of that premise: that’s on a highway to hell, my friend!
11. The end of the silliness is the dismissal of the logical conclusion of the geological history of earth in a biblical framework because the bible (sic) doesn’t say that Noah’s flood explains geological strata. It doesn’t need to, just like it doesn’t need to explain the physiology of Christ’s resurrection to establish its credibility!
12. A quick read of the description of Noah’s flood would show that it was accompanied by tremendous geological catastrophe. And then, it doesn’t take much to figure that if a flood drops sediment all over the world, then sedimentary strata all over the world, full of fossils of dead things (noting that fossils do not form in the normal course of events, dead things decay and disperse) is consistent with Noah’s flood. The statement is juvenescent smugness making an obvious straw man that falls over its own naivety.
“ “Two Books approach” – Galileo (citing Cardinal Baronius, 1598) “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” “
13. Danger upon danger! So there are two books are there? To adapt the previous paragraph. “Nowhere in the bible does it say that” there are two books which we are to use to understand the revelation of God”. It is very clear that God’s creation (not a book, note) points to God. (Ro 1:20: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.). But this does not make the creation a second revelation by which we are able to interpret the propositional revelation in the scripture.
14. The very notion of two books fails at every point. And it fails because the ideas that are derived from the ‘book of nature’ are not the facts of creation, itself, but ideas about those facts, ideas conveyed within the context of religious naturalism. How can that form an interpretive grid for Holy Writ? Again the Anglicans teach and promote heresy.
15. God’s word is truth, and Paul reminds us of its value in teaching. We are never told to glance at the ‘creation’ to pick up ideas about God’s revelation.
“The earliest scientists were believers in God. The whole scientific endeavour got off the ground because people believed that God had made an ordered world, which operated according to his laws.”
16. A silly statement. Better to say that modern (natural) science flowered in the community of scholars who were convinced that God created in 6 days about 6000 years ago. The link between early modern science and belief in quick recent creation has been well documented by Peter Harrison in “The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science”.
17. One reason one could apply to this connection is that their belief provided a robust epistemology and ontology that enabled their curiosity to break away from the pagan bounds they had inherited from Classical Greece.
“Science rests on the empirical method – developing and testing theories against observable results. It assumes a uniformity of cause and effect – every time I throw an apple up, it will come back down.”
18. Wrong. Science rests on testing guesses made because of the failure of previous guesses to explain things. There is no ‘scientific’ method, per se, at the macro level. It is a micro method of observing, repeating and then drawing conclusions against the hypothesis being tested. If the test points to failure, then another guess emerges. Of course, the length one can go in guessing is constrained by one’s religious commitment: either to naturalism (and that punches against evidence when the evidence points away from it) or to (Christian) theism.
“The limits of science
Epistemological
cannot answer ‘why?’ questions
cannot speak about ‘singularities’
Distinguish between science-as-method and science-as-philosophy. As a method, science relies on the predictability of natural laws and forces in the world. Science-as-philosophy turns this into a ‘closed system’. Everything that happens in the universe can (and must) be explained in terms of natural events.”
19. At last, some real help. But it’s not ‘science-as-philosophy’; its naturalism-as-religion. That should be singled out.
“Science cannot ‘disprove’ or ‘prove’ Christianity, because it cannot speak about non-observed, non-repeatable events. (e.g. the first supernova…). For example, focus on the resurrection of Jesus. The results of science tell us that people don’t rise from the dead … But if Jesus resurrection was a singularity . . .”
20. And, finally, the comedy. If the resurrection, a singularity, is outside the purview of science, then so is creation, anther ‘singularity’; or unique and unrepeatable event.
TAILPIECE
Where does this all ‘hit the road’ so to speak? The same booklet from which the above quote is taken has a chapter on the subject of suffering. Of course that chapter says that the world is not as God created it; but on the basis of the quote above; how would they know? They deny the facticity of the only part of the Bible that would tell them that the creation (whatever that is, in their concept) was once ‘very good’ and is now fallen! So where the Bible touches the real world, they must have it that the endless suffering of evolution and/or a long age earth was part of God’s very good. The fossil record tells us that if this is very good, it is identical with the very bad (the last enemy) which God vanquishes in Christ!
If this is how Anglican Christians are equipped for discussion with people in the world, then no wonder the 10 year plan of Peter Jensen is, at year 5, less than half baked (an article in a recent Sydney Morning Herald revealed that in the five years Anglican numbers had risen by 5,500 against a 10 year goal of 10% of Sydney in ‘bible believing [and there, I take it, not Anglican] churches. Now, let it be said. Any increase in Christian numbers is welcome. I just wonder how many more could be in that number if the Sydney Anglicans were attentive to all the scriptures, rather than seemingly disdainful of parts of them?).
I say this because, as you will find below, we have in the chapter quoted a mix of half-truths, distortions, illogicality, and misunderstanding, dressed up as ‘the fact’s, ma’am, nothing but the facts’. Selling facts and delivering wind is the predictable result.
The chapter is quoted below. Following are comments against selected sections.
THE CHAPTER
5. Hasn’t Science Disproved Christianity?
Notes: Key issue for readers of Dawkins, The God Delusion
Well answered by A. McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion
Recommended book: K. Birkett, Unnatural Enemies
Key idea: no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.
Science attempts to explain the “How?” but cannot explain the Why? or Who?
As you begin, acknowledge that in the past Christians have created an unnecessary divorce between science and Christianity, often based on a misreading of the Scriptures – e.g. Nicholas Copernicus (16th century) proposed a heliocentric solar system – rejected because of misreading of Ps 19:6.
This approach is perpetuated by some Christians – e.g. Creation Science movement – Nowhere in the bible does it say that Noah’s flood is the explanation for geological strata
“Two Books approach” – Galileo (citing Cardinal Baronius, 1598) “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
The earliest scientists were believers in God. The whole scientific endeavour got off the ground because people believed that God had made an ordered world, which operated according to his laws.
Science rests on the empirical method – developing and testing theories against observable results. It assumes a uniformity of cause and effect – every time I throw an apple up, it will come back down.
The limits of science
Epistemological
cannot answer ‘why?’ questions
cannot speak about ‘singularities’
Distinguish between science-as-method and science-as-philosophy. As a method, science relies on the predictability of natural laws and forces in the world. Science-as-philosophy turns this into a ‘closed system’. Everything that happens in the universe can (and must) be explained in terms of natural events.
Science cannot ‘disprove’ or ‘prove’ Christianity, because it cannot speak about non-observed, non-repeatable events. (e.g. the first supernova…). For example, focus on the resurrection of Jesus. The results of science tell us that people don’t rise from the dead … But if Jesus resurrection was a singularity . . .
THE COMMENTS
“Recommended book: K. Birkett, Unnatural Enemies”
1. This book is good as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go far enough. It fails as a critique of naturalism, it fails as a history of science (the author, who is a PhD in the history of science, doesn’t mention either Milne-Edwards or Edward Blyth (see "The Darwin Papers", "Darwin and the search for an evolutionary mechanism", by Noel Weeks, "Variation and Natural Selection" or "Darwin's illegitimate brainchild" and Blyth’s papers themselves are available here. Note, I don’t vouch for these sites, necessarily, just that they have content on Blyth) who were important pre-cursors of Darwin’s ideas).
2. Birkett also fails to deal with the Godless source of Darwin’s ideas and the religious tendentiousness of his whole project.
3. As the Chaser would say (ABC-TV satire): Book road test: FAIL
“Key idea: no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.
Science attempts to explain the “How?” but cannot explain the Why? or Who?”
4. No, no, no. There is absolutely no conflict between science and Christianity; just like there is no conflict between bicycle repair and Christianity. This answer starts to give the farm away right at the start! The first distinction that must be drawn is between science and scientific discourse stolen by religious naturalism. Now, that’s where the conflict is; and it is a religious conflict: between naturalism and Christianity, just like between Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Voodoo. Check out "Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth" and Norman Geisler's article in JETS "Beware of Philosophy: A warning to biblical scholars"
5. It is meaningless to mention that science cannot explain the ‘who’ because the premise of naturalism (which is what the question is really about) is that there is no ‘who’ Perhaps they don’t teach this at Moore College!
6. In fact, science (natural science as we know it today) sets out to understand how the physical world works. It is done following the instruction of Genesis 1 for us to ‘subdue’ the earth: to know, understand and manage/master/care for it. The genesian source of the impulse to question is ironic as it is indeed the explanation as to why people investigate to understand the world answering the ‘why?’ along the causal system.
“As you begin, acknowledge that in the past Christians have created an unnecessary divorce between science and Christianity, often based on a misreading of the Scriptures – e.g. Nicholas Copernicus (16th century) proposed a heliocentric solar system – rejected because of misreading of Ps 19:6.”
7. The problems in the past between science and Christianity have been because the ‘science’ was pagan. The debate between the Roman curia and early astronomers rested not primarily on the Bible, but on the acceptance of Aristotelianism. Pagan philosophy wanted a ‘perfect’ world that they explained as a geocentric solar system with all the heavenly bodies in circular orbits on the faces of so many spheres. This of course was not workable, so they kept adding circles to get to the elliptical orbits seen.
8. A similar thing was a problem in zoology. The later Aristotelians thought that ‘species’ were unchanging and then they blended that with God’s created “kinds”. So we had the silly dogma that species (a human idea) were unchanging (a pagan idea) and so the Bible got tossed when it was noticed that species do change! Today the church repeats its mistakes, accepting pagan views of the world and retrofitting them into the Bible (I refer to the attempt to meld the naturalism of evolution with Genesis 1)
“This approach is perpetuated by some Christians – e.g. Creation Science movement – Nowhere in the bible does it say that Noah’s flood is the explanation for geological strata”
9. Well, naturally this is a highly contestable, and I would suggest, ignorant, statement. The ‘creation science’ movement starts from the premise that God has spoken truth, meaningful in our world whenever he has spoken (Meaningful in a total manner; if only some of his statements are meaningful in our world, we set out on a journey of ‘pick and choose’, a journey that is fraught with disaster and is more likely to lead away from God than to him. It is the separation of ‘meaningfulnesses’ that marks the fork in the road between the ‘biblical realist’ and the neo-Platonist in biblical interpretation). The naturalist bent in science starts from the premise that “if there is a God, he has not spoken, but there is probably no God anyway, so let’s forget about such a being”.
10. So here we go, agreeing with the naturalist premise to try to argue against the logical conclusion of that premise: that’s on a highway to hell, my friend!
11. The end of the silliness is the dismissal of the logical conclusion of the geological history of earth in a biblical framework because the bible (sic) doesn’t say that Noah’s flood explains geological strata. It doesn’t need to, just like it doesn’t need to explain the physiology of Christ’s resurrection to establish its credibility!
12. A quick read of the description of Noah’s flood would show that it was accompanied by tremendous geological catastrophe. And then, it doesn’t take much to figure that if a flood drops sediment all over the world, then sedimentary strata all over the world, full of fossils of dead things (noting that fossils do not form in the normal course of events, dead things decay and disperse) is consistent with Noah’s flood. The statement is juvenescent smugness making an obvious straw man that falls over its own naivety.
“ “Two Books approach” – Galileo (citing Cardinal Baronius, 1598) “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” “
13. Danger upon danger! So there are two books are there? To adapt the previous paragraph. “Nowhere in the bible does it say that” there are two books which we are to use to understand the revelation of God”. It is very clear that God’s creation (not a book, note) points to God. (Ro 1:20: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.). But this does not make the creation a second revelation by which we are able to interpret the propositional revelation in the scripture.
14. The very notion of two books fails at every point. And it fails because the ideas that are derived from the ‘book of nature’ are not the facts of creation, itself, but ideas about those facts, ideas conveyed within the context of religious naturalism. How can that form an interpretive grid for Holy Writ? Again the Anglicans teach and promote heresy.
15. God’s word is truth, and Paul reminds us of its value in teaching. We are never told to glance at the ‘creation’ to pick up ideas about God’s revelation.
“The earliest scientists were believers in God. The whole scientific endeavour got off the ground because people believed that God had made an ordered world, which operated according to his laws.”
16. A silly statement. Better to say that modern (natural) science flowered in the community of scholars who were convinced that God created in 6 days about 6000 years ago. The link between early modern science and belief in quick recent creation has been well documented by Peter Harrison in “The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science”.
17. One reason one could apply to this connection is that their belief provided a robust epistemology and ontology that enabled their curiosity to break away from the pagan bounds they had inherited from Classical Greece.
“Science rests on the empirical method – developing and testing theories against observable results. It assumes a uniformity of cause and effect – every time I throw an apple up, it will come back down.”
18. Wrong. Science rests on testing guesses made because of the failure of previous guesses to explain things. There is no ‘scientific’ method, per se, at the macro level. It is a micro method of observing, repeating and then drawing conclusions against the hypothesis being tested. If the test points to failure, then another guess emerges. Of course, the length one can go in guessing is constrained by one’s religious commitment: either to naturalism (and that punches against evidence when the evidence points away from it) or to (Christian) theism.
“The limits of science
Epistemological
cannot answer ‘why?’ questions
cannot speak about ‘singularities’
Distinguish between science-as-method and science-as-philosophy. As a method, science relies on the predictability of natural laws and forces in the world. Science-as-philosophy turns this into a ‘closed system’. Everything that happens in the universe can (and must) be explained in terms of natural events.”
19. At last, some real help. But it’s not ‘science-as-philosophy’; its naturalism-as-religion. That should be singled out.
“Science cannot ‘disprove’ or ‘prove’ Christianity, because it cannot speak about non-observed, non-repeatable events. (e.g. the first supernova…). For example, focus on the resurrection of Jesus. The results of science tell us that people don’t rise from the dead … But if Jesus resurrection was a singularity . . .”
20. And, finally, the comedy. If the resurrection, a singularity, is outside the purview of science, then so is creation, anther ‘singularity’; or unique and unrepeatable event.
TAILPIECE
Where does this all ‘hit the road’ so to speak? The same booklet from which the above quote is taken has a chapter on the subject of suffering. Of course that chapter says that the world is not as God created it; but on the basis of the quote above; how would they know? They deny the facticity of the only part of the Bible that would tell them that the creation (whatever that is, in their concept) was once ‘very good’ and is now fallen! So where the Bible touches the real world, they must have it that the endless suffering of evolution and/or a long age earth was part of God’s very good. The fossil record tells us that if this is very good, it is identical with the very bad (the last enemy) which God vanquishes in Christ!
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Prophecy Fulfilled
"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:2-4)
This prophecy of the Apostle Paul is well and truly upon the Church today, if it has not already been in times past. The Sydney Anglican Diocese, through its theological institution, Moore College, is making shipwreck of people's faith.
It has been said and implied many times in this blogspot that those within the Diocese who hold to a Theistic Evolution and Long Age view of origins have capitulated to the world. They allow the world to tell them how to interpret the Word of God. It does not bother them that they have to contort the clear meaning of language contained in the early books of the Word of God. They wouldn't dare do the same to the language in the accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well, not yet anyway!
Further testimony to their itching ears has been the acceptance of chronology of the Old Testament according to Edwin R. Thiele and William F. Albright. These 'princes' themselves have gone outside the Word of God to establish a chronology of the kings they could make sense of. Their inability to overcome 'perceived' difficulties in the Holy Writ led them to put their trust in the Assyrian Eponym, thus placing the Assyrian Eponym over the Word of God. Many today use the Babylonian account of origins to interpret the Biblical account. Aren't these instances akin to Israel going after other gods for rule of life? It was an offence to God then as is this latter day version.
Thiele and Albright were perhaps on the wrong track initially when placing too much stock in the Greek Septuagint over the Masoretic Text on the matter of chronology of the kings.
There are, no doubt, some difficulties yet to be resolved with the Masoretic Text but it seems to me that Dr Floyd Nolen Jones has done a very good job of setting right the chronology of the kings in his book and charts 'The Chronology of the Old Testament' published by Master Books. The remarkable thing is that Dr Jones has, as an aside, demonstrated how astute (the much latter day derided) Archbishop James Ussher was in his work 'Annals of the World'.
The 'perceived' problem of discordant chronology of kings dissipate in the light of the dominant (there is a good reason for the one exception) 'accession' year dating of kings in Judah and the 'non-accession' year dating of kings in the Northern Kingdom. Dr Jones presents a very neat fit of the dating of the reign of a king in one kingdom against the reign of a king in the other kingdom.
This is not to say that there aren't difficulties yet to be resolved because it is clear that Holy Spirit did not inspire writers of what we call the Old Testament to record an absolute chronology of times and events contained therein. However, Dr Jones brings the reader to a confidence that he or she is within ten years of an absolute chronology. I also appreciated his God honouring and commonsense explanation of the 'perceived' problems of some missing names in Matthew's genealogy of the Lord Jesus and Luke's inclusion of an 'additional' name.
The sharp observation for me was that of seeing once again how those who Sam Drucker calls biblical creationists of today are in step with those who God elevated to positions of good influence in the time of the Reformation viz Luther, Calvin and Ussher among others.
Sad to say, many in the Sydney Anglican Diocese today stand not with the good influences of the Reformation but more with idolatrous and calamitous Israel.
Neil Moore
This prophecy of the Apostle Paul is well and truly upon the Church today, if it has not already been in times past. The Sydney Anglican Diocese, through its theological institution, Moore College, is making shipwreck of people's faith.
It has been said and implied many times in this blogspot that those within the Diocese who hold to a Theistic Evolution and Long Age view of origins have capitulated to the world. They allow the world to tell them how to interpret the Word of God. It does not bother them that they have to contort the clear meaning of language contained in the early books of the Word of God. They wouldn't dare do the same to the language in the accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well, not yet anyway!
Further testimony to their itching ears has been the acceptance of chronology of the Old Testament according to Edwin R. Thiele and William F. Albright. These 'princes' themselves have gone outside the Word of God to establish a chronology of the kings they could make sense of. Their inability to overcome 'perceived' difficulties in the Holy Writ led them to put their trust in the Assyrian Eponym, thus placing the Assyrian Eponym over the Word of God. Many today use the Babylonian account of origins to interpret the Biblical account. Aren't these instances akin to Israel going after other gods for rule of life? It was an offence to God then as is this latter day version.
Thiele and Albright were perhaps on the wrong track initially when placing too much stock in the Greek Septuagint over the Masoretic Text on the matter of chronology of the kings.
There are, no doubt, some difficulties yet to be resolved with the Masoretic Text but it seems to me that Dr Floyd Nolen Jones has done a very good job of setting right the chronology of the kings in his book and charts 'The Chronology of the Old Testament' published by Master Books. The remarkable thing is that Dr Jones has, as an aside, demonstrated how astute (the much latter day derided) Archbishop James Ussher was in his work 'Annals of the World'.
The 'perceived' problem of discordant chronology of kings dissipate in the light of the dominant (there is a good reason for the one exception) 'accession' year dating of kings in Judah and the 'non-accession' year dating of kings in the Northern Kingdom. Dr Jones presents a very neat fit of the dating of the reign of a king in one kingdom against the reign of a king in the other kingdom.
This is not to say that there aren't difficulties yet to be resolved because it is clear that Holy Spirit did not inspire writers of what we call the Old Testament to record an absolute chronology of times and events contained therein. However, Dr Jones brings the reader to a confidence that he or she is within ten years of an absolute chronology. I also appreciated his God honouring and commonsense explanation of the 'perceived' problems of some missing names in Matthew's genealogy of the Lord Jesus and Luke's inclusion of an 'additional' name.
The sharp observation for me was that of seeing once again how those who Sam Drucker calls biblical creationists of today are in step with those who God elevated to positions of good influence in the time of the Reformation viz Luther, Calvin and Ussher among others.
Sad to say, many in the Sydney Anglican Diocese today stand not with the good influences of the Reformation but more with idolatrous and calamitous Israel.
Neil Moore
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Trading Places
Not far from the University of Sydney is an attractive sandstone structure that has a dark past. It was many times the scene of much funereal dress, grieving and sadness as the bereaved gathered to board the funeral train to convey dearly departed on their final earthly journey to Rookwood Cemetery.
The mortuary station no longer fulfils that purpose. It is heritage listed and the subject of cultural interpretation for the heritage minded.
The role of facilitating darkness and sadness has shifted a little further to the west, to the University of Sydney, where an organisation called Evangelical Union conducts its agenda of death and darkness. This is evident from the latest in a long line of sad episodes involving Evangelical Union.
A friend this week shared with me his experience on campus with some Evangelical Union people - one paid employee and two devotees.
As I understand it, Evangelical Union (EU) had a stall operating to make contact with passers-by. My friend was on campus and stopped at the stall to inquire of a man, who turned out to be a paid EU staffer, what sort of approach he would take in dealing with people of humanist/naturalist beliefs. The response exposed an inadequate understanding of reality so my friend delivered some words of help but, all the while, felt the staffer was not taking it in. The staffer made a discrete departure but standing nearby were two young women who had been participants in EU activities.
My friend engaged the two young women in conversation and soon the topic of origins came up. The women remarked how ironic it was because earlier at the University they had been in situations where the biblical position on origins had come under criticism from evolution and atheist minded people. The young women related how they had felt inadequate to respond to the criticism. My friend then proceeded to explain the biblical creationist position and observations from the world which destroy the argument for evolution. He could see the light come into the eyes of the young women and the joy on their face as they gladly received the message. They wanted more and he gave more. Eventually time was against him and he had to take his leave but not without giving the young women some helpful websites to obtain more information.
This day was one where one of those biblical experiences of light and life coming coming upon two of the Lord's people. They had received confidence in the Word of God, were keen to learn more so that they were equipped to give an account of the faith in which they believe.
The next day my friend was on campus again and the EU stall was assailed by a young man criticising Christianity. My friend decided to engage the critic in conversation. He asked the critic what was his central argument for rejecting Theism. The reply came down to the naturalistic/evolutionary world view. My friend saw that the disinterested EU staffer from the day before had joined the stall. My friend immediately called to him and said "See, this man with his naturalistic world view is just what I was addressing with you yesterday!" The staffer responded curtly with words to the effect of "I have no interest in going over that again!"
The humanist critic was being left by EU to maintain his unbelief and anti-Christian state. My friend then engaged in friendly dialogue with him, sensitively demolished his arguments for naturalism and explained Information Theory. Time again was against my friend and the two had to end their conversation but not before the critic had become a listener and inquirer. They exchanged names, shook hands and the man thanked my friend for sharing the information with him. He went away uplifted in spirit.
My observation of all this?
Its a matter of dark and light. In the EU staffer and the humanist there was darkness. In the two young women EU devotees darkness turned to light. In the humanist, a little light eventually shone in him but it did not come from EU. It was only the EU staffer who remained in the dark, sad and bitter.
The great fear I have now is for those two young women. They are about to have their light assailed by the darkness of EU. Any light they share will quickly be smothered by EU's cultish practice of disengaging with reality and demanding the 'party line'. How do I know? The scene described above has been just a replay of similar incidents before.
Sam Drucker
The mortuary station no longer fulfils that purpose. It is heritage listed and the subject of cultural interpretation for the heritage minded.
The role of facilitating darkness and sadness has shifted a little further to the west, to the University of Sydney, where an organisation called Evangelical Union conducts its agenda of death and darkness. This is evident from the latest in a long line of sad episodes involving Evangelical Union.
A friend this week shared with me his experience on campus with some Evangelical Union people - one paid employee and two devotees.
As I understand it, Evangelical Union (EU) had a stall operating to make contact with passers-by. My friend was on campus and stopped at the stall to inquire of a man, who turned out to be a paid EU staffer, what sort of approach he would take in dealing with people of humanist/naturalist beliefs. The response exposed an inadequate understanding of reality so my friend delivered some words of help but, all the while, felt the staffer was not taking it in. The staffer made a discrete departure but standing nearby were two young women who had been participants in EU activities.
My friend engaged the two young women in conversation and soon the topic of origins came up. The women remarked how ironic it was because earlier at the University they had been in situations where the biblical position on origins had come under criticism from evolution and atheist minded people. The young women related how they had felt inadequate to respond to the criticism. My friend then proceeded to explain the biblical creationist position and observations from the world which destroy the argument for evolution. He could see the light come into the eyes of the young women and the joy on their face as they gladly received the message. They wanted more and he gave more. Eventually time was against him and he had to take his leave but not without giving the young women some helpful websites to obtain more information.
This day was one where one of those biblical experiences of light and life coming coming upon two of the Lord's people. They had received confidence in the Word of God, were keen to learn more so that they were equipped to give an account of the faith in which they believe.
The next day my friend was on campus again and the EU stall was assailed by a young man criticising Christianity. My friend decided to engage the critic in conversation. He asked the critic what was his central argument for rejecting Theism. The reply came down to the naturalistic/evolutionary world view. My friend saw that the disinterested EU staffer from the day before had joined the stall. My friend immediately called to him and said "See, this man with his naturalistic world view is just what I was addressing with you yesterday!" The staffer responded curtly with words to the effect of "I have no interest in going over that again!"
The humanist critic was being left by EU to maintain his unbelief and anti-Christian state. My friend then engaged in friendly dialogue with him, sensitively demolished his arguments for naturalism and explained Information Theory. Time again was against my friend and the two had to end their conversation but not before the critic had become a listener and inquirer. They exchanged names, shook hands and the man thanked my friend for sharing the information with him. He went away uplifted in spirit.
My observation of all this?
Its a matter of dark and light. In the EU staffer and the humanist there was darkness. In the two young women EU devotees darkness turned to light. In the humanist, a little light eventually shone in him but it did not come from EU. It was only the EU staffer who remained in the dark, sad and bitter.
The great fear I have now is for those two young women. They are about to have their light assailed by the darkness of EU. Any light they share will quickly be smothered by EU's cultish practice of disengaging with reality and demanding the 'party line'. How do I know? The scene described above has been just a replay of similar incidents before.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
