Dear Dr Newman

This letter has just come into the office. I thought it expressed some great sentiments, so here 'tis, with slight edits (apologies to RG, the author).


Dear Dr Newman,

It was a great encouragement to hear you speak at Leura on Sunday. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear your subsequent talks, as prior business commitments prevented my attendance at them.

Today, so many Christians seem to be intimidated by science, or what is presented as science. But without coming to grips with what science is, and that much which is passed off as science is more philosophising in scientific language and terms than actual science.

Even further, there are those Christians who have been so overwhelmed by the prestige of science that they have gone beyond recognising it as a valid occupation of the mind, it being our work of coming to grips with the creation God has set us within. They have instead allowed the philosophising underlying all modern life, which is largely dressed up as science, to displace the word of God!

I am referring, of course, to the questions that cluster about origins, and the contest often and erroneously created between the words of holy writ and the current beliefs of scientists, popular apologists and public commentators; usually relayed by the press or television programs.

It quite distresses me that Christians have been swept up with the press of contemporary opinion, without due reflection, in my view, and adopted the idea of evolution as providing the means God used to create. It was therefore very pleasing to hear you clearly explain that science is about what is, not speculation on unique events such as our Lord’s miracles, or indeed his acts in creation; which must constitute his grand miracle.

The Holy Spirit, in the Bible, sets out our relationship to God between the two poles of creation and re-creation. To allow the speculative ideas of ‘evolution’ with their origin in pagan thinking, and mid 19th century ideas that sought to disconnect God and his creation, to intrude on the Biblical revelation as if to supplant it (which I must say, it has done in many minds) is grievous. It removes God and his loving brooding Spirit from the scene. After all, evolution is the doctrine of the universe making itself (Roms 1:25) and can only rely on myriads of errors and dead ends. It is riven with death and destruction. This is the very antithesis of the God who is love creating in love, to bring forth those in is image. After all, he said it is “very good” not “marred and troubled!”

The scriptures I reflect on in this connection are these.

I start of course with the creation account in Genesis and see no reason to depart from the straightforward reading of the text (also Ex 20:11), the tradition of the early church and the reformers, that God created in six days. The widespread view of the current church, that we can set aside the revelation with all sorts of strained interpretations shows more the influence of a world that starts its thinking without God than the church making a prophetic confrontation on the basis of God’s word with the deceiver. If there were a view apart from the direct meaning of the Scripture, the early interpreters would have relayed it, as even in their day there were pagan doctrines of a very old cosmos that had created itself.

Of course, Paul’s direct and indirect references to creation, and his reliance on this teaching in his instruction about the new creation always influlences my thinking, but the capstone is Hebrews 11:4, where we are told the means of God’s creation: his word, out of nothing and without intermediary processes (“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible”). Faith here is not what the world thinks of faith, as ‘wishful thinking’ but is reliance on God’s word for that information otherwise not available.

Once more, thank you for your work and your helpful sermon. I pray all the best for you.

Sydney Episcopalians and the Harlot

In the book "The Chronology of the Old Testament" by Dr Floyd Nolen Jones, published by Master Books in 2005 reference is made to the work "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, published by Loizeaux Bros in 1916, Dr Jones gives background to the decision of church fathers in AD 440 to settle upon December 25 as the day to celebrate the birth of the infant Christ. The day was selected to coincide with the Roman heathen festival of Saturnalia which was held annually in honour of the birth of the son of Semiramis, the Babylonian "queen of heaven" (see Jeremiah 7:18, 44:15-30).

Dr Jones goes on to say "The origin of this can be traced back to Babylon at the time of the Tower of Babel. The Tower was under the direction of the founder of the world's first kingdom, Nimrod-bar-Cush, the son of Cush ("the black one") and grandson of Ham ("the dark or sunburned one"). Secular records state that Nimrod (Orion, or Kronos [a corona or crown] "the horned one") married the infamous Semiramis 1. She is reputed to be foundress of the Babylon "Mysteries" and the first high priestess of idolatry. Tradition also ascribes the invention of the use of the cross as an instrument of death to this woman.

Apparently when Nimrod (a black) died, Semiramis became pregnant out of wedlock. The child, like its father, was white. Semiramis acting to save the moment declared that Nimrod's spirit had become one with the sun (incarnated with the sun) and that he had come to her in the night so that she had miraculously conceived a god-son. As the first mortal to be deified, Nimrod thus became the actual "father of the gods." Semiramis presented the infant to the people and hailed him as the promised "seed of the woman" - the deliverer. Thus was introduced the "mystery' of the mother and child, a form of idolatry that is older than any other known to man. ... The whole system of the secret Mysteries of Babylon was intended to glorify a dead man while Semiramis gained glory for her dead husband's "deification." The people did not want to retain God in their knowledge, but preferred some visible object of worship. Wherever the Negro aspect of Nimrod became an obstacle to his worship it was taught that Nimrod had reappeared in the person of his fair-complected, supernaturally conceived son (Hislop p 69: Chaldeans believed in transmigration and reincarnation): thus the father and son were one. It was Satan's attempt to delude mankind with a counterfeit imitation that was so much like the truth that man would not know the real Seed of the woman when He came in the fullness of time.

Eventually this mystery religion spread from Babylon to all the surrounding nations. Everywhere the symbols were the same. It became the mystery religion of the seafaring Phoenicians and they carried it to the ends of the earth. It was known as Baal (Nimrod, the sun-god) in Phoenicia where the mother was known as Astoreth and the child as Tammuz (Tammuz Adonis). In Egypt the cult was known as that of Osiris, Isis and Horus. The mother and child were worshipped as Aphrodite and Eros in Greece, Venus and Cupid in Italy (in Rome the child was formerly known as Jupiter). The Chinese called the mother goddess Shingmoo or the "Holy Mother." ... Among the Druids, the "Virgo-Paritura" was worshipped as the "Mother of God." In India she was known as Indrani. In and near India, the mother and child were known as Devaki and Krishna; in Asia they were Cybele and Deoius.

The mystery religion of Babylon, which had begun under Nimrod's direction until its dispersal at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10 and 11; Isa. 47), continued over the centuries to flourish in the "land of Shinar." When Babylon fell in 539BC, the high priest fled with a group of initiates and their sacred vessels and images to Pergamos (Rev. 2:12-17; see J.D Pentecost, p 365-267, where he cites H.A. Ironside). There, the symbol of the serpent was set up as the emblem of the hidden wisdom. From there, many of them crossed the sea and settled in the Poe Valley of northeast Italy where the Etruscans lived. When Rome conquered the Etruscans, the Etruscans brought their Babylonian cult religion to Rome where the child was known as Mithras (the mediator). Thus, when Christianity came to Rome, the whorish cult, the counterfeit, was waiting to join in an unholy union with it.

Well, Dr Jones provides a helpful insight into the title written on the forehead of the woman referred to in Revelation 17:5:

MYSTERY
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

JC Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, England in the 19th Century, gave caution in his work "Warnings to the Church." He rightly said heresies start out with a seeming small departure from Scripture or doctrine.

What seems a reasonable and harmless absorption of a tradition of the world soon turns to poison. For the Church of Rome it seemed harmless, even beneficial to absorb the mother and child pagan legend - after all, it had so many elements of truth as pertaining to the blessing bestowed upon Mary by the angel and the subsequent birth of the Son of God. Neverthless, it is a corruption of the Will and Word of God. As in the Garden of Eden, it was a slight distortion of the Word of God, it was seeing that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also for gaining wisdom. Sad for the partaker, it is a breach of trust in the Lord God - it is a destroyer!

The Church of Rome has lain with the harlot.

But surely the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney has, with the Reformers, rejected the mother and child heresy initiated by Semiramis and later absorbed into Romanism? Yes, this is true. But what does the Evil One, the Father of Lies do to lure the Diocese to become one with the harlot?

Again, the seduction comes via the world. Those who knew not God proposed a theory on the origins of life contrary to the Word and Nature of God. The proposition spread throughout the world, so prevalent that it has become a tradition. One is ridiculed for not adopting the tradition. One will not be accepted by the world if one does not absorb it, if one does not lay with it! What to do? Well, just a minute - the tradition does look good for gaining wisdom, it does seem to conform well to the world as it appears today and absorbing it will sustain us well in the world. After all it is only a slight revision of the Word of God isn't it?

Yes, I, the high priest of the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney, shall take and eat. Others will follow.

And so, if the high priest of Sydney has not lain with THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH he has been intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Sam Drucker

09 As A Derivitive of 10%

Don't just stand there ... do something! Anything! Even if its the same old thing.

Leaders of Sydney Anglicans are whipping themselves and their flock to achieve their 10% growth by the ten year target date. 'Connect 09' is the jingoistic slogan adopted to inspire pew sitters to get out there and get results.

Having abandoned trust in God's Word written from the very first pages of the Bible, leaders are bereft of new ideas that will work. As such they must resort to things tried previously in the wistful hope it will work.

Oh, that they would take God at his Word rather than insulting him by saying that he doesn't mean what he says. Why should the Lord God accede to those who reject his very utterances? Why should he answer their prayer requests for success in this venture? They are only after an empire built on their devices - not on trust in the Word of God.

So they shall be confused to employ strategies which are a mix of that which has not worked in the past. Remember the bicentenary (1988) evangelistic enterprise whereby New Testaments were printed and purchased by the churches to hand out in door-knocking encounters? It's on again for Sydney Anglicans with the jingoistic 'Connect 09'. Remember the 'funnel' analogy of making contact, relate and feed into evangelistic events? It's on again in the jingoistic 'Connect 09'.

Oh, that they would remember the words of the Lord God uttered to Solomon (1 Kings 9:6-7) "But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples."

Sydney Anglicans have made up a god who is not the God who has spoken in his Word written. They therefore render themselves objects of the same judgment spoken of by the Lord God to Solomon.

Sydney Anglicans may well put prayer central to their endeavour but if they are not prepared to listen to him why should he listen to them? Indeed, just who or what are they praying to anyway?


Neil Moore

Atheists are sweet reasonable people with good ideas.

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]

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!

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

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

light, matter, action1

I’ve just started on a series of books that take a theological look at the early chapters of Genesis. The plan is to read John Macarthur’s “The Battle of the Beginning”, Thielicke’s “How the World Began” and “In the Beginning” by Bavinck.

This is distinct from books that have exegetical or textual concerns, some of which I’ve read over the years.

I’m into Macarthur and am both encouraged and disappointed.

The encouragement comes from him taking the text as written and setting out to understand it as God’s word to us, for our instruction about us, God and the cosmos in which we share an inter-penetrating contiguous reality. I don’t think many authors attempt to do this. On the whole, authors on Genesis make continual excursions into hat tipping to modern materialism, excuses for evolutionary speculation or white fear at Christian faith being found at to be . . well, supernatural.

However, rather than staying with his strength, Macarthur does drop into some strange holes: paragraphs on Adam’s navel, for instance; sheer waste of space; and the old Aristotelian mistake that species ( a modern concept) are what God created (in Genesis we are told that God created ‘kinds’) and that they are fixed. He addressed this more accurately in the later part of the book, but at its first mention he makes the mistake. The fixity is not of species, but of kinds, for which we possibly don’t have a definition.

Critics fail to understand some basic facts of the history and philosophy of science and lampoon Genesis for crimes not committed, thereby lampooning themselves, as it happens. One of the basic facts of course, is that Edward Blyth, who was what would be called today a ‘creationist’, first introduced the notion of natural selection. Darwin, true to form, did not acknowledge the debt: a trait he was well versed in (check an interesting article on this at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1754)

Macarthur then attempts to understand God’s creating ‘light’ as some sort of localised source: seemingly an attempt to have a sun substitute prior to the sun’s creation on day 4.

He also goes into some odd byways when it comes to the earth’s early state, the creation of the firmament and separation of waters. Many do this (both critics and supporters of the ‘Genesis makes sense’ view), I think reading back into these early days the nature of the earth and the cosmos as we have them today. I don’t think that this is always wise.

It strikes me that the words referred to, while I don’t discount them, may be being used figuratively: in the proper sense, that is. By this I mean a figure of representation, not a figure, of ‘they mean something completely different but still convey the meaning the figure denies’.

For example, when light is created on day 1, it must by implication entail the creation of the entire electromagnetic spectrum: perhaps creation of the energy ‘infrastructure’ of the cosmos, without which there ain’t nuthin.

Let’s look at Gen 1:1-5 more closely

Ge 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2: the earth was formless and void. Macarthur goes into long description about it being a muddy wasteland. But does not ‘formless and void’ mean that it has no form and there is nothing there. Is it not that the earth was not in existence on the first day?

In ‘the darkness over the surface of the deep’ Macarthur considered it referring to deep oceans. I don’t think this is necessary. If there was no earth, then what could the ‘deep’ be: perhaps the cosmos in its entirety, absent of energy; perhaps just space, or with the waters, a mass in a fluid-like state awaiting energisation (which might have followed instantly upon the creation of the deep and waters) the introduction of light (energy), then, is perhaps the energisation of the cosmos. Could the separation of light and darkness be not only the provision for pacing time, in principle, but also be the formation of matter as we know it, distinct from energy (although we know they are interchangeable . . .often with a noisy bang).

My proposal may fall down with God calling the light day and the darkness, night, but perhaps not. With the formation of energy and matter, the separation of night and day becomes possible. But was there such diurnal variation from day one? Maybe not, as evening and morning are names of times and markers of the passing of time. They do not require alternating lighting conditions, only the passage of time. After all, the astronomical markers of time passing are not made and that purpose is not served, until day 4.

What is really striking here is that from day one, we have the personal: the Spirit was moving over the surface, hovering, say some translations: here is the God who is love, bringing forth his creation. I note the difference from the violence of pagan stories, I also note that pagan stories pre-suppose a cosmos for their tales, but here we have a real creation, not merely a modification of the pre-existing. Ah the poverty of pagan nonsense!

Next we have the expanse formed. Macathur goes into great detail about canopy theories, the making of terrestrial atmosphere, and so on. All pointless I think, if earth is not yet made.

Here God is engaged in ‘stretching out’ his cosmos. Humphries notes that most frequently in references to the heavens throughout the OT, this concept of ‘stretching out’ is employed. Perhaps aspects of inflationary theories are correct and just the duration is wrong! Humphries also makes it clear that it is beside the point to refer to time as an absolute, as it is not. The 6 days clearly refer to earth gravitational frame of reference. Other durations pass in other frames of reference, as we well know from Relativity theory. It is simply nonsense, I suspect, to discuss time as an absolute, it is always with respect to a frame of reference. Now if God ‘stretched out’ time-space during creation, then any questions about time outside of the earth FOR are empty.

So here we have God stretching, separating and on day 3, commencing the formation of astronomical bodies, or at least ‘earth’, the name given to the dry land.

Here water elides into H2O and the seas are formed: a planet is on the way.

Then on day 4 the lights and so on are made, so there may not have been diurnal lighting variation before that time: as only here are the bodies made which could effect that.

So how did evening and morning occur before this? Doesn’t matter, I suggest. As an example, go to either of the poles in mid summer or mid winter and tell me if days pass. They do, but the light doesn’t change!

I'll post more as I keep reading.

On systems

I was taken by this quote from an old book by von Bertalanffy:

Even if complex molecules like nucleoproteins and enzymes are considered as being ‘given’, there is no known principle of physics and chemistry which, in reactions at random, would favor their ‘survival’ against their decay; rather this is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics according to which a ‘soup’ containing proteins, nucleoproteins, enzymes, etc., would tend to chemical equilibrium, that is, breakdown of ‘improbable’ proteins, etc, into ‘probable’ simple compounds (as happens after the death of any living system). Selection, i.e. favored survival of ‘better’ precursors of life, already presupposes self-maintaining, complex, open systems which may complete; therefore selection cannot account for the origin of such systems.

L. von Bertalanffy, Robots, Men and Minds (New York: Braziller 1967, p 82.)

Shhhhh! Don't Mention the Aboriginal Problem!

The Sydney Episcopalian Diocese has long struggled to have an effective ministry to Aboriginals. This is sad when one considers the geographic area of Australia that became Sydney had been the area of establishing European Settlement and has thus presented European Christians in Sydney with the most eduring contact and association with the earlier inhabitants of the land.

This will be admitted by Sydney Episcopalians who are genuine in confronting reality. Stephen Judd and Kenneth Cable acknowledge the early failing of Sydney Episcopalians in their book 'Sydney Anglicans'. On page 13 of the book they say "But in the main the Church, and its patrons, were not frontier-conscious. Some clergymen were; most were not: it had become a matter of individual interest. The same applied to concern for aboriginals." Little else can be found in that book to help attain a worthwhile understanding of how Christians failed to 'reach' Aboriginals in suitable scale.

Love demands that evaluate our approach to evangelising Aboriginals because we certainly need to improve. So we need to learn from the failings of the past and we also need to avoid exacerbating the problem by giving further insult to our 'Brothers in Adam'.

In this latter category are those of the Sydney Episcopalian Church who adopt a Theistic Evolution view of origins. The Book they present to Aboriginals as the Word of God, inspired by God's Holy Spirit, gives clear indication that, according to the genealogies contained therein, the world is well under 10,000 years old. Immediately a discordance arises in the mind of Aboriginals because they are being taught, even by Theistic Evolutionists, that Aboriginals have been on this great island for 40,000 years or more.

Having had a long association with land, the Aboriginal is inclined to favour the older date and this immediately calls into question, in his mind, the integrity of this so-called 'Word of God'. Further, difficulty arises when Theistic Evolutionists, as they logically must, question whether Aboriginals are actually descendants of Adam.

Dare I say it - 'There is nothing knew under the sun' - the problems of yesterday will visit today and all they while Sydney Episcopalians will continue to fail to have an effective evangelical ministry to Aboriginals.

A help to redress the problem is to draw from the ministry of the late Reverend Lancelot Threlkeld (not Episcopalian) as recorded in the book; - 'Australian Reminiscences & Papers of L.E Threlkeld - Missionary to the Aborigines 1824-1859', Edited by Niel Gunson published by Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, ACT 1974. It is a two volume work and I thoroughly recommend the work for understanding the times before and after the introduction of Europeans to Aboriginals. Lancelot Threlkeld was missionary to Aboriginals in the Lake Macquarie region of New South Wales, just north of Sydney.

For the sake of brevity I can only draw out a few anecdotes to make my case.

In his introduction, Niel Gunson reflects on the failure of Christians in evangelising Aboriginals. He adequately addresses the morality of non Christians having ill effect on Aboriginals as well as the patronising approach adopted by the white man to the Aboriginal. But it is two other points he makes which I want to mention.

On pages 8 and 9 Gunson says - "Secondly, Christianity as preached to the Aboriginals was simply a new mythology which seemed to have less bearing on their environment than their own traditional religion. In Polynesia the Calvinistic pantheon of Jesus and Jehovah could be put to the test against the Polynesian pantheon Ta'aroa and Tane, and if the old gods visibly failed, the new ones could be proved superior. Naturally, as in all such cases, the new gods triumphed. The missionaries took over from that point. Such tests could only be made in a polytheistic society. It was impossible to shift the Aboriginals from their almost mystical sense of their own religious experience. They possessed their own spiritual values, and the white man's religion as presented to them in Evangelical terms did not make much sense. Christianity, in its traditional form, was only significant to the Aboriginal when he had lost the 'old faith' of his ancestors. This is in part a judgement on Evangelical doctrines as they usually postulate a cosmology which is both arbitrary and and improbable. Christianity could only be relevant to the Aboriginal when he came face to face with a Christian spirit in the context of his own traditional religion. With the Polynesians it was easier to make a clean sweep - demolish all the old gods by the methods used by Elijah with the priests of Baal. With the Aboriginals, their awareness of the universe was too real to withstand the arbitrary claims of Western Christianity. It was not necessarily Christianity which had failed, but the missionaries because of their limited vision.

Thirdly, from the beginnings of contact, the missionaries were affected by their own pessimistic beliefs regarding the Aboriginals. This pessimism was closely related to the theological views prevailing in the early nineteenth century, particularly among the Calvinists and Wesleyans. There was a strong belief, founded on a literal acceptance of everything in the Old Testament, that some tribes lay outside the scheme of salvation. One of the reasons for the Protestants neglecting missionary enterprise in the Reformation period had been the belief that the primitive races of South America were given over to damnation because of the sins of their ancestors [the curse on Canaan]. The same suspicions were held of the Aboriginals. Thus the Reverend William Walker, who had been appointed missionary to the Aboriginals by the Wesleyans wrote pessimistically to the Reverend R. Watson, in October 1821, that the Aboriginals were 'the progeny of him who was cursed to be "a servant of servants to his brethren" ', and he listed reasons why he believed them to be 'emigrants from the same stock that shall soon stretch out its hands unto God'. Similar statements could be collected from the correspondence of other early religious leaders in the colony. Even the most successful missionaries seemed to be tainted by these views."

Gunson intimates not so with Lancelot Threlkeld. On page 91 an extract of Threlkeld's memoranda for Wednesday 14 December 1825 reveals "At this period the general opinion of the Colony was respecting the Blacks, was that they were incapable of instruction, this Mr [Samuel] Marsden frequently avowed. Others supposed that they were species of Baboon, and had no regular language. A French man of war arrived, and the medical Philosopher, (falsely so called) endeavoured to confirm the opinion. Saxe Bannister Esquire in a postscript to a note sent to me at this time states, that: 'The French medical Gentleman has confirmed my opinion of the innate deficiency of these poor people by a careful examination of many heads.' I ventured my opinion in the following postscript to that Gentleman: Perhaps the Aborigines think that there is an innate deficiency in the bulk of white men's skulls, which prevents their attainment of the native language. I feel exceedingly happy that the French examination ended in the head, for my business lies wholly with an organ that has escaped their notice, namely: The Heart; but, had they even searched, and found an innate deficiency in that organ, I would have then smiled, and retorted, my trust is in him who has said: 'A new heart will I create within them.' May the heads of the French be more clear to see the state of their hearts, at present ignorant of the Divine influence of the Spirit of Christ to bring men from nature's darkness into his glorious light.' [It appears that Threlkeld makes a later note in this segment of his memoranda. He says in 1838] I have no reason to alter my opinion of the capabilities of the Blacks at this date 1838 nor of the perfectness of their language."

The reminiscences are rich with anecdotes of how Lancelot Threlkeld regarded the Aboriginal as his fellow man albeit, to that time, far removed from relation from God in belief and habit.

If Gunson is right to describe as literalists those who were pessimistic toward the hope of Aboriginals for salvation then I must say they were literally limited in their reading of Scripture. It is really stretching the curse on Ham's son Canaan to exclude all his descendants from salvation - for, is it not "God ... who wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth"? Indeed, are we not to accept that Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho, has been adopted into the Lord Jesus? Was she not of Canaan? As the Reformers prescribe, we must interpret Scripture with Scripture and those who failed to do this when considering the curse on Ham's son Canaan have most dangerously squandered evangelistic opportunity and, in the exteme, have themselves cursed the descendants of Canaan.

As concerning Gunson's point about evangelising Aboriginals we can only concur in criticising any methodology which uses only part of the Gospel. Many Sydney Episcopalians warrant criticism for emphasising the New Testament almost to the exclusion of the Old Testament. This will not work well enough with the religious belief and legends of the Aboriginals. The Biblical Creationist has a cosmology and world history which can be rightly explained through the filter of Aboriginal culture and history. One example is the flood in the time of the man Noah. This relates well with the Aboriginal legend of a great flood with only a few survivors. Indeed the New Tribes Mission has developed the 'Firm Foundations' method to evangelism which is the whole of Gospel message for remote area cultures.

Further, is this not the approach used by the Apostle Paul when the Athenians could not at first grasp the message of a crucified Christ (Acts 17). On this point I provide another extract from page 62 of Lancelot Threlkeld's Reminiscences: commenting on the Scriptural passage 'The world by wisdom knew not God.' Threlkeld said "it matters not whether Athens, or Australia, the fact is the same, an unmistakable evidence of the truth of holy writ as declared by the Apostle Paul ........ In that classical region called 'the shop of the Gods', 'a city crammed with temples, a country so filled with deities that you may easier find a god than a man, a pantheon of the world having one temple in common to all the gods,' and one altar with this inscription: - 'TO THE UNKNOWN GOD' whom they ignorantly worshipped until the despised babbler, the Apostle Paul, declared him unto the men of Athens: - What, then, could be expected from men sunk into the lowest scale of degradation in regard to the knowledge of the Almighty as the Aborigines of Australia ......... Speaking to M'Gill, the aborigine who was with me in the boat, on the subject, and supposing that he were in a canoe and overtaken with such a gale of wind as was then blowing, and if he were sinking, on enquiring of him was there any being on whom he would cry? He said. 'yes, there was Koun'. On asking him what he would say, his reply was, 'Koun tia;' - literally ...... meaning look to me, or save me, just whatever the mind intended to the understood ellipses. This led me to further enquiry and the description given to me was that he had three names; - Koun, Tippakál, and Por-ang, that he was a male being, who was always as he is now; in appearance like a Black, that he resides in the thick bushes or jungles, occasionally appearing by day but mostly by night .... Tippakál the name of the male being, kál the masculine termination .... Koun is a name remarkable from its singular construction, the word is pronounced so as to rhyme with the English word cone. According to the structure of the language K denotes Being; O, purpose; U, power; N, potentiality, which combined forms, the name of the unknown Being, KOUN .... Porrang taken from Pórr, the root of to fall down, to drop, to be born, and no doubt has reference to his drop[p]ing his prey by the fire-side unhurt."

Surely this presented an excellent opportunity for evangelism.

Another example whereby Biblical Creationists have the message to fit the beliefs of Aboriginals (and other cultures for that matter) concerns some creatures they encountered which do not fit the world's view of reality. On page 78 Gunson, in a footnote, says that "Bunyip stories rivaling those of the Loch Ness Monster were a commonplace of Aboriginal lore in the coastal regions of southeastern Australia." Gunson also includes the following quote from a French researcher of the days of the Colony: "Dans l'eau le War-wi monstre amphibie qu'ils décrivent comme un crocodile pour la longueur, et qu'ils disent habiter les revieres d'eau douce d'ou il sort quand il lui plait pour se saisir des enfants, et qui retourne ensuite sous l'eau pour les devorer. Sur terre, le Coupir monstre a forme humaine qui habite les cavernes des collines rocailleuses. Il a le pouvoir de se saisir des noirs, mais laisse passer les blancs sans leur faire de mal."

I do not speak French so a friend a little more adept in the language gave me the following translation: "In water War-wi the amphibious monster which they describe as like a crocodile because of its length, and which they say lives in fresh water rivers from where it leaves when it pleases it to seize children, and returns again under water to eat them. On ground the Coupir monster has human form and lives in the caves of the rocky hills. It has the power to seize blacks, but lets whites pass without doing them harm."

Now, the alleged sightings of the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland describe a creature resembling that of the Plesiosaur. Yet, the world view says that Plesiosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. Thus Theistic Evolutionists will discard Aboriginal belief in a creature of such description in their ancestors' time as mythology. What an affront to the Aboriginal! The Biblical Creationist can affirm the existence of such a creature in the time of man (whether such creatures still exist is not yet established) and would not therefore discredit this Aboriginal belief. Further, the Biblical Creationist could even add to the belief by citing the findings of scientist Mary Schweitzer which are of T-Rex bone, not fossilised and containing red blood cells and soft tissue.

Returning to the matter of the alleged 40,000 plus years of Aboriginals inhabiting this land I believe the issue for the Aboriginal is a desire for recognition of their antiquity and long attachment to the land, long before European arrival. When the failings of the inbuilt assumptions of carbon dating are explained while maintaining Aboriginal antiquity and long attachment to this land (albeit under 10,000 years) and, at the same time, affirming our brotherhood through Adam and potential brotherhood in Jesus Christ as Sons of God - all this is a message attune to the Word and Will of God and is thus in tune with reality.

In summary, the Biblical Creationist has much in Aboriginal belief and experience to work with in presenting the Word of God and has greater hope of working to the good of the Aboriginal. The Theistic Evolutionist has only a 'half baked', inconsistent and potentially insulting message to deliver.

Sam Drucker

Shannon Information

From time to time the question of 'information' is raised related to the notion that evolution (grand scale. . . .the sort we don't see) requires that information be created. Some critics have attempted to undo this by seeing information non-semantically. That is they use 'Shannon' information.

I came across this quote in Nonaka and Takeuchi, "The Knowledge Creating Company" OUP 1995 p90, which may be interesting in this context.

"Shannon . . .commented: "I think perhaps the word "information" is causing more trouble . . . than it is worth, except that it is difficult to find another word that is anywhere near right. It should be kept solidly in mind that [information] is only a measure of the difficulty in transmitting the sequence produced by some information source" (quoted by Roszack, 1986, p12). Boulding (1983) notes that Shannon's assessment was analogous to a telephone bill, which is calculated on the basis of time and distance but gives no insight into the content of information, and called it Bell Telephone (BT) information. Dretske (1981) argues that a genuine theory of information would be a theory about the content of our messages, not a theory about the form in which this content is embodied.

Boulding, KE 1983 "System Theory, Mathematics, and Quantification", in "The Study of Information" ed. F. Machlup and U. Mansfield, pp 547-550. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Dretske, F. 1981 "Knowledge and the Flow of Information". Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Roszack, T. 1986 "The Cult of Information". New York: Pantheon Books.

Does Sydney Anglican Archbishop Blaspheme Holy Spirit?

It's a big call but I can't help wondering. I just can't help wondering!

All following quotations use the New International Version of the Holy Bible.

In Matthew 12: 22-37 an incident of healing and dialogue from Jesus Christ is recorded by Matthew.

Jesus' healing of the mute is not praised by some of those present. Instead they misapply the activity of Holy Spirit to Beelzebub - "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." In reply our Lord argues convincingly that if Satan (or Beelzebub) were to drive out Satan he would be working against himself.

But it is what our Lord goes on to say that has me wondering. He goes on to say "But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you ........ And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Note the context in which our Lord raises the occasion of blaspheming Holy Spirit. It is, in this situation at least, when one speaks against Holy Spirit. And the consequences of blaspheming Holy Spirit are deadly serious.

Consider then Luke's account of this healing of the mute and accompanying dialogue. It can be found in Luke 11: 14-28. There are some differences in the things said by our Lord but that which I quote is "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Note that Luke uses the term "finger of God" instead of "Spirit of God". This is significant. Most commentators would say that it doesn't matter whether Holy Spirit or finger of God is used because it is all the same - it is the power of God. Fair enough, we can accept that because the magicians in Pharaoh's court attributed the plagues to the finger of God (Ex. 8:19).

Now cast your attention to Moses' recording in Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10 that the Tablets of the Testimony (ten commandments) were "inscribed by the finger of God". What is recorded then is that Holy Spirit (or finger of God) inscribed, among other important words, on the two tablets of stone "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

When the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese, Peter Jensen, holds to the opinion that the creative process undertaken by Father, Son and Holy Spirit was over a period of more than six days, as a Theistic Evolution position requires, then isn't the Archbishop denying the very words inscribed by Holy Spirit? Isn't he and other Theistic Evolutionists speaking against Holy Spirit? Aren't they saying that Holy Spirit didn't do what He inscribed on the tablets of stone?

Is this blaspheming Holy Spirit?

I'm not sure, but the Archbishop and his likeminded Anglican (or Episcopalian as Sam Drucker prefers to call them) friends in Sydney ought to examine their behaviour carefully. They ought not dismiss this matter lightly because the consequences are serious, deadly serious.

Please advise?


Neil Moore

Two Arrogancies?

Sometimes I think that Christians who are vehemently opposed to the Bible's direct teaching about creation are motiviated by two arrogancies, or maybe, one of the two.

The first, I think, is the arrogant presumption that people other then Christians don't have a religious belief. I use 'religous' here as Clouser uses it in his book "The Myth of Religious Neutrality". That is, a basic belief in something which is independently real. Today, I would suggest that the dominant belief is that the only independent reality is material. That is, basic reality is nothing more than the material, and everything is circumscribed materially.

The second arrogance is related. It is that the Christian/biblical world view is really accepted by all and sundry, and that their beliefs are embedded in a commitment to that world view. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course.

Both these mistakes hobble evangelism and deny the Scriptures.

When you speak to a person about matters of Christian faith at some (early) stage you have to know their world view and introduce them to yours. If you say to a materialist that Christ saves you from your sin, etc., they hear that in terms of reality being finally material, and chance interactions being all that we have: nothing is really significant. Of course, no one lives this way, but that's a typical belief, or its logical conclusion.

The end is the materialist is philosophically locked out of the biblical world view and is not typicaly in a position to embrace its elements, including Christ's salvationm, until that world view is undone (I know that all response to Christ do not follow this paradigm, but it is a helpful framework, I find).

However, if you are able to meet and expose the person's world view (in a conversational engagement, of course) then move them to understand the supernatural world view of the Bible, and its congruence with both history (including the Creation) and our existential circumstances, then the road to Christ is more direct (with other factors aside).

Not only did Paul set out this agenda in Acts 17 (blithly ignored by the Church in recent times, if not all times, and certainly the Sydney Anglicans now!), but the Spirit has provided us with the knowledge to take people to the 'land of the love of God, and the God of love' in the Creation wrought by God and only accounted for in Genesis 1.

So if the world really came supernaturally from God's hand, this is the great undoing of materialism, and examination of the world should be consistent with this and we can use such evangelically. On the other hand if the world really came about by chance processes (contrary to Hebrews 11:3), a view espoused on the axiomatic basis that there is no God, or if there is, he has not spoken or acted in our time-space, then the world should look like that (what ever that looks like: and how would we know?).

Paul thinks that the Creation 'looks like' it came from the hand of God (Roms 1:20 and 4:17c read together) and that this is a sufficient sign to us of God's hand and love!

A Sydney Episcopalian CASE Against Christ

Apologies to the recent inquirer Geoff. The length of this posting was necessary to get all necessary quotes in.

CASE (Centre for Apologetic Scholarship and Education) operates from New College, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia. CASE has close links to Campus Bible Ministry spawned by St Matthias Anglican (Episcopalian) Church, Centennial Park. Through the conduct of seminars, conferences and its quarterly magazine of the same name, CASE has been a channel for the homogeneously worldly thinking ISCAST (Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology).

Christian parents around the world should think seriously if their son or daughter suggests taking up studies at the University of NSW and residence at New College. It is bad enough for your son or daughter to suffer the assaults of atheistic and worldly Professors at the university but to have an alleged ally such as CASE giving aid and comfort to those who side with the world against the Word of God on the matter of origins is diabolical.

CASE in quarterly magazine No. 8 of 2005 promulgated the thoughts of Graeme Finlay, Senior Lecturer in Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Christian students were subjected to Finlay's undemonstrated (but uttered as fact) statement that humans have evolved from primate species. Finlay goes on to criticise Biblical Creationists - you know, those who trust God's Word, like ... say .... Sir Isaac Newton, regarded by secular scientists as the greatest scientist to have ever lived!

Elsewhere, Finlay reviewed the writings of Douglas C. Spanner who believes that the Bible does not state in unequivocal terms that Adam and Eve were the physical ancestors of all present day members of the human race. Finlay also reviewed the writings of R. J. Berry who claims that by the time the God-image was infused into Adam and Eve, Homo sapiens had [already] spread to many parts of the world: there were Indians in America, Aborigines in Australia and so on. Of these two 'great minds' Graeme Finlay says "the Christian church is fortunate to have scholars of such calibre." (for more information on this see "Theological Problems With Theistic Evolution" in Bibliotheca Sacra 150 April-June 1994: 155-74).

So, Graeme Finlay is permitted by CASE to influence the minds of Christians at New College, University of NSW but what scope is given to Biblical Creationists? I am not aware of any hearing given Biblical Creationists by CASE. Those who think like Sir Isaac Newton, Martin Luther and John Calvin don't seem to cut it with CASE.

Theistic Evolution is such a corruption of all sensibility. It is neither hot nor cold but, instead, is liable to being the vomit spewed out of the mouth of the Lord (Rev. 3:14-18). What do some of the advocates of Evolution have to say? They were not without clear thinking. They could see the logical consequences of what they proposed. Their problem is the error of their initial proposition. It is not based on fact. It is an error but, as I say, having once accepted the proposition there is a logical flow of thought which cannot sensibly be denied.

What did Charles Darwin say once he had accepted the proposition of a process for the ordering of life by the evolution of species through natural selection? He said "What book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horribly cruel works of nature!"(Ralph Colp Jnr 'Notes' page 382n. Colp studied Darwin's notes and letters)

What did Jacques Monod, famous Microbiologist, Philosopher and Atheist say during an interview with Laurie John and broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission on 10 June 1976? On the subject of Theistic Evolution Monod said " .... And why would God have to have chosen this extremely complex and difficult mechanism when, I would say by definition, he was at liberty to choose other mechanisms, why would he have to start with simple molecules? Why not create man right away, as of course classical religions believe? ..... selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined species .... the more cruel because it a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."

What did Dr Tom Ambrose, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Ely (UK) say to the Church of England Newspaper, Friday, October 21st, 1994? He said "When will the church 'come clean' about evolution? Once We admit we share a common ancestry with other animals, certain consequences follow. Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Home sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God's punishment for sin?"

"The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquake has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumour, or simply being eaten by other creatures."

"From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spirituality, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching."

Perhaps G. Richard Bozarth in an article entitled 'The Meaning of Evolution' in The American Atheist, Sept 1978 page 19 has more understanding of the times than some who profess to be Christians today. He said ".... Christianity is - must be - totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution ... It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None."

Perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer, mass murderer, cannibal, necrophiliac in the USA and arguably one of the worst men to have walked on the earth has something to say by his life - both chapters of his life. Some time after his arrest, trial and sentencing, Dahmer said " I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..." Dahmer was eventually killed by an another inmate while in prison. In 2004 American TV interviewer Larry King interviewed the father and stepmother of Jeffrey Dahmer. Here is an excerpt: KING: "How was he dealing with prison, Jeff?... " L. DAHMER: "Jeff - he - at first it was extremely hard, but then he - he sent away for 13 books ..... [from the USA Institute for Creation Research]. I told him about the place. And he bought the 13 books that turned him from a - an evolutionist into a creationist and from there into a Christian. And he started talking, handing out pamphlets and so forth and talking with other prisoners, trying to ...." KING: "So he was a born again?" L. DAHMER: " He was - he was - I'm sure, in talking with him, it wasn't just a jail house conversion. I really believe that."

Accept the testimony of those who see evolution to its logical end in thought and being. In their belief in evolution they were cold in outcome. Their problem? They accepted evolution as first premise. They could not see the glory of Jesus Christ in his creative, recreative and resurrection works. Thankfully, Jeffrey Dahmer saw and received this Lord Jesus Christ before leaving the world.

Theistic Evolutionists want a bit of Darwin and a bit of Christ. Advocates will have the creative works of Darwin and the recreative and resurrection works of Jesus Christ. In some strange admixture of the 'jewels of Egypt' and the 'God who saves' they have thrown their gold into a fire to fashion a Golden Calf.

Sam Drucker

A message from your sponsor

Due to scally wags, I've decided to turn off anonymous commenting. I've got nothing against the Anonymous family, per se, they've authored some great works throughout history, but as their members have not always been Romans 12:10-ing, that's it folks.

All Uncle Eric can say, is, use a registered ident; and remember your calling (if you are Christian, and especially if you are Calvanist).

Anon accepts the challenge and, finally, after 3,500 years, removes the ambiguity in God’s revelation.

For those who may have missed it, I asked Anonymous to improve God’s Word, to remedy what is obviously an ambiguity on the first page of the Bible. I say ambiguity because Anon and the Sydney Anglican Diocese have argued that Genesis 1 is not necessarily a straightforward historical list of what God did on 6 consecutive days. Rather, they take it as meaning anything but that. Strong argument and strong language [my apologies to anyone peripheral to the debate who has been sincerely hurt] have proved no help and the sides have been even more irreconcilable.

Now, in order to accomplish this Anon meshed a few sentences in Hebrew from Genesis 1 (“accidentally” written backwards!) and altered the expression ‘one day’ to ‘first day’, as well as replacing the ubiquitous and initial waw consecutive (‘and’ or ‘then’) with the expression ‘on the next day’. Thus, by his effort here Anon can now firmly boast that, as far as the original text is concerned, the days of Genesis 1 do not intend to communicate one day immediately following the previous. In other words, Anon’s proposal that there are gaps of indeterminate length between “successive” days stands beyond reproach. The upshot of this is that Genesis 1 is assuredly not an historically accurate record of God’s creating but merely a “better” piece of literature than the surrounding cultures’ cosmogenic accounts, as Anon has previously confirmed and the Sydney Anglican heretics have likewise preached from their pulpits and formulated in their written works.

Anon has further criticised the grammar point that others have made that the waw + verb construct (wayyiqtol) indicates temporal succession. He maintains that it can also indicate logical succession. I agree this is correct and can be seen, for example, in such a verse as Genesis 39:2 (“The Lord was with Joseph, and so he became a successful man”), where God being with Joseph entailed his success. However, I wish to rebut his implication that in the case of Genesis 1 it would only indicate logical succession, as though temporal considerations are non-existent or, as I suspect Anon favours, diminished in importance. Let me say immediately that once Genesis 1 is framed within the big picture, mere logical succession, set loose from ideas of close temporal succession, would reduce the passage to a triviality or, worse still, transform it into sheer nonsense. To accomplish this I need to discuss something concerning the relevant Hebrew grammar. To cut to the chase, There is an overriding reason why the writer of Genesis 1 chose both ‘yom echad’ (i.e. ‘one day’), rather than Anon’s substitution with ‘yom rishon’ (i.e. ‘first day’), and the preponderant class of verb, the wayyiqtol. Let me first offer a rejoinder to Anon’s changing ‘one day’ to ‘first day’.

Both rabbis and Christian commentators have been perplexed as to why God chose to call the first day of creation, ‘one day’, rather than the more fitting ‘first day’. When an ordinal series is being denoted, as it is with the subsequent ‘second day, third day…seventh day’, one expects the first day to be called, well, the first day. And this is exactly what these learned and ancient commentators have concluded: On the “first” day there were no other days to compare or contrast it with so it cannot rightly be called by the ordinal. It is unique and thus must be addressed by the cardinal, “one”. Let me suggest an analogy to help explain.

If you were the only person who entered a marathon race it would seem quite inappropriate, even meaningless, to say after you had crossed the finishing line, “I won the race.” It’s only when there is at least another competitor that you could rightly claim “I won.” And so it is similarly with the first day, I mean, Day 1: what other days can be put up against Day 1, on Day 1, if no others were “in the race”, so to speak? Keep this point about being “on” Day 1 in mind because it neatly dovetails with the following grammar discussion.

Biblical Hebrew (henceforth BH) is a discipline which has experienced, and continues to experience, considerable differences of opinion concerning the nature of the rules of its grammar. Like all languages, over the centuries it was spoken it changed. But unlike other languages, even dead ones, BH has few sources of evidence apart from the Bible itself. Classic Greek, though dead, has literally thousands of different extant examples e.g. inscriptions, manuscripts, quotes. Furthermore, it had its early grammarians and it became somewhat of an international language, even within the Roman Empire. BH, on the other hand, may have had early grammar works but none has survived apart from one from approximately 1000 years ago, well after BH had disappeared from it actually being a language of communication. Thus, much academic opinion and ink have been spent augmenting, criticizing, inventing, responding to, reassessing and rethinking what BH grammar rules are. The function of verbs, arguably, is where most of this activity and ink has been exhausted.

In order to understand what the writer of Genesis 1 meant when he wrote about each of the 6 days, in particular Day one, it is necessary to appreciate the difference between ‘tense’ and ‘aspect’, though there is often a complementary relationship between the two temporal systems.

Usually, though not always, in any tensed report involving action or an event, there are three components that are ordered temporally to each other so that the information can be transmitted to the reader. These are

· S, the speech time which indicates the moment of speech
· E, the event time, when the event occurred
· R, the reference time, the time that is being talked about or the temporal standpoint from which the event is considered

Take a statement relaying one of my favourite activities, “I’ve drunk 6 Little Creatures” [FYI, the best beer in the world]. As with all English tensed statements, the speech time is the present. However, in this case, the event occurred at some non-indicated time before Now, with the reference being also from the present, hence the statement utilizing the present perfect tense.

Compare this with the past perfect, “I had drunk 6 Little Creatures by the time I got stuck into a quite pleasant ’95 Grange.” As with the previous example the S time is obviously in the present and the E and R times are dissimilar, but in this case all three are distinct from each other. If you can imagine I am making that statement say at 11pm, I finished the last of the 6 beers 5 hours earlier at 6pm (E time), walked into my wine cellar, chose the Grange at 6:10 pm (it took me a few minutes to decide between the 93 and 95!), walked upstairs, took out the cork, decanted it, let it breathe for 2 hours, and then, at 8:15 pm, took my first sip of heaven in a bottle (R time).

The quality of ‘aspect’ is difficult to come to grips with because as English speakers almost our whole outlook on narrative is governed by tense i.e. this happened, then this, followed by that, usually all from the understood perspective of the present. One explanation of ‘aspect’ states that in BH “the author transports the listener/reader into the very story they are relating, inviting them to become almost an eyewitness of the events in the story. As the listener/reader experiences the story, they are beckoned to follow the action dynamically, rather than observe it passively from the present…tense is of little importance, and is merely a by-product of the narrative perspective, rather than a governing concept.” (Athas, G. & Young, I., Elementary Biblical Hebrew, 2007, p. 55.)

Another writes:

“Although both aspect and tense are concerned with time, they are concerned with time in very different ways…[T]ense is a deictic category, i.e. locates situations in time, usually with reference to the present moment, though also with reference to other situations. Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to any other time-point, but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one situation; one could state the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense).” (Comrie, B., Aspect, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 5.)

So how does this relate to Anon’s contention that he can slip in a ‘first day’ to the Genesis 1 text and believe that he has improved upon God’s Spirit’s effort?

Let me make the bold claim that I believe Anon is wrong. Furthermore, let me stick my neck out and make another “bold” claim that I think God got his language and grammar here exactly right. Genesis 1:3-5’s use of a series of wayyiqtol verbs brings the reader to that initial action using it as a reference point, a springboard so to speak, to participate in the subsequent actions by God. Rather than looking from afar (e.g. the present time of when one is reading the text), the wayyiqtol “creates a new narrative reference point, and therefore beckons the reader/listener to progress to it…[and] conveys a progressive action.” (Elementary Biblical Grammar, p. 94.) Thus, if we are invited into the biblical narrative and this narrative is dynamic, then we are there, with God, on that first day. And this is the point, there is no first day. A first day would only be correct if Hebrew were like English and was primarily a tensed language and the text was grammatically arranged in the past/present perfect or simple past, as Hebrew was once believed to be. How could it be true that if you are in Day 1 you could meaningfully use an expression that connotes other days were already in existence if, yet, there really were no other days? For Anon to think he can just alter God’s Word and replace ‘yom echad’ with ‘yom rishon’ belies what is actually happening in the text as supported by BH grammar and specifically the nature of aspect.

Now, let’s move onto the main class of Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1.

Anon wishes us to believe that the idea of temporal succession, as manifested by the overwhelming use of wayyiqtol verbs (waw consecutive + verb), is now passé, or in the very least, no longer the main constituent of this verb’s function. That is, this type of verb has no inherent capacity to generate, particularly if used rapidly and extensively (as it is in Genesis 1), any idea of temporal, limited, succession. This argument, even among recent scholars who have strongly reacted against the older claims of Hebrew being primarily a tensed language, is not something that carries much weight. The problems are complex and no single rule fits all cases. Now, it is true that occasionally there is a wayyiqtol which does not indicate the next action in time, however, as Athas et al argue, “it is close to the true function of the waw prefix.” (p. 100.) Anon’s apparent throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a worthwhile or efficacious pursuit.

Wayyiqtol verbs are rare in poetry and dialogue; they are however the defining feature of Hebrew narratives and convey a progressive action. They are usually translated in English as the simple past tense (e.g. God said, made etc), but, as previously explained, “attract the reader/listener to this new action, thus overcoming the initial distance.” (see Athas, p. 94ff and 100.) Concluding his work on this subject, Goldfajn states the following: “[T]he principle for the temporal interpretation of wayyiqtol should specify that the main temporal function of this form is to express temporal continuity…[T]he prefixed form wayyiqtol operate[s] as explicit temporal anaphors, in the sense that [it] takes [its] temporal reference from an antecedent event. Wayyiqtol…seem[s] to be saying ‘after that’, where ‘that’ refers back to the last event narrated…the ‘after that’ of the wayyiqtol form refers to past events. Thus wayyiqtol…has the temporal value of posteriority. Furthermore, it mainly indicates that bounded events followed each other continuously in the past of either some explicit speech time or a context-specified. Traditionally, reference grammars…for example, describe the function of wayyiqtol as that of expressing ‘actions, events, or states which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events or states mentioned immediately before’. This description is of course in accord with the principle proposed above.” (Goldfajn, T., Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998, p. 143.)

Now this last statement neatly segues to a rebuttal against those who maintain that the seventh day, because there is no final ‘evening and morning’, is open ended. In other words, the spiritual sense of the Sabbath annuls any historical reality to the seventh day just because of the absence of this one temporal marker (now, that’s what I do call a non sequitur!). Since I am presently discussing the wayyiqtol verb and its importance to temporal succession, it should be noted that in Genesis 2:2-3 all the relevant verbs are wayyiqtol i.e. “God ended”, “God rested”, “God blessed”. One writer specifically comments about this function of wayyiqtol verbs: “[A]ctivities and states…when expressed by wayyiqtols…come across as telic, not in the sense that there was a final goal or achievement that was reached but simply that some event or state was terminated [and] the clear sequential interpretation triggered by wayyiqtols in the biblical Hebrew text is closely connected with the fact that the wayyiqtol form represents situations which include their end points.” (Goldfajn, p.71.)

So what of Anon’s main thesis that there are gaps between each of the days? By promoting that there are, Genesis 1 becomes indistinguishable from the pagan myths and folk tales, the very literature that it is supposed to assail, at least according to the promoters of a non-historical Genesis 1. By deracinating the Genesis 1 narrative from real time Anon and his colleagues have demonstrated a singular ignorance of what makes Jewish writing so unique, that of being inextricably tied to the temporal. From the beginning (in and of what?) of the first page, through the prophets (“Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah…that this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord…”), to Jesus (“Now in the morning…”, “And again he entered Capernaum after some days…”, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham….”, “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus…This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria…”, “Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread….”, “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him…”), even to Revelation (“The Revelation of Jesus Christ…things which must shortly take place” ), real time, even measurable time, is the key.

Notwithstanding this, what exactly would Genesis 1 mean if it were an exception to temporality being the quintessential mark of Hebrew thought and narrative and that there were gaps of unknown and unknowable length? I suggest Genesis 1 would signify everything and thus nothing at all. It would have no connection whatsoever with the real events of the beginning. That is, what Genesis said happened and what actually happened in real time and space would be completely different. For example, imagine for a moment a world where plants appeared on the third day, then months, years, even millennia, passed by, then at some unknown point of no significance the sun was created on the “fourth” day. Anon labels this interpretation, logical. For the life of me I cannot begin to sense how ‘logical’ is apposite. In fact, I’m of a mind to say that these putative gaps, no matter what their length, render Genesis 1 nonsense on the same level as a poor farmer’s son planting magical beans and the stalk growing up to a kingdom in the sky where a giant lives.

Quite possibly all Anon is indicating by his attribution of logical succession to the wayyiqtol verbs is that God’s saying, etc, actualizes each of the commands of God and that it is these which form the logical necessity. But even if so, why would you include such strict, limiting temporal markers as ‘an evening and a morning’ and ‘day + ordinal’?

So this raises important questions: On what basis would Anon’s innovative gap theory be an improvement on the pagan stories of creation which all refrain from including temporal markers? [Anon STILL hasn’t furnished any example of a pagan myth which has anything like the Genesis 1 chronology!] What extra true information does a “pseudo-chronology” provide that not including it, as all pagan mythological tales do, would omit?

On top of all the arguments I’ve used up until now that mitigate against Genesis 1 being taken for anything but an historical record, there is a commonsense notion that seems to have been overlooked by Anon. Whatever may be felt to be missing in Genesis 1, it isn’t as though the text is all we have as readers. As intelligent creatures we value commonsense; however, come to Genesis 1 and all notion of wisdom and intellect seems to vanish. Sternberg makes the valuable point that one of the literary devices used in all narratives, Hebrew or otherwise, is that the writer, for effect and in order to draw in the reader, purposely creates informational gaps for the reader to fill in. However, to argue that the details of Genesis 1 signal gaps between the days strains well beyond the limits of sound thinking. By doing so, in addition to eschewing a commonsense reading, Anon and his supporters ignore all the patent signs that tell us that there are no gaps and that Genesis 1 is a chronological list of what occurred in the very first week of the cosmos. Sternberg goes on to say, “To emphasize the active role played by the reader in constructing the world of a literary work is by no means to imply that gap-filling is an arbitrary process. On the contrary, in this as in other operations of reading, literature is remarkable for its powers of control and validation. Of course, gap-filling may nevertheless be performed in a wild or misguided or tendentious fashion, and there is no lack of evidence for this in criticism ancient and modern. But to gain cogency, a hypothesis must be legitimated by the text. Illegitimate gap-filling is one launched and sustained by the reader’s subjective concerns (or dictated by more general preconceptions [i.e. the age of the Earth!]) rather than by the text’s own norms and directives.” (Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1985, p. 188.)

One further comment about commonsense. Given the inclusion of the unambiguous temporal markers of ‘day + ordinal’ as well as the content of Genesis 1’s days, strict chronological temporal succession appears to be the most rational conclusion. After all, if the writer has, as it appears he has, gone to an enormous length to include an inordinate amount of temporal information, and yet wants to disavow the temporal succession, why would he not just have written a less complex statement of God’s activity and eschewed the whole time aspect?

Rather than throwing up his quite obviously tendentious and ad hoc “solution” to the question I posed, as though his case were proved beyond any doubt, Anon should have evinced a sense of academic responsibility by, in the very least, providing a statistical analysis of whether his “correction” to God’s Word actually was commensurate with other like passages. That is, is ‘on the next day’ the usual expression incorporated in extended lists that resemble Genesis 1? I for one would like to know if it is an appropriate expression, that it isn’t anachronistic or that it doesn’t turn what would be normally considered as unencumbered, aesthetically pleasing BH narrative into a stilted and forced set of lines, replete with superfluities.

Anon’s task of “correcting” God’s Word, is no small task. Of course, he could, as he has done before, accuse me of begging the question by taking as the default position that Genesis 1 is a record of a series of historical, sequential acts over six 24 hour periods. Of course he could! But seeing as that his, in addition to the Framework Hypothesis, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory etc, is nothing more than a Johnny-Come-Lately idea which unconsciously or dishonestly tries to accommodate the assumed great age of the earth, this fact in and of itself exculpates me from the charge of question-begging. After all, some traditions, particularly those that involve truth, really do set you free.