A dramatic revision of the Church’s hermeneutical procedure will be in order after the weekend’s chance location of a segment of Torah. Hidden for more than two and half millennia, this find represents the oldest example of Moses’ face-to-face instruction by God at Exodus 31. The segment was discovered in the ruins adjacent to Ramat Rachel, a small kibbutz located on the perimeter of Jerusalem, literally a stone’s throw from the birthplace of the Church’s founder. The irony should not be lost on the faithful here as it is widely believed that it is the Creator himself in these very same verses who dialogues with Moses. Potentially, at least, this could put a final nail into the Creationist coffin, the only evangelical sub-group who continues to read such passages as straightforward history.
Others, however, were less downcast and expressed surprise that the Church hadn’t previously noticed the perspicuous “intertextual reference” in the hundreds of other manuscripts that had been relied on by Bible translators. When asked to explain this highly technical term, Sydney Anglican Diocese spokesman Dave Lankshear remarked that this discovery once and for all established ancient historian John Dickson’s theory that Moses had relied on a much earlier pagan and polytheist cosmogonic account. “It was quite reasonable to conclude,” Dave explained, “after a careful comparison of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 drew similarities of the highest order, that the Jewish story betrayed a heavy dependence on the pagan one. For example, both mention the words ‘star’, ‘water’, ‘heavens’, ‘man’. What more proof do these people need that Genesis 1 is a reworking of the earlier Enuma. In fact – and this certainly brings to memory that fabulously funny demonstration of self-flagellation by Basil Fawlty - I would go as far as to say that this is just how Moses spanked those awful pagans’ attempt at writing their own account of origins.”
When asked which people he’s referring to, Dave smiled and graciously responded, “I am referring to these Luddites called Creationists who have wilfully ignored hard science and who are a fifth column within the Church working to destroy it and to keep people away from knowing God. My archbishop had it spot-on when he labelled them ‘hillbillies’. Let me ask you: Why would God bother to do it in 6 days? Why 6? I grant he could have, but why would he? This is the point.”
Follows is the newly discovered text of Exodus 31: 12-17 as it has been translated by scholars.
‘The LORD then gave these instructions to Moses: “Tell the people of Israel: ‘Be careful to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you from generation to generation. It is given so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. You must keep the Sabbath day, for it is a holy day for you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. The people of Israel must keep the Sabbath day by observing it from generation to generation. This is a covenant obligation for all time. It is a permanent sign of my covenant with the people of Israel. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he stopped working and was refreshed.’” When the LORD finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two stone tablets inscribed with the terms of the covenant,[c] written by the finger of God.’
So, Moshe went away to the people of Israel and said I’m going to 'spank' the Enuma Elish by re-writing God’s claims with a new emphasis. "First of all, let's get this out the way! Men and women of Israel, I want to insert some sort of 'inter-textual reference' into this commandment from our Lord referencing the Enuma Elish and therefore make it a category of writing that CANNOT be literally true. I want to rebuke it, turn it upside down by using similar literary devices, and completely capture it and transform it in doing so. After all, my fellow Semites, if the pagans can have their stories replete with literary devices and thus making these passage metaphor and symbolism, so can we.”
‘And to this all the people went, “Amen.”’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
BTW, Dave, maybe you can check out, for starters, the following:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/Genesis-and-Ancient-Near-Eastern-Stories-of-Creation-and-Flood-An-Introduction-Part-I.aspx
Lankshear continues to display his mimophantism. Of course, it's far more likely that the borrowing went the other way, with the pagan account a distorted version. Any polemic value of Genesis would be that it presents true history, and would be lost if it were not. E.g. Basil and Theophilus in the early church used the TRUE history of the sun being created after vegetation to rebuke pagan sun worship.
BTW, how exactly do you explain the Gospel? How do you explain 1 Cor. 15 to people if you deny that death really came to Adam because there was already millions of years of death and suffering?
Lankshear is a typical liberal. Maybe EE predated the final stage of the Pentateuch, but as I showed, Genesis goes back to records centuries older than Moses.
The literary structure of Genesis, with the initial qatal verb followed by vav consecutives, is proof that it's a historical narrative. This is how it has been understood by Josephus, most church fathers, all the reformers, Wesley ... But Lankshear and the other SAD thralls would have us believe that no one understood it until the rise of uniformitarian geology.
Oh yeah, the SAD is really convincing, NOT. Any secularist would know that human death long predated any biblical date for Adam, given the uniformitarian "dating" methods to which SAD has capitulated in their desire to appease the world.
However, the NT is unambiguous that Adam and Eve were the parents of all other humans who have ever lived. Adam is the "first man" and the one who brought death into the world, and he was created before Eve, the "mother of all living". Check 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45; Romans 5:12–19, 1 Tim. 2:13–14. SAD's appeasement undermines the NT teaching of sin bringing death, so undermines the teaching that the Last Adam brought resurrection from the dead.
Gen. 10:19 predates EE, because it wsa written from a time when Sodom still flourished. It seems from all the editorial comments that Moses was explaining history first written long before his time.
ANE parallels clearly go from history to legend. So EE was the copy.
Also, as pointed out before, those who claim that Genesis was a polemic haven't a clue what biblical polemic looks like, and what would be an effective polemic against paganism.
If I want such liberalism, I'll go to Spong who at least is consistent in his liberal denial of biblical authority, unlike the fence-sitting Anglomoores. But instead, I will stick to the way the Church understood Genesis for 1800 years: as history.
"how is it that you have so much energy to devote to this one or 2 chapters of the bible alone"
How many chapters does God have to spend on something before you believe it?
And it's far from one or two chapters, but also much NT teaching, as I've pointed out.
Dave 'we' do not hate the SAD as you falsely claim. Some who blog here are Anglican.
What you rudely call hate is the attitude of Bible believing Christians when confronting those, and ONLY those in the SAD (who I call AngloNasties) who are perverting the Word because of the opinions of men. Can't you see that Anglicanism in many nations is now thoroughly liberal, even only nominally Christian, because decades ago they began to reinterpret Genesis as some poem, or theme, or story, any meaning other that that which a straight-forward reading would give. The rot began there and guite logically then spread through the Bible. Many of these liberals no longer believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Quite logical! The SAD is on this course (with some already totally liberal) but mostly somewhat behind the liberals.
I find it hilarious that you ridicule our stand upon Genesis, the foundational book of the Bible, and the Gospel while being a member of a church which fights against women's ordination and homosexuals. Majoring mightily upon the minors!
You remind me of the Anglican minister who told his congregation he believed in six-day creation. I suggested that a member ask the Rev. if they were 24 hour days. The answer stunned the questioner and others because he said no. They now saw he was being evasive, even lying to hide his real disbelief!
I read what you write and cannot trust that your definition of words is the same as the dictionary. Let me ask you to define 'truth' and 'True Truth', and which would you apply to Genesis 1?
BTW a talking serpent! You disclose your state of disbelief obviously believing Almighty God cannot cause a serpent to speak.
Lankshear probably denies that God used a talking donkey to rebuke Balaam.
"Can't you see that Anglicanism in many nations is now thoroughly liberal, even only nominally Christian,"
Also interesting to note that many of these liberals reject the atonement too.
John I suggest you read "Peirced for our transgressions", you'll find it convincing.
I am unsure what to think of in regard to the silence on this blog whenever the atonement is raised. It makes me think there could be a bit of a PR issue at the moment for you guys.
I don't know how the bible could be any clearer on the fact that Christ was punished on the cross in the place of sinners. This is much clearer than whether or not Genesis creation account is 6 literal days. I would be happy for you guys to be right on this actually, you well could be right. I really do belive that, that you all could be very right about creation.
But denying the atonement is another thing altogether. And if your concern is the slide into liberalism, you'd better be looking within your own camp to ensure that it doesn't happen.
Who denies the atonement? Is this more divide and conquer crap? Without the history of Genesis, with its teaching that death came from a the actions of a literal first man Adam, it's hard to defend any sort of atonement involving the Last Adam.
FWIW, here is CMI's statement of belief about theology:
1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
7. All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
Well I've read elsewhere that John denies the atonement. He posted about it on Craig's blog. Craig subsequently stated that John denied the atonement, and John never said anything after that. So my assumption is that John denies the atonement. Every other time it has been mentioned nothing has been said.
It is not about divide and conquer, it is of serious interest because it brings about great confusion. Therefore I would like to know what john's issue with the atonement is, because by all means you folk here claim to maintain a very high view of scripture.
But if there is any conquering to be done, the only thing I'd like to see would be change in the title of the blog, and a loss of all the vile language that is permitted. You would probably lose a lot of viewers, but I'm sure it would become a great resourcefor those interested in the topic. I'm not going to deny that you know your stuff. It's your method more than anything that upsets me.
"Without the history of Genesis, with its teaching that death came from a the actions of a literal first man Adam, it's hard to defend any sort of atonement involving the Last Adam."
I agree with this statement actually. If Adam is not real it does seem to pose problems.
OK, OK, OK. I’ve succumbed to the demand of the lynch mob and decided to reply to their demand about what I believe apropos substitutionary atonement. However, before I do, allow me to make a brief comment about the scent-of-blood frenzy our opponents have so perspicuously demonstrated.
Hitherto, our champions of heresy have been on a ‘hiding to nothing’ when they, briefly, engaged us on questions of origins. They ignore us on science, biblical exegesis and good old commonsense. They, instead, opt for tendentious, circular and unsupportable theories, bolstered by generous doses of the ad hominem. I can only conclude that this latest project of theirs is another example of a backs-against-the-wall sanctimonious fishing expedition.
The other salient aspect are these SADs lies and false witness against others here. No one else has mentioned atonement but they insist that there is a unified agreement against the atonement. For this - and not for me - you SADs should immediately apologise. If you don’t, you stand condemned before God as lying.
So what did I say?
It begins with that kindly and soft-hearted comforter of souls, Gordon Cheng, who decides that the best way to get alongside depressed youth is to scare them with the flames of hell. You see, unlike Christian professionals who have had decades of experience working with lost youth, Gordon wants to rewrite the Gospel and transform the love of Christ into an opportunity to preach his vision of Jesus as the guy he has always wanted to be – Mr T. No wonder that one of his own clergy has stated to me that he is, in typical SAD understatement, one heck of an odd dude.
So, Gordon, that doyen of SADism, titles his blog entry as "Preaching hell to depressed teenagers". ‘Nough said! However, he goes on to say:
"That the biblical witness to hell is upsetting for some, and may even intensify their sense of depression at God's wrath and their unworthiness, can in no sense be used to justify altering that witness.
What I would say is that those who live in fear of hell, and with a sense of God's wrath and their unworthiness, will find deep comfort in the knowledge that the blood of Jesus has paid for all. Not only is their sin atoned for, but they are reconciled to a God who is also revealed as a loving Father.
A true sense of the hellishness of hell magnifies this sense of God's good grace, rather than diminishing it. As one further effect, I believe it is foundational in dealing with spiritual depression, even though the problem may initially be intensified until we can grab hold of what God's grace means."
I replied: “Are you clear on this Anita[a woman who had entered the thread]? God loves you so much that He wants you to be more depressed.
Gordon's version of Christianity is apparently one without understanding. You know, it doesn't make any sense, but what the heck, you should believe it in any case just in case it's true. After all, Gordon believes it.
BTW, Gordon are you sure you're sufficiently competent to self-diagnose?”
Craig responded: “John, I'm very surprised at your comments. I'd be interested to hear what you believe the gospel to "really" be?”
I stated: “My baby is crying so I'll, for now, briefly say, I do not uphold substitutional soteriology.
For those who do, you have to explain just how God's wrath is meaningfully transferred to Christ to appease him. That is, actually formally set out the details.
Speak to you later.”
This is the last I said about the matter. But what’s interesting is that the SADs have omitted the qualifying adjective ‘substitutional’ and made out that I reject atonement qua atonement. Furthermore, in typical inquisitorial reaction, they’ve declined the invitation to explain something I regard as integral to their soteriological view.
I am not going to provide an exhaustive explanation of my view here – others could accomplish it far better than I. However, I just want to say, briefly, that I do not hold to a legalistic version of atonement. It must all be reduced to God’s character as our Father, and fathers, as I am becoming more and more aware of, cannot build an enduring and sustainable relationship built on legalistic notions. (As an aside, when my wife completes her PhD in a few weeks I’m hoping to commence work on a book about this issue.) The divergence of opinion regarding this matter is well known (apart from SADS, of course, who self-indulgently and solipsistically believe theirs is the only correct view!) and, dare I say it in case Dave, ol’ buddy, accuses me of hypocrisy, even Wikipedia captures a reasonable overview of the intricacies of this 2 millennia old debate.
Now let me, as a last word, say something completely vitriolic. I made a comment somewhere or other that this extremely complex issue is just that, complex. Nevertheless, I must say, in a stand-up-knock-down kind of debate, I’m sure I could easily hold my own against the Moore glitterati. (However, the “girls” at Moore are never keen to debate anyone!) Yet, you completely heresy-driven SADS can’t even read simple English and such a kindergarten communiqué from God that says “I, the Lord, created everything in 6 days” is completely ignored. So why would I bother to debate soteriology with you? Given the level of academic debate on origins (ooh, mightily impressed about ‘intertextual referencing’…not!), what a waste of time it would be to debate far more abstruse matters.
"No one else has mentioned atonement but they insist that there is a unified agreement against the atonement. For this - and not for me - you SADs should immediately apologise. If you don’t, you stand condemned before God as lying."
I'm not sure if I 'insisted' this at all. For this - and not or me - you should immediately apologise.
As I said, it confused me. Is there somewhere you can point us as to where we might find your view spelt out, and how it differs to the "legalistic view of the atonement"?
Geoff enquired: "Is there somewhere you can point us as to where we might find your view spelt out, and how it differs to the "legalistic view of the atonement"?"
Ahh..no. We ask the questions on this site. You respond. If we want to discuss matters it is not because you want to know. It's because we want to tell you.
I wasn't born yesterday and I know the disingenuous motives of SADs all too well. You really aren't interested in what I have to say because you may be educated or whatever, but because you need something to pigeon-hole us with. You can't win on origins - though, uncharacteristically, you've graciously admitted we know our stuff - so you've got to find some other point to BEAT us on.
On this thread we don't play by the effeminate rules of the SAD world of faux politeness. We even fall under the already low bar of etiquette in Craig's obsessive world of his much loved no-rules fighting.
Let me ask you a question which you will respond to: What has Sydney Anglicanism got wrong recently?
1. What Geoff believes he said: "I'm not sure if I 'insisted' this at all [i.e. that there is a unified agreement by us against the atonement.]"
2. What Geoff actually did say: "I am unsure what to think of in regard to the silence on this blog whenever the atonement is raised. It makes me think there could be a bit of a PR issue at the moment for you guys.
I don't know how the bible could be any clearer on the fact that Christ was punished on the cross in the place of sinners....But denying the atonement is another thing altogether. And if your concern is the slide into liberalism, you'd better be looking within your own camp to ensure that it doesn't happen."
I note the use of the plural "you guys".
Am I to read your words literally or symbolically? If the latter, can you show me the intertextual referencing or the literary features that remove the obstensible literal intent of the author?
Yours with sweet Christian regard for truth, fair representation and absence of straw-man arguments,
John
Geoff made an inquiry: "Is there somewhere you can point us as to where we might find your view spelt out, and how it differs to the "legalistic view of the atonement"?"
Buy my book when it comes out.
And, Geoff, I may even sign it for you.
"Let me ask you a question which you will respond to: What has Sydney Anglicanism got wrong recently?"
Whoa!!! such authority you have John!
They get things wrong, as I'm sure you'll admit you do too, and I as I know I do also. I'm not going to talk about them here though.
Well, I am genuinely interested in your views about the atonement. I wonder why you don't want to share it. Is there a specific name you slant on the atonement brings with it so that I may see what it's all about. Why don't you want to do that? i honestly don't get it.
And John my friend, your age is really showing ;-) It's been about 15 years since that Wayne's World reference was remotely witty or clever.
Read them literally John. By the looks of things you haven't been. A basic level of comprehension should be enough to comprehend what I was saying
Nowhere in what you quoted me saying does it say that I insist you are all unified in your understanding of the atonement. The 'issue' was that the silence may show that you are actually in disagreement with each other, thus causing PR issues.
Even if you interpret itotherwise, nowhere do I insist it. I say, "It makes me think there could". How is this insisting?
I feel silly actually trying to explain this as it all seems self-evident.
Do you still claim that I was insisting you all held the same views? I honestly don't understand how.
Who will publish this book? How will I know which book is yours? If you will sign it for me, does that mean you are finally willing to catch up and grab a coffeee or beer with me?
[Deleted previous post because of clarity]
For Geoff's attention: 'A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the silly and heretical teachings that are slipping, almost unnoticed (we notice!), into the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.'
I will now close this matter in the style that I am accustomed from Sydney Anglicans (and this is not from anyone on this blog!): I see no purpose in further correspondence on this matter.
nicely avoided
I am not one of those who started this blog but know most of them very well, and am aware they are all Christians saved by the blood of Christ.
The waffle entered into by some antagonists here is a furphy, an attempted distraction, both pathetic and without merit.
John et al are Christians saved by the grace of God. Those who run this blog quite rightly have the authority to maintain discussion in the direction they wish, as stated. It is not for antagonists to demand that anyone here prove their Christian qualifications.
This site as explained above, and by John is 'A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the silly and heretical teachings that are slipping, almost unnoticed (we notice!), into the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.'
As the SAD heretical teachings originated with the first chapters of Genesis that's where the thrust of argument here should be focussed, and should equally remain so.
Dear antagonists, AngloNasties et al if you are unable to accept this may I respectfully suggest you clear off!
I know I'll be accused of misogyny...but do I care?
We're in a car and I have a woman passenger next to me. I give her the Gregory's and ask her to direct me to our destination. She turns the map upsidedown, which is instantly unsettling and does not bode well. Eventually we end up lost.
Months later I'm in the same situation with another woman at my left. Again, the Gregory's is handed to her and the same confusion results.
This goes on for several years and I conclude that women just don't make good map readers.
Now, you guys are these women. You make damn awful map readers. Since you cannot even read the first page of God's Gregory's, why would I trust you with giving me directions to eternity?
Questions about my (or anyone else's) understanding of atonement are irrelevant. Since you cannot/won't discuss how you get literary features or intertextual BS out of Exodus 31 when God tells Moses face-to-face that he DID create in 6 days, then I don't see that I should bother to explicate something far more complex than a simple sentence as "I, the Lord, created everything in heaven and earth in 6 days."
All I get about this is Dave's childish accusations of being childish. Drowning men and straw-clutching!
"Questions about my (or anyone else's) understanding of atonement are irrelevant."
It is always relevant. Is there a forum you would like to discuss this on then? It doesn't have to be here.
John my secretary and I travelled untold km's in Sydney and country NSW with me as driver, she the navigator. It didn't take me long to work out that if we were going south and she said turn right I turned left. Never a problem after that.
So, the question is, how do we apply this to our mates from the SAD?
"So, the question is, how do we apply this to our mates from the SAD?"
I don't know. How much abuse and vitriol do you throw at your secretary when she gets thing wrong?
Geoff She worked with me for 10 years and is still a good friend.
Abuse and vitriol-there there Geoff flinging insults again.
lol. no, not an insult, just bit of fun with some people whose pride lends itself to some sport.
Speaking of tablets, check out CMI's front page article today:
Archaeology ‘surprise’
The discovery in Jerusalem of relics said to be from the time of Nehemiah has ‘amazed’ and ‘astonished’ archaeologists
‘One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the biblical source as seen by the archaeological find.’—Dr Eilat Mazar, head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem
Contrast this secular archaeologist, who thinks that the tablets support the Bible's historical accuracy, with Dickson, Moore, ISCAST, Lankshear, and other AngloCompromisers, who use tablet discoveries as an excuse to deny the Bible's history.
ktis, you (and CMI) need to get with the times. Mazar has acknowledged that her reading was wrong (you need to read seals in reverse, see her comment). Take a look at this comprehensive analysis. And that's from January.
Dr Mazar was probably pressured into a retraction. But all the same, I see that CMI has already posted the following:
Update: We have been alerted to the fact that Israeli archaeologist Dr Eilat Mazar has subsequently revised her reading of the seal referred to in our article below after various epigraphers around the world critiqued her original interpretation that the name on the seal read ‘Temech’. They said Dr Mazar had erred by reading the inscription on the seal from right to left (the normal direction of Hebrew) rather than backwards (i.e. from left to right), as a result of the fact that a seal creates a mirror image when used to inscribe a piece of clay.
The critics suggested that the correct reading of the seal is actually ‘Shlomit’, also a biblical name (see 1 Chronicles 3:19). Dr Mazar said (as reported in The Jerusalem Post*) that she accepts the reading of ‘Shlomit’ on the ancient seal, noting that the name Shlomit was known in the period from which the seal dated, and that other contemporary seals had been found that bore names of women who held official status in administration.
* Lefkovits, E., Archaeologist revises read of ancient seal inscription, The Jerusalem Post.
Dr Mazar was probably pressured into a retraction.
Good response. So when her mistake was pointed out she did the right thing and admitted her error (read her very gracious response as linked in my previous comment). But you'd rather imply that she was right all along and was bullied into changing her position.
Good to see that you're willing to accept misinterpretations and errors when they support your position and cast aspersions on the motives and integrity of those who point out your mistakes.
Oh, hang on, that seems to be pretty standard around here...
You're deluded if you think peer pressure is irrelevant to decision making in archaeology and science. And even with her "retraction", there is biblical basis for the reversed name too!
Of course peer pressure plays a part: just look at your blog! You guys seem to think that any Christian who doesn't agree with your reading of Genesis 1 has succumbed to peer pressure because they're too brainless to swallow the nonsense spouted by CMI and similar organisations. From what I've seen you won't even question each other's behaviour when it is wildly inappropriate, and that seems like peer pressure in operation from where I sit.
So instead of commending Mazar's academic integrity and intellectual honesty you accuse her of dishonesty just so you can save face. With that approach it's pretty clear you're never going to honestly assess any evidence presented to you which doesn't fit with your presuppositions.
And is there a biblical basis for the correct reading of שלמת? There are similar names in the Bible, but none spelled identically.
If this "anonymous" moron has any reason from the text that our reading (= that of Josephus, most Church Fathers, all the Reformers, Wesley) is wrong, then let's hear it.
Rather, he prefers postmodernism when it comes to understanding the Bible, and gullible unquestioning acceptance of uniformitarianism when it comes to "science".
Mazar certainly thought that שלמת
was biblical. It could be a shortened spelling of שולמית (Shulamit) without the matres lectionis ו and י.
If this "anonymous" moron...
Takes one to know one...
Sticks and stones...
Yep, your style of argument certainly reveals a towering intellect, I'm impressed.
... has any reason from the text that our reading (= that of Josephus, most Church Fathers, all the Reformers, Wesley) is wrong, then let's hear it...
What are you talking about? You obviously have difficulty following a very simple line of argument because this has nothing to do with Mazar's interpretation of the seal. It's clear that your site's little appeal to "make sense" above the comment box doesn't apply to you.
And I'm sure your heretic friend john would be impressed by your argumentum ad verecundiam. Of course it's OK when you use it, just not when your opponents use it!
I thought Anonymous posters were not permitted here and, Anonymous, please don't throw spears and not expect others not to respnd likewise.
Gwen
I thought Anonymous posters were not permitted here...
What's the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous? You like to impose a double standard, but that's pretty consistent with the whole website, isn't it.
please don't throw spears and not expect others not to respnd likewise.
There's that double-standard in operation for us all to see! Who's thrown the spears first here Gwen? Or are you like everyone else here and willing to excuse any and all behaviour, poor logic, and false statements from your friends who run this blog and simply pounce on those who disagree with it? You could all learn from Mazar who, when faced with clear evidence that she'd made a mistake, graciously acknowledged it as such. But apparently such intellectual honesty is not to be found here...
Let's see this anonymous moron produce an credible expert on biblical exegesis who though it taught long ages. But here's the proviso: produce one who thought that before the rise of uniformitarian pseudoscience intimidated biblical commenttors into twisting Scripture to fit this new "science".
Let's see this anonymous moron...
You've already used that one. What's up, too much brain strain to come up with fresh insults to bolster your flimsy line of argumentation (I'm seriously abusing the meaning of the word even applying it to your comments)? You disappoint me.
... produce an credible expert on biblical exegesis who though it taught long ages...
"an credible"? And you're calling me a moron?
And since I've only ever mentioned your paranoid delusions about the motives behind Mazar's change in interpretation of one seal, I'd have to ask again, what are you talking about? You keep accusing other people of changing the topic and then you do the same thing. Oh, that's right, it's the double-standard kicking in again.
Not that it would matter because your brain is working in such a closed loop that you only define a credible expert as being one who already agrees with your position.
And obviously you didn't go ask you buddy john about argumentum ad verecundiam or else you wouldn't keep insisting on appealing to this fallacy.
Above AngloMoron still can't show where the AngloMoore viewof Genesis was taught in church history. This is strong evidence that it doesn't come from Scripture. His mind is so open that his brains are falling out.
Above AngloMoron...
Racist slur, still, no more than I'd expect from someone whose name reveals an idolatrous elevation of creation over the creator...
... still can't show where the AngloMoore viewof Genesis was taught in church history...
I've never said it could be. You're the one who keeps changing the topic and not addressing the issues. Still, your view is quite novel as well...
This is strong evidence that it doesn't come from Scripture...
Ah, so you want strong evidence that isn't from Scripture to prove that your view is from Scripture? Still haven't asked john about that fallacy, have you. Obviously you're not interested in learning anything.
His mind is so open that his brains are falling out.
And your mind is so closed that nothing of any sense gets out and there's no hope of any sense getting in to redress your heretical views.
So, Anon, what is your excuse for having a pseudonym? Are you one of the SADs' elite ones?
So, Anon, what is your excuse for having a pseudonym? Are you one of the SADs' elite ones?
Nope, I've got nothing to do with SAD. But what's good for the goose...
Ahh, yes of course. Cool!
This AngloMoron resorts to paranoia rather than dealing with issues.
Anglicans are not a race, twit.
My name comes from the Greek woprd family that includes κτίζω create; κτίσις creation κτιστής creator. IT's you AngloMorons who idolize the creation by treating secular theories of origins as authoritative while "re-interpreting" (AngloNasty code for "disbelieving") the revelation from the Creator.
Interesting that this anon AngloNasty can claim that the view of Genesis held by most Church Fathers and all the Reformers is novel and heretical. He also has no answer for why the AngloCompromise view needed to wait till christophobic geologists and biologists proposed millions of years and goo-to-you evolution.
Post a Comment