From time to time, I've heard people quibble at Adam naming all the kinds of animals in an afternoon.
Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.
If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.
Mathematical and language genius
Musical genius
'Savant' profiles.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Just so
In a review of the book "Catching the Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" (oh yeah, another meaningless effort to credit everything to 'evolution'), the reviewer, Simon Ings makes the following perceptive remark:
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Leupold Genesis part 26A verse 1
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple, natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly unnatural.
Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all.
Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.
He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear" or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used 2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty. God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account. Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love. In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.
The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple, natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly unnatural.
Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for mentioning "the beginning" at all.
Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.
He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear" or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used 2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty. God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account. Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love. In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Does Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Know Jesus Christ?
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is proud of its evangelical tradition. It talks much of trusting Scripture and regarding it as authority for understanding the mind of God. More than that it trusts Scripture for understanding life. Its theological seminary, Moore Theological College, is held as the bastion of truth on theological matters and the hope for training men an women to go, principally, into the Diocese but generally into the world in the name of Jesus Christ. Where the Church globally is succumbing to the world the Diocese looks to itself and its evangelical tradition to draw courage to continue the fight.
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Re-paganising the church
John posted this comment to the post on paganising the church. It was so interesting I've taken the liberty posting it here, with my own comment appended to the post. Hope you don't mind, John.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Buffet Badge
In the Financial Review column "Pierpont's Dubious Distinction Awards" the Anglican diocese of Sydney gets a gong:
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
To the Anglican church for dropping $160 million on its share portfolio. Which proves that even with God on your side you couldn't beat the market in 2008-09.
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Creation in Anglican newspaper
This letter on creation and the Bible's historicity popped up recently on another website (one we watch). Its worth keeping track of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
What happened?
In response to this comment
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
Nice outline.
Of course, the bible gave a lot of detailed history for that vague “creation to Abraham” part of the bible, but for some reason, nobody wants to take it seriously.
Just sayin’.
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
Leupold Genesis part 25 overview of structure
But quite apart from such attempts to fit the whole creation into a pattern of our own devising it is immediately apparent that the account as a whole proceeds from the lower to the higher, providing first the basic essentials for existence as well as for plant and for animal life, then running to a climax in the creation of man for whose well-being and well-ordered existence all previous steps in creation provide the adequate setting. So the account abundantly displays that God is a God of order. The very general formula devised by Driver (quoted by Skinner) is as satisfactory as any: "The first three days are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment."
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Looking back on Connect '09
So 09, and its 'connect' draws to a close.
Let's see: what has been achieved?
It is time for the 'told you sos' from all and sundry.
Now, I hope that people have repented at a greater rate than without Connecting '09, but I haven't seen much evidence.
I hope that churches are now connecting to their communities more than they did. But where I live, I don't see it...same old same old. But I hope that I'm wrong, and not seeing much that is happening.
I guess the test is; what are the headlines now saying about the Anglican church...let me check recent papers.
Here we are; in the Herald's business section a few days ago; the Anglican Diocese of Sydney memorialised as the crowd that gambled over a hundred million...and lost! That's the connection: the SAD connected with debt; foolishness; arguably greed; and connected with trust in mammon over God! Great record Peter. In politics even the NSW ALP would resign government under such a performance, what do archbishops do?
I guess its a case of 'do it again in two thousand and ten!'
Let's see: what has been achieved?
It is time for the 'told you sos' from all and sundry.
Now, I hope that people have repented at a greater rate than without Connecting '09, but I haven't seen much evidence.
I hope that churches are now connecting to their communities more than they did. But where I live, I don't see it...same old same old. But I hope that I'm wrong, and not seeing much that is happening.
I guess the test is; what are the headlines now saying about the Anglican church...let me check recent papers.
Here we are; in the Herald's business section a few days ago; the Anglican Diocese of Sydney memorialised as the crowd that gambled over a hundred million...and lost! That's the connection: the SAD connected with debt; foolishness; arguably greed; and connected with trust in mammon over God! Great record Peter. In politics even the NSW ALP would resign government under such a performance, what do archbishops do?
I guess its a case of 'do it again in two thousand and ten!'
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Dealing with mess
Hop over to Post Darwinist (one of the blogs we watch) for this article on information and life.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sydney Anglicans Airing Ignorance to the World
As we approach Christmas 2009 it seemed reasonable for The Sydney Daily Telegraph to seek a statement from religious leaders in which they were to testify to the existence of God.
In a preview of this exercise The Daily Telegraph journalist said both the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell and Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen believed in Theistic Evolution.
However, when it came time for Archbishop Jensen's statement to appear on 23 December 2009 there was no mention of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps it is something he prefers to conceal from general understanding or maybe it was edited out by newspaper.
One thing published that I found quite disturbing was "Furthermore, he [God] delights in his creation. He calls it very good."
How could the former Principal of Moore Theological College and now Archbishop of Sydney make such a faulty statement. Yes, God did say His creation was very good but that was the creation that is no more. That utterance of God was before His creation rebelled against Him, thus introducing death, suffering and continued acts of rebellion against Him. It was also before sin had become so great that God destroyed that world with a global flood.
Nowhere in Scripture does God call post Fall and Flood creation "very good". Even after the Flood, sin and death has continued unabated. You just can't call that creation "very good". Indeed when someone spoke to the Lord Jesus with the opening "Good teacher" our Lord corrected the man with the words "No man is good but God alone". Now, you just cannot deduce from that reply that a creation populated by men who are not "good", is a "very good" creation.
Archbishop Jensen went on to say "He [God] can be relied upon to speak the truth, to always do what is right, to be consistent."
Well now Archbishop, why don't you believe that God was speaking the truth when he said "for in six days I created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). There is no possible way in which such a statement of God accommodates a Theistic Evolution view of creation. At this point then, being a Theistic Evolutionist, the Archbishop must believe that God is not speaking the truth or, for that matter, nor is God being consistent. But, God is being consistent here with his record of creation in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 31:17.
One can only stand back and wonder what a tangled web compromisers spin for themselves when they start pushing their ideas onto the clear Word of God.
Surely Archbishop Jensen stands on shifting sand and is vulnerable to Atheist argument when he mishandles Scripture as he does in his statement to The Daily Telegraph.
Neil
In a preview of this exercise The Daily Telegraph journalist said both the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell and Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen believed in Theistic Evolution.
However, when it came time for Archbishop Jensen's statement to appear on 23 December 2009 there was no mention of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps it is something he prefers to conceal from general understanding or maybe it was edited out by newspaper.
One thing published that I found quite disturbing was "Furthermore, he [God] delights in his creation. He calls it very good."
How could the former Principal of Moore Theological College and now Archbishop of Sydney make such a faulty statement. Yes, God did say His creation was very good but that was the creation that is no more. That utterance of God was before His creation rebelled against Him, thus introducing death, suffering and continued acts of rebellion against Him. It was also before sin had become so great that God destroyed that world with a global flood.
Nowhere in Scripture does God call post Fall and Flood creation "very good". Even after the Flood, sin and death has continued unabated. You just can't call that creation "very good". Indeed when someone spoke to the Lord Jesus with the opening "Good teacher" our Lord corrected the man with the words "No man is good but God alone". Now, you just cannot deduce from that reply that a creation populated by men who are not "good", is a "very good" creation.
Archbishop Jensen went on to say "He [God] can be relied upon to speak the truth, to always do what is right, to be consistent."
Well now Archbishop, why don't you believe that God was speaking the truth when he said "for in six days I created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). There is no possible way in which such a statement of God accommodates a Theistic Evolution view of creation. At this point then, being a Theistic Evolutionist, the Archbishop must believe that God is not speaking the truth or, for that matter, nor is God being consistent. But, God is being consistent here with his record of creation in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 31:17.
One can only stand back and wonder what a tangled web compromisers spin for themselves when they start pushing their ideas onto the clear Word of God.
Surely Archbishop Jensen stands on shifting sand and is vulnerable to Atheist argument when he mishandles Scripture as he does in his statement to The Daily Telegraph.
Neil
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 24 the six days
Taking this creation account as a whole, how shall we arrange the work of the six days? Is there any possibility of grouping within the six days? Most schemes that are advanced are not entirely perfect, but they may yet contain a generous element of truth. It seems as though the best pattern or the categories that man employs are not of a big enough mould to serve for the creation as God brings it about. Let a few of these subdivisions be submitted. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), mentioned by Strack, suggested two triads of days, the first three concerned with works of division, the second three with works of embellishment. Yet the third day's work in its second half certainly comes under the head of embellishment. A second suggestion notices the manifest parallel between the two triads of days, pointing to the fact that both the first and the fourth days are concerned with a work that begins on high with light (or light bearers). Then in the work of the second and the fifth days the work drops to a lower level, namely, to the firmament and to the birds of the air. Lastly, on the third and the sixth days the creative work moves on the level of the earth and accomplishes a double objective, namely on the third, separation of dry land and water and the production of green things, whereas on the sixth day comes the creation of land animals and man. The correspondence of the two triads from this point of view cannot be denied, but to try to imagine it as entirely adequate would overlook the work of the fifth day, which is double in character and drops not only to the level of the creation of the birds of the air but also, unfortunately, to the submarine level of the creation of fishes of the sea. More satisfactory is Koenig's arrangement which sees four deficiencies or four instances of relative incompleteness listed in a definite order and sees the successive creative acts as removing these four in inverse order, as we shall presently demonstrate.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Darwin and Wallace
John, thanks for the link across to Nagel's award to Meyer's book.
A piece from the post on Science and Values deserves to be surfaced here:
A useful statement to bear in mind when we hear the usual doffing of hat and tugging of forelock in the direction of Darwin by our pals in the SAD, who are, of course, functioning at the intellectual level of gnats when it comes to creation and evolution.
And while we're on intellectual performance, have a look at the quote on Behe's blog from Joseph Thornton who has a very confused take on probabilistic calculus. On his line of argument, the probability of any event, or chain of events is so vanishingly small that nothing could have acutally happened. But we know that things do happen. Thornton I think takes actual events as inhabiting a probability density function, which in fact exists theoretically and prospectively. What actually happens is a different thing. So could we argue this way for evolution? Well, see below, but also we know the mechanism by which baseball teams win games. There is as yet no mechanism for 'grand scale' evolution, let alone the origin of life materialistically.
By way of contrast, have a look at On Probability and Systematics: Possibility, Probability, and Phylogenetic Inference Matthew H. Haber in Systematic Biology 2005 54(5):831-841
A piece from the post on Science and Values deserves to be surfaced here:
Michael A. Flannery, in his book ‘Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism’, shows that Darwin's exclusion of God from any involvement in the development of life was well entrenched in his mind long before he wrote ‘Origin of Species’. In other words, his belief that evolution could happen all by itself was not a product of his science but his philosophical position.
After many years of research, Wallace, second only to Charles Darwin as the 19th century's most noted English naturalist, came to the conclusion that evolution could not have happened without being guided by a higher intelligence, whereas Darwin held to the concept of randomness in evolution.
Writing in Forbes magazine, Flannery explained: "Darwin's own theory could hardly be called objectively scientific. Early influences on Darwin's youth established his predisposition to materialism and a dogmatic methodological naturalism [the exclusion of supernatural explanations] long before his voyage on the Beagle.
"In short, Darwin's metaphysic compelled his science. Wallace, on the other hand, was a tireless investigator who increasingly discerned design in nature. Unlike Darwin, Wallace's science compelled his metaphysics."
A useful statement to bear in mind when we hear the usual doffing of hat and tugging of forelock in the direction of Darwin by our pals in the SAD, who are, of course, functioning at the intellectual level of gnats when it comes to creation and evolution.
And while we're on intellectual performance, have a look at the quote on Behe's blog from Joseph Thornton who has a very confused take on probabilistic calculus. On his line of argument, the probability of any event, or chain of events is so vanishingly small that nothing could have acutally happened. But we know that things do happen. Thornton I think takes actual events as inhabiting a probability density function, which in fact exists theoretically and prospectively. What actually happens is a different thing. So could we argue this way for evolution? Well, see below, but also we know the mechanism by which baseball teams win games. There is as yet no mechanism for 'grand scale' evolution, let alone the origin of life materialistically.
By way of contrast, have a look at On Probability and Systematics: Possibility, Probability, and Phylogenetic Inference Matthew H. Haber in Systematic Biology 2005 54(5):831-841
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Great news for Christians, a sad day for Dawkins!
The atheist Thomas Nagel has just voted an ID book The Times book of the year. How extraordinary!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Battle for the Truth
There's just no let up is there? Scientists who are Biblical Creationists are continually excluded from having research published in major scientific journals then confronted with charges of not having research peer reviewed; often denied data by their opponents; accused of taking their opponents' research or statements out of context or, when flaws in their opponents' research are exposed, cover-ups are employed to guard the primary axiom of Evolution against criticism.
The battle for the truth on Origins is fought with many tactics and strategies. Biblical Creationists are even, at times, likened to "Holocaust Deniers" so as to put them 'way out there' in their belief.
The tactics have all been on display in recent days commencing last Sunday on a Sydney radio program. Comments along the lines of the following were aired:
"Scientists had their research published but leading scientists of the opposing view contacted the publisher, ridiculed their work and had them dropped from the science magazine."
"The scientists are dismissed as having no credibility because their work is not peer reviewed."
"Exposed mistakes of their opponents are covered up."
"Their opponents' work had data cut off when it showed a contrary view to that which they wanted known."
"Freedom of Information requests for their opponents' data were denied and email requests were destroyed."
"The leaking of emails revealing all these tactics resulted in a response from their opponents' to the effect that the emails were taken out of context."
So what's new? Well, in this instance the subject was not Creation/Evolution Debate but Climate Change and the battle for the truth between advocates of human induced Climate Change and those labelled as Climate Change Skeptics.
"The George & Paul Show" on Sydney Radio Station 2UE last Sunday afternoon interviewed Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt who is a critic of human induced Climate Change. The discussion centred on the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the tactics employed by advocates of human induced Climate Change against critics within the scientific community.
Biblical Creationists will chuckle at the 'goings-on' because they are quite familiar with the tactics employed.
However, human induced Climate Change Skeptics are outraged. Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist, Piers Akerman, entered the fray yesterday. I provide an extract of his column:
"Excerpts of the emails detailing deception practised by the scientists, the methods they used to ensure no voices other than theirs were heard, that only those who agreed with their theories would be included in peer reviews, are circulating widely on the internet.
They illustrate a contempt for science or at least an abuse of practice.
They are the work of true deniers. They are the work of vandals. They are like indelible graffiti left by idiots.
They betray the work of the Renaissance. They undermine the Enlightenment.
A disgusting venality is also revealed in the emails, a vile spirit of hatred for those who hold the truth to be dear."
Welcome, Piers Akerman, George & Paul and Andrew Bolt to much of what passes for science today. The truth is not pursued with rigor or is not received with objectivity if it does not conform to the Primary Axiom.
Be prepared for a long fight and for many and varied insults cast your way. Be prepared for people to give you 'short shift' as you attempt to present your argument. You may even, as recently occurred in Australian Federal Parliament, be referred to as "Holocaust Deniers".
Biblical Creationists are battle hardened, fit for their long fight and will prevail because the "truth will out". It remains to be seen whether there is as much fight in Skeptics of human induced Climate Change.
Just as an aside, I wonder what's going on in the minds of those groups in many nations who formed themselves into associations many years ago and called themselves "Skeptics" (or "Sceptics") and focused their attention on denying the supernatural. Right now, in Australia at least, the term "Skeptic" is the subject of much ridicule and scorn.
Sam Drucker
The battle for the truth on Origins is fought with many tactics and strategies. Biblical Creationists are even, at times, likened to "Holocaust Deniers" so as to put them 'way out there' in their belief.
The tactics have all been on display in recent days commencing last Sunday on a Sydney radio program. Comments along the lines of the following were aired:
"Scientists had their research published but leading scientists of the opposing view contacted the publisher, ridiculed their work and had them dropped from the science magazine."
"The scientists are dismissed as having no credibility because their work is not peer reviewed."
"Exposed mistakes of their opponents are covered up."
"Their opponents' work had data cut off when it showed a contrary view to that which they wanted known."
"Freedom of Information requests for their opponents' data were denied and email requests were destroyed."
"The leaking of emails revealing all these tactics resulted in a response from their opponents' to the effect that the emails were taken out of context."
So what's new? Well, in this instance the subject was not Creation/Evolution Debate but Climate Change and the battle for the truth between advocates of human induced Climate Change and those labelled as Climate Change Skeptics.
"The George & Paul Show" on Sydney Radio Station 2UE last Sunday afternoon interviewed Melbourne journalist Andrew Bolt who is a critic of human induced Climate Change. The discussion centred on the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the tactics employed by advocates of human induced Climate Change against critics within the scientific community.
Biblical Creationists will chuckle at the 'goings-on' because they are quite familiar with the tactics employed.
However, human induced Climate Change Skeptics are outraged. Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist, Piers Akerman, entered the fray yesterday. I provide an extract of his column:
"Excerpts of the emails detailing deception practised by the scientists, the methods they used to ensure no voices other than theirs were heard, that only those who agreed with their theories would be included in peer reviews, are circulating widely on the internet.
They illustrate a contempt for science or at least an abuse of practice.
They are the work of true deniers. They are the work of vandals. They are like indelible graffiti left by idiots.
They betray the work of the Renaissance. They undermine the Enlightenment.
A disgusting venality is also revealed in the emails, a vile spirit of hatred for those who hold the truth to be dear."
Welcome, Piers Akerman, George & Paul and Andrew Bolt to much of what passes for science today. The truth is not pursued with rigor or is not received with objectivity if it does not conform to the Primary Axiom.
Be prepared for a long fight and for many and varied insults cast your way. Be prepared for people to give you 'short shift' as you attempt to present your argument. You may even, as recently occurred in Australian Federal Parliament, be referred to as "Holocaust Deniers".
Biblical Creationists are battle hardened, fit for their long fight and will prevail because the "truth will out". It remains to be seen whether there is as much fight in Skeptics of human induced Climate Change.
Just as an aside, I wonder what's going on in the minds of those groups in many nations who formed themselves into associations many years ago and called themselves "Skeptics" (or "Sceptics") and focused their attention on denying the supernatural. Right now, in Australia at least, the term "Skeptic" is the subject of much ridicule and scorn.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Question Darwin: should Christians embrace evolution?
An interesting blog over at Question Darwin: worth a look for the worthies at SAD.
Question Darwin: should Christians embrace evolution?
Dissenter's comments are worthwhile, but I don't think that they start to plumb the theological depths of dancing with death (courting theistic evolution). I've touched on a few in recent comments, IMO, (see this post, for example) but I'm sure that there is much more to say.
Question Darwin: should Christians embrace evolution?
Dissenter's comments are worthwhile, but I don't think that they start to plumb the theological depths of dancing with death (courting theistic evolution). I've touched on a few in recent comments, IMO, (see this post, for example) but I'm sure that there is much more to say.
Leupold Genesis part 23 history scriptures
The Scriptures themselves treat this account as pure history. Note the following passages: (Ex 20:9-11; 31:17; Ps 8; Ps 104; Mt 19:4-6; 2Pe 3:5; Heb 4:4)
When the question is raised as to the sources of the truths set forth in this Introduction, we must freely admit that we know nothing about them. There are several possibilities. That Moses himself received the whole chapter by direct revelation is possible. Equally, if not more, reasonable is the assumption that divine revelation communicated to our first parents the account of creation. From them it came by tradition to Moses, who recorded the whole under divine inspiration, purging it from errors or inaccuracies, should any have begun to creep into the traditional version of it by this time. That, however, such tradition may have continued relatively, if not entirely, pure appears from the following three facts: first, the number of links in the chain of persons from Adam to Abraham was very few because of man's longevity at this time, and Abraham's time was already one of intense literary activity; secondly: godly men who perpetuated this tradition would have employed extreme care to preserve it correct in all its parts; thirdly, the memory of men who trusted more to memory than to written records is known to have been unusually retentive. But whatever explanation an individual may devise to make plain to others that tradition may have played a part in bringing this priceless record to us, and even if he grant the possibility of written records of this tradition prior to the time of Moses, all such supposition dare never be construed as conflicting with the very basic fact that Genesis 1 is revelation.
Suppositions like that of Dillmann and many others that the Israelitish mind was equipped with a better understanding of God and let the light of this insight, be trained on the problem of the origin of all things and devised this which is to date still the best solution; are not satisfactory. Such claims are an attempt to dispose of immediate revelation as well as of plenary inspiration and are besides hardly reasonable. How could human ingenuity ever have penetrated into the divine order and manner of creation, when no witness to these works could ever be found? In any case, such explanations as to how the account was derived make of it a series of surmises and remove entirely the possibility of the objective correctness and the complete reliability of this record. All that remains is that of all speculations man ever elaborated about the origin of the world this is still by all odds the best. The claims and the attitude of the Scriptures, however, are met only by the explanation that says: This chapter was received by divine revelation; it contains full and absolute truth and only truth.
In order to make this scriptural account appear as just one more cosmogony it has become a common procedure to make more or less extensive Comparisons with other cosmogonies as they are found here and there in the records of the traditions of the nations. We offer, however. a more extensive examination of these so-called "creation accounts" above in our Introductory Remarks (p. 27). A fair comparison with such materials makes our remarks above appear all the more reasonable.
When the question is raised as to the sources of the truths set forth in this Introduction, we must freely admit that we know nothing about them. There are several possibilities. That Moses himself received the whole chapter by direct revelation is possible. Equally, if not more, reasonable is the assumption that divine revelation communicated to our first parents the account of creation. From them it came by tradition to Moses, who recorded the whole under divine inspiration, purging it from errors or inaccuracies, should any have begun to creep into the traditional version of it by this time. That, however, such tradition may have continued relatively, if not entirely, pure appears from the following three facts: first, the number of links in the chain of persons from Adam to Abraham was very few because of man's longevity at this time, and Abraham's time was already one of intense literary activity; secondly: godly men who perpetuated this tradition would have employed extreme care to preserve it correct in all its parts; thirdly, the memory of men who trusted more to memory than to written records is known to have been unusually retentive. But whatever explanation an individual may devise to make plain to others that tradition may have played a part in bringing this priceless record to us, and even if he grant the possibility of written records of this tradition prior to the time of Moses, all such supposition dare never be construed as conflicting with the very basic fact that Genesis 1 is revelation.
Suppositions like that of Dillmann and many others that the Israelitish mind was equipped with a better understanding of God and let the light of this insight, be trained on the problem of the origin of all things and devised this which is to date still the best solution; are not satisfactory. Such claims are an attempt to dispose of immediate revelation as well as of plenary inspiration and are besides hardly reasonable. How could human ingenuity ever have penetrated into the divine order and manner of creation, when no witness to these works could ever be found? In any case, such explanations as to how the account was derived make of it a series of surmises and remove entirely the possibility of the objective correctness and the complete reliability of this record. All that remains is that of all speculations man ever elaborated about the origin of the world this is still by all odds the best. The claims and the attitude of the Scriptures, however, are met only by the explanation that says: This chapter was received by divine revelation; it contains full and absolute truth and only truth.
In order to make this scriptural account appear as just one more cosmogony it has become a common procedure to make more or less extensive Comparisons with other cosmogonies as they are found here and there in the records of the traditions of the nations. We offer, however. a more extensive examination of these so-called "creation accounts" above in our Introductory Remarks (p. 27). A fair comparison with such materials makes our remarks above appear all the more reasonable.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Sydney Anglicans Gather Up Crumbs of Sin Under Adam and Abram's Table
Not long back I wrote about Abram, Sarai, Isaac and Ishmael. There is more to be said and I address it now.
To begin I cite Genesis 3:1 and use for all citations the New International Version of the Bible.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The word crafty (ārûm) in its uses in Proverbs & Job suggests wisdom and ingenuity.
Here then was the wisest of the wild animals pitted against the woman in the garden and attempting to supplant faithfulness to the Word of God for the 'prize' of man's own wisdom - a wisdom to match that of God. Man had all the good for living provided through the Word of God. However, accepting the wisdom of the serpent was to result in curse.
The questions of the serpent were calculated to imply that God was withholding knowledge from man. It was the woman (Eve) who engaged in the conversation but it is reasonably deduced that man (Adam) was nearby and aware of the dialogue.
Here then, man came to a mind that there was something more in what God had said than the straightforward message conveyed by God. To the mind of man it seemed better to take advice from the creation and look for something 'behind' the Word of God.
The sad irony is that man already had wisdom for living, having been created in the image of God. The pursuit of wisdom by man's own means was an act of unfaithfulness which brought separation from God, thus death.
Consider now the much later scene in history when a conversation occurs between the man of promise - Abram - and his wife - Sarai. Two promises of descendants had been made by the LORD God to Abram before, as recorded in Genesis 15:4 - Then the word of the LORD came to him "This man [a servant in Abram's household] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
It was clear now to Abram that he would father the child through whom the great promise would be delivered.
This leads us to the later conversation between Abram and Sarai which is recorded in Genesis 16:1-4
¹Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; ² so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said. ³ So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar and she conceived.
Note parallels in this incident with the incident in the garden recorded in Genesis 3:
16:2a (so she said [Sarai] to)
3:2 (The woman said to)
16:2b (Abram agreed to what Sarai said)
3:17 (you listened to your wife)
16:3a (Sarai ... took)
3:6a (she took some)
16:3b (and [she] gave her to her husband)
3:6b (she also gave to her husband)
The author wants us to observe these similarities in the incidents and there are more, including the declaration of curses.
Each situation arose when the characters were left to their faith for a time by the LORD. He had spoken and it remained for the characters to trust in Him despite their desired timing or deemed benefit from acting by themselves.
Instead of waiting faithfully for the Word of God to be fulfilled, Sarai trusted in the wisdom of the world through a custom of a maidservant being offered to the head of the household (tablets from Ur and Nuzi confirm the custom) for production of an heir. Notwithstanding Sarai's plan was an attempt at the fulfilment of God's promise of blessing it was, nonetheless, a revisiting of the sin of the woman in the garden as was the passive accepting of this world derived wisdom by the man in each situation.
Each attempt to achieve the mind of God was a disaster. Each attempt was nothing more than mingling worldly wisdom with the pure Word of God. It must therefore lead to failure.
Now move forward to the late 20th Century and the Sydney Anglican Diocese under influence of the errant Theistic Evolution belief of Archbishop Peter Jensen -a belief taking root in Moore Theological College since the term of Peter Jensen as Principal.
It is not a promise but a statement of fact by God recorded in Exodus 20:11:
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.
Make no mistake, there is no way you can draw out a Theistic Evolution or Gap Theory model of origins from that statement of God without doing serious harm to the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics of language.
The Genesis 1 account of creation is just as decisive. Yet the wisdom of man emerging within the Sydney Anglican Diocese concerning the creation account is that the author of Genesis 1 hides a hidden message through employment of literary devices, further, that God used a literary device in the Exodus rendering of the creation account. Such a school of thought throws the door wide open for all manner of interpretations of the creation account and Theistic Evolution is on the rise.
Here then you have the heretics of Sydney Anglican Diocese pursuing the same act of contempt via unfaithfulness to the Word of God displayed by Adam & Eve and Abram & Sarai. Further, the Archbishop's role is repetition of the insipid abrogation of headship by Adam and Abram to the spirit of the age. Such a course has resulted in disaster in the past and will do so again.
Neil
To begin I cite Genesis 3:1 and use for all citations the New International Version of the Bible.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The word crafty (ārûm) in its uses in Proverbs & Job suggests wisdom and ingenuity.
Here then was the wisest of the wild animals pitted against the woman in the garden and attempting to supplant faithfulness to the Word of God for the 'prize' of man's own wisdom - a wisdom to match that of God. Man had all the good for living provided through the Word of God. However, accepting the wisdom of the serpent was to result in curse.
The questions of the serpent were calculated to imply that God was withholding knowledge from man. It was the woman (Eve) who engaged in the conversation but it is reasonably deduced that man (Adam) was nearby and aware of the dialogue.
Here then, man came to a mind that there was something more in what God had said than the straightforward message conveyed by God. To the mind of man it seemed better to take advice from the creation and look for something 'behind' the Word of God.
The sad irony is that man already had wisdom for living, having been created in the image of God. The pursuit of wisdom by man's own means was an act of unfaithfulness which brought separation from God, thus death.
Consider now the much later scene in history when a conversation occurs between the man of promise - Abram - and his wife - Sarai. Two promises of descendants had been made by the LORD God to Abram before, as recorded in Genesis 15:4 - Then the word of the LORD came to him "This man [a servant in Abram's household] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."
It was clear now to Abram that he would father the child through whom the great promise would be delivered.
This leads us to the later conversation between Abram and Sarai which is recorded in Genesis 16:1-4
¹Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; ² so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said. ³ So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar and she conceived.
Note parallels in this incident with the incident in the garden recorded in Genesis 3:
16:2a (so she said [Sarai] to)
3:2 (The woman said to)
16:2b (Abram agreed to what Sarai said)
3:17 (you listened to your wife)
16:3a (Sarai ... took)
3:6a (she took some)
16:3b (and [she] gave her to her husband)
3:6b (she also gave to her husband)
The author wants us to observe these similarities in the incidents and there are more, including the declaration of curses.
Each situation arose when the characters were left to their faith for a time by the LORD. He had spoken and it remained for the characters to trust in Him despite their desired timing or deemed benefit from acting by themselves.
Instead of waiting faithfully for the Word of God to be fulfilled, Sarai trusted in the wisdom of the world through a custom of a maidservant being offered to the head of the household (tablets from Ur and Nuzi confirm the custom) for production of an heir. Notwithstanding Sarai's plan was an attempt at the fulfilment of God's promise of blessing it was, nonetheless, a revisiting of the sin of the woman in the garden as was the passive accepting of this world derived wisdom by the man in each situation.
Each attempt to achieve the mind of God was a disaster. Each attempt was nothing more than mingling worldly wisdom with the pure Word of God. It must therefore lead to failure.
Now move forward to the late 20th Century and the Sydney Anglican Diocese under influence of the errant Theistic Evolution belief of Archbishop Peter Jensen -a belief taking root in Moore Theological College since the term of Peter Jensen as Principal.
It is not a promise but a statement of fact by God recorded in Exodus 20:11:
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.
Make no mistake, there is no way you can draw out a Theistic Evolution or Gap Theory model of origins from that statement of God without doing serious harm to the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics of language.
The Genesis 1 account of creation is just as decisive. Yet the wisdom of man emerging within the Sydney Anglican Diocese concerning the creation account is that the author of Genesis 1 hides a hidden message through employment of literary devices, further, that God used a literary device in the Exodus rendering of the creation account. Such a school of thought throws the door wide open for all manner of interpretations of the creation account and Theistic Evolution is on the rise.
Here then you have the heretics of Sydney Anglican Diocese pursuing the same act of contempt via unfaithfulness to the Word of God displayed by Adam & Eve and Abram & Sarai. Further, the Archbishop's role is repetition of the insipid abrogation of headship by Adam and Abram to the spirit of the age. Such a course has resulted in disaster in the past and will do so again.
Neil
Friday, November 20, 2009
Creation or evolution, it’s just a peripheral subject
If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a Sydney Anglican say something like, “God could have done it by evolution or creation…it doesn’t really matter”, I would have been able to retire long ago on the interest alone.
Apart from such sentiments betraying a really impoverished understanding of who God is and an even more defective ability to read plain Scripture, it also reveals an indifference to the cost of believing something which is patently false. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and the epistemological standard that there are some areas of thought about which one can believe anything, would seem to be a principle uniquely identified with the postmodern left rather than a tag attached to the supposed conservatism of the Sydney Anglicans.
Yet, here it is, the idea that God can do anything he well pleases to do because he is God. God, according to Peter Jensen, can even give up being Creator and allow non-being, chance, to run the universe. This is far worse than deism because at least with this proposal God is still sitting on his throne whereas, with Jensen’s idea, he vacates heaven and takes a holiday to goodness knows where and allows the pagan immanent no-thing to, somehow, bring things into being.
The unexamined insistence that belief in evolution poses no genuine threat to faith and that there is no parlous fallout from holding such an idea is perhaps even more disturbing than Jensen’s belief in the idea itself.
Herbert Spencer, the wicked mastermind behind Social Darwinism (the belief that the weak should die off for the strong), reveals in his autobiography that,
“Doubtless my intellectual leaning towards belief in natural causation everywhere operating, and my consequent tendency to disbelieve alleged miracles, had much to do with my gradual relinquishment of the current creed and its associated story of creation – a relinquishment which went on insensibly during early manhood. Doubtless, too, a belief in evolution at large was then latent; since, little as the fact is recognised, anyone who, abandoning the supernaturalism of theology, accepts in full the naturalism of science, tacitly asserts that all things as they now exist have been evolved…”
Spencer, it could be reasonably argued, was the intellectual drive behind compulsory sterilisation of the disabled, the Pro-Choice movement, disregard for Afro-American welfare and other less fortunate groups, and a belief that social welfare and community health programs were positively harmful. What sustained this philosophy was, in part, his disdain for the miraculous of the Genesis creation account and his upholding of evolution.
Peter Jensen and others in the Sydney Anglican cult believe that they can have God doing anything, even the inanely impossible, and not have it produce any inimical consequences. That, I wish to emphasise, demonstrates an arrogance and an utter absence of wisdom. As I previously said, all ideas have consequences and the idea that God could, would, use a principle in which the weak die off for the strong, can’t be an idea that would lead people to the God that was revealed in Christ.
“The proof of God’s amazing love is this: that it was while we were sinners that God died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
Apart from such sentiments betraying a really impoverished understanding of who God is and an even more defective ability to read plain Scripture, it also reveals an indifference to the cost of believing something which is patently false. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and the epistemological standard that there are some areas of thought about which one can believe anything, would seem to be a principle uniquely identified with the postmodern left rather than a tag attached to the supposed conservatism of the Sydney Anglicans.
Yet, here it is, the idea that God can do anything he well pleases to do because he is God. God, according to Peter Jensen, can even give up being Creator and allow non-being, chance, to run the universe. This is far worse than deism because at least with this proposal God is still sitting on his throne whereas, with Jensen’s idea, he vacates heaven and takes a holiday to goodness knows where and allows the pagan immanent no-thing to, somehow, bring things into being.
The unexamined insistence that belief in evolution poses no genuine threat to faith and that there is no parlous fallout from holding such an idea is perhaps even more disturbing than Jensen’s belief in the idea itself.
Herbert Spencer, the wicked mastermind behind Social Darwinism (the belief that the weak should die off for the strong), reveals in his autobiography that,
“Doubtless my intellectual leaning towards belief in natural causation everywhere operating, and my consequent tendency to disbelieve alleged miracles, had much to do with my gradual relinquishment of the current creed and its associated story of creation – a relinquishment which went on insensibly during early manhood. Doubtless, too, a belief in evolution at large was then latent; since, little as the fact is recognised, anyone who, abandoning the supernaturalism of theology, accepts in full the naturalism of science, tacitly asserts that all things as they now exist have been evolved…”
Spencer, it could be reasonably argued, was the intellectual drive behind compulsory sterilisation of the disabled, the Pro-Choice movement, disregard for Afro-American welfare and other less fortunate groups, and a belief that social welfare and community health programs were positively harmful. What sustained this philosophy was, in part, his disdain for the miraculous of the Genesis creation account and his upholding of evolution.
Peter Jensen and others in the Sydney Anglican cult believe that they can have God doing anything, even the inanely impossible, and not have it produce any inimical consequences. That, I wish to emphasise, demonstrates an arrogance and an utter absence of wisdom. As I previously said, all ideas have consequences and the idea that God could, would, use a principle in which the weak die off for the strong, can’t be an idea that would lead people to the God that was revealed in Christ.
“The proof of God’s amazing love is this: that it was while we were sinners that God died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 22 chapter 1 intro
CHAPTER I
The Introduction--The Creation Account (1:1-2:3)
The object of this double title is to indicate that on the one hand, this is the Introduction which Moses has provided for the entire book of Genesis as well as, on the other hand, that this Introduction is given in the form of an account of creation.
It requires no deep insight to discern the basic character of this Introduction, both for the book as well as for all revelation. Man will go back in his thinking to the point where the origins of all things lie; he will desire to know how the world as well as all that is in it, and, most particularly, how he himself came into being. Here is the record, complete and satisfactory from every point of view, even if it does not perhaps answer every question that a prying curiosity might raise. He, however, who will ponder sufficiently what is here actually offered, will find facts of such magnitude as to stifle unseemly curiosity as to secondary matters.
Enthusiastic have been the comments of all who have read this account in an attitude of faith. Believing hearts are moved to devout praise of God and to adoration of His unbounded wisdom, power and mercy. Over against the criticism of our day even moderately critical writers offer comments such as Skinner (p. 11): "It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find the severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first chapter of Genesis." Proksch, contrasting the basic thought of the chapter with all other literatures, advances the claim: "That the universe rises out of nothing by the almighty creative power of God is a thought so broad in its poetic as well as in its theological scope found nowhere in such clear-cut outlines in world literature before P."
The Introduction--The Creation Account (1:1-2:3)
The object of this double title is to indicate that on the one hand, this is the Introduction which Moses has provided for the entire book of Genesis as well as, on the other hand, that this Introduction is given in the form of an account of creation.
It requires no deep insight to discern the basic character of this Introduction, both for the book as well as for all revelation. Man will go back in his thinking to the point where the origins of all things lie; he will desire to know how the world as well as all that is in it, and, most particularly, how he himself came into being. Here is the record, complete and satisfactory from every point of view, even if it does not perhaps answer every question that a prying curiosity might raise. He, however, who will ponder sufficiently what is here actually offered, will find facts of such magnitude as to stifle unseemly curiosity as to secondary matters.
Enthusiastic have been the comments of all who have read this account in an attitude of faith. Believing hearts are moved to devout praise of God and to adoration of His unbounded wisdom, power and mercy. Over against the criticism of our day even moderately critical writers offer comments such as Skinner (p. 11): "It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find the severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first chapter of Genesis." Proksch, contrasting the basic thought of the chapter with all other literatures, advances the claim: "That the universe rises out of nothing by the almighty creative power of God is a thought so broad in its poetic as well as in its theological scope found nowhere in such clear-cut outlines in world literature before P."
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Sydney Anglicans at the Zoo
The progeny of a male ass covering a female horse is a mule; the progeny of a male zebra covering a female horse is a zorse; the progeny of a male zebra covering a female donkey is a zeedonk, zonkey or a zebrass. Similarly, a male African lion covering a female tiger can produce a liger while the reverse cross produces a tigon. A male camel covering a female llama can produce a 'cama'. A male false killer whale covering a female bottlenose dolphin can produce a 'wholphin'. The list of hybrids goes on and extends quite broadly into the plant world.
What needs to be understood with hybridization is that it has its limits as to which animals or plants can be mated. Furthermore, the result of the mating is not the production of new genetic information which the evolutionary paradigm requires for validation of its argument. Instead, the existing genetic information passed on from the parents will produce a 'compromise' of expression in the progeny i.e. some features of one parent and some features of the other. There is then, a loss of complete expression of each parent's genetic information.
Sydney Anglicans upholding a Theistic Evolution model of creation ought to learn a lesson by observing what happens in the animal and plant world. A loss of information will occur when one takes the LORD and God revealed in creation, word and incarnation and attempts a 'hybridization' with a god who is the product of man's imaginings.
Elijah the Tishbite confronted Israel with a challenge when it was evident Israel was wavering in faith toward the God who had rescued their forbears from slavery in Egypt and who had revealed Himself in such a great deliverance. Elijah said "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." (1 Kings 18:21a & b)
As if to mimic the Israel of today expressed in Sydney Anglicanism when confronted with its sin by sydneyanglicanheretics, the Israel before Elijah said nothing in reply. (1 Kings 18:21c)
Oh that each generation of Israel would mimic Joshua from days of old who said "But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15b)
Theistic Evolution is the Baal of today. It is the presentation of a god alien to the LORD who has revealed His nature threefold in creation, word and incarnation. Worse still, it is the worship of a false god mixed with worship of the one true God who is LORD. Herein lies a hybrid lacking the distinctiveness of the Holy One of Israel.
What have you done Sydney Anglican heretics?
Neil
What needs to be understood with hybridization is that it has its limits as to which animals or plants can be mated. Furthermore, the result of the mating is not the production of new genetic information which the evolutionary paradigm requires for validation of its argument. Instead, the existing genetic information passed on from the parents will produce a 'compromise' of expression in the progeny i.e. some features of one parent and some features of the other. There is then, a loss of complete expression of each parent's genetic information.
Sydney Anglicans upholding a Theistic Evolution model of creation ought to learn a lesson by observing what happens in the animal and plant world. A loss of information will occur when one takes the LORD and God revealed in creation, word and incarnation and attempts a 'hybridization' with a god who is the product of man's imaginings.
Elijah the Tishbite confronted Israel with a challenge when it was evident Israel was wavering in faith toward the God who had rescued their forbears from slavery in Egypt and who had revealed Himself in such a great deliverance. Elijah said "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." (1 Kings 18:21a & b)
As if to mimic the Israel of today expressed in Sydney Anglicanism when confronted with its sin by sydneyanglicanheretics, the Israel before Elijah said nothing in reply. (1 Kings 18:21c)
Oh that each generation of Israel would mimic Joshua from days of old who said "But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15b)
Theistic Evolution is the Baal of today. It is the presentation of a god alien to the LORD who has revealed His nature threefold in creation, word and incarnation. Worse still, it is the worship of a false god mixed with worship of the one true God who is LORD. Herein lies a hybrid lacking the distinctiveness of the Holy One of Israel.
What have you done Sydney Anglican heretics?
Neil
Monday, November 2, 2009
What is Peter Doing #2?
Just so we don't loose track of this post about Peter Jensen's crazy talk at synod, here 'tis again.
A synopsis of the post is that PJ seems to think that you can have your materialist cake and eat it too, without undoing the biblical teaching on origins; but the Bible refers to origins as making this world that we live in; not an imaginary world for mystical contemplation. That is clearly the terms of the Biblical account in Genesis 1.
Creation, like the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection had space-time coordinates that we could relate to our own world of experience; making God's acts acts of history and the real world. Setting the world, this world, as the scene of the connection between us and God, and the place of covenant. Peter's remarks threaten to jettison this, and defer to a world view that relegates God to an idle curiosity, if having anything to do with us at all.
Why he does this is that he rejects the link that God makes between us and him and claims that it points to some other kind of link that is not in the Bible; so how that could be of biblical importance and worthy of a theologian's attention escapes me.
The Holy Spirit seems to go all out to align the creation as events that are delimited by space-time as is the world we experience, in fact, it is the same world and described in the same terms as the world we can identify. This tells us how we are related to God (consider the Lukan genealogy of Christ). Peter says this doesn't work, is not important in the terms in which it is set in the Bible, and other stories of the world are more significant for our self-understanding.
However, the terms he chooses to defer to are better at setting a self-understanding that dismisses God as creator and makes God cosmic spectator, if not absentee landlord. In doing this Peter risks becoming more of a deist that a Christian theist, IMO.
A synopsis of the post is that PJ seems to think that you can have your materialist cake and eat it too, without undoing the biblical teaching on origins; but the Bible refers to origins as making this world that we live in; not an imaginary world for mystical contemplation. That is clearly the terms of the Biblical account in Genesis 1.
Creation, like the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection had space-time coordinates that we could relate to our own world of experience; making God's acts acts of history and the real world. Setting the world, this world, as the scene of the connection between us and God, and the place of covenant. Peter's remarks threaten to jettison this, and defer to a world view that relegates God to an idle curiosity, if having anything to do with us at all.
Why he does this is that he rejects the link that God makes between us and him and claims that it points to some other kind of link that is not in the Bible; so how that could be of biblical importance and worthy of a theologian's attention escapes me.
The Holy Spirit seems to go all out to align the creation as events that are delimited by space-time as is the world we experience, in fact, it is the same world and described in the same terms as the world we can identify. This tells us how we are related to God (consider the Lukan genealogy of Christ). Peter says this doesn't work, is not important in the terms in which it is set in the Bible, and other stories of the world are more significant for our self-understanding.
However, the terms he chooses to defer to are better at setting a self-understanding that dismisses God as creator and makes God cosmic spectator, if not absentee landlord. In doing this Peter risks becoming more of a deist that a Christian theist, IMO.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 21 bibliography
10. Bibliography
A. Commentaries
Delitzsch, Franz, Commentar ueber die Genesis, Leipzig: Doerffling and Franke, 1872.
Dillmann, August, Die Genesis, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 4. edition. 1882.
Dods, Marcus, The Expositor's Bible (Genesis), New York: George II. Doran Co. No date.
Gunkel, IIerman, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, W. Nowak, editor. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1901.
Jamieson, Robert, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown). New York: George II. Doran. No date.
Keil, C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Genesis), (Keil and Delitzsch), Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1875.
Koenig, Eduard, Die Genesis, Guetersioh: Bertelsmann. 1919.
Lange, J. P., Bibelwerk (Genesis), Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing. 1864.
Luther, Martin, Saemtliche Schriften (Genesis), St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House. 1881. (2 vol.)
Procksch, Otto, Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Genesis), Ernst Sellin, editor. Leipzig: Deichert. 1913.
Skinner, John, International Critical Commentary (Genesis), Driver, et al, editors. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1925.
Strack, Hermann L., Kurzgefasster Kommentar (Genesis), Strack and Zoeckler, editors. Muenchen: C. H. Beck. 1905.
Vilmar, August Fr. C., Collegium Biblicum (Genesis), Christian Mueller, editor. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann. 1881.
Whitelaw Thomas, The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis), H. D. M. Spence, editor. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. 1882.
References to these commentaries have been made exclusively by the author's name, as Delitzsch. Quotations appear, of course, under the verse that is being treated. Consequently, reference to pages was consistently omitted.
As to the position taken by these commentaries, works such as those of Dillmann, Dods, Strack may be classed as moderately critical. Gunkel, Procksch and Skinner belong into the class of the extremely critical. Delitzsch finally yielded to the blandishments of the critical approach and accepted at least the source theory in its major features but still put the critical work into the category of secondary importance. Jamieson disregards critical issues. Keri, seconded in many a case by Lange, did very substantial work in the direction of establishing the validity of the conservative approach. Whitelaw works in a similar spirit. Luther's comments naturally have a very different purpose but are still to be read with profit. Koenig does the most constructive work among modern writers, but unfortunately, he yielded to the source theory, though even in this his position is moderate.
A. Commentaries
Delitzsch, Franz, Commentar ueber die Genesis, Leipzig: Doerffling and Franke, 1872.
Dillmann, August, Die Genesis, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 4. edition. 1882.
Dods, Marcus, The Expositor's Bible (Genesis), New York: George II. Doran Co. No date.
Gunkel, IIerman, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, W. Nowak, editor. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1901.
Jamieson, Robert, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown). New York: George II. Doran. No date.
Keil, C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Genesis), (Keil and Delitzsch), Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1875.
Koenig, Eduard, Die Genesis, Guetersioh: Bertelsmann. 1919.
Lange, J. P., Bibelwerk (Genesis), Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing. 1864.
Luther, Martin, Saemtliche Schriften (Genesis), St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House. 1881. (2 vol.)
Procksch, Otto, Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Genesis), Ernst Sellin, editor. Leipzig: Deichert. 1913.
Skinner, John, International Critical Commentary (Genesis), Driver, et al, editors. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1925.
Strack, Hermann L., Kurzgefasster Kommentar (Genesis), Strack and Zoeckler, editors. Muenchen: C. H. Beck. 1905.
Vilmar, August Fr. C., Collegium Biblicum (Genesis), Christian Mueller, editor. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann. 1881.
Whitelaw Thomas, The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis), H. D. M. Spence, editor. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. 1882.
References to these commentaries have been made exclusively by the author's name, as Delitzsch. Quotations appear, of course, under the verse that is being treated. Consequently, reference to pages was consistently omitted.
As to the position taken by these commentaries, works such as those of Dillmann, Dods, Strack may be classed as moderately critical. Gunkel, Procksch and Skinner belong into the class of the extremely critical. Delitzsch finally yielded to the blandishments of the critical approach and accepted at least the source theory in its major features but still put the critical work into the category of secondary importance. Jamieson disregards critical issues. Keri, seconded in many a case by Lange, did very substantial work in the direction of establishing the validity of the conservative approach. Whitelaw works in a similar spirit. Luther's comments naturally have a very different purpose but are still to be read with profit. Koenig does the most constructive work among modern writers, but unfortunately, he yielded to the source theory, though even in this his position is moderate.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
What is Peter Doing?
My comments to the post on Peter Jensens vacuous talk at Synod were a little cryptic, I admit; so what was I saying when I wrote:
Let me put it another way.
When Peter discounts the direct meaning of, say, Genesis 1, and the chronogenealogies of Genesis, plus the Lukan genealogy, etc. he is saying that God has connected himself to us in a way other than the way he has stated. So Peter, what is the way...via pond scum and the random pain of billions of years of evolutionary chance...gag me with a spoon!
Peter has stepped straight past some critical aspects of the scriptures when he thinks that their time and world-frame has no real part to play in their theology, the basic covenant between creator and creature, or the interaction between creator, creation and creatures.
There is probably a pile of aspects to this set of connections, but I'll mention only a couple.
The incarnation is set in the Bible in identical terms to the creation and its events: that is, both occur as discrete event sequences within the contiguous time-space that we inhabit, and are constrained by. If the creation is a reference by imagery of some other thing that happened, then it ceases to act in counterpoint to the incarnation, which was an event in 'dateable time', to quote John Dickson's recent video.
If the creation was outside the concrete and direct realism by which it is related to us, then it seems hard to pin down the precise connection between us and God, which connection is important for the incarnation: thus Luke 3, as cited above. Otherwise, the whole enterprise is based on a tale of mythic proportions that cannot argue a direct and close connection with our lives, or our collective life-history. We are no better off than ancient mystery religion worshippers.
But, if God did create in dateable time, and in the world constrained as we experience it, then he could say so, putting his work, our lives, and the incarnation both on the one time-line, and in the one time-space world, meaning, pretty directly, that our collective life is from God, before God and in relationship to God (either good or bad, now bad, of course, but for Christ) in the most palpable way. Myth, the vageness of chance and the 'fates' have no space in which to intervene and push God's realness out of our realness.
All this goes, of course, if God does evaporate into the never-never past. He becomes one with the dreamtime tales of Australian aborigines and his connection with our lives is mythic, not real, his salvation is just words, and not lives reborn.
Peter must be relying on a description of our collective history that is other than from the hand of God. His reliance is on a materialist myth to which he adds God, but fails to make God critical to the success of the tale: God in or God out of the materialist story, and you still have the materialist story; 'God' as an idea doesn't make the story change or show us where the lacunae are repaired. At root Peter calls on a materialist account of the cosmos to which God is a foreigner.
But God's story is different, and he makes that difference connect with our world by showing that he is the creator of what we are standing in, in the same terms that operate within the world we experience: ontological contiguity is the prime frame of Genesis 1, and we jetison at the peril of a meaningful Christian theology and proclamation of our Lord's salvation.
It amazes me that PJ does not see:
(a) that he is buying into a religious belief system when he supports materialist contentions about the nature of the real;
(b) the Bible's structuring of the real from the revelation of God in Gen 1, etc, and the words of the Bible elsewhere that clearly eliminate both long ages and evolutionary ideas...both of course being long standing pagan notions anyway!
Let me put it another way.
When Peter discounts the direct meaning of, say, Genesis 1, and the chronogenealogies of Genesis, plus the Lukan genealogy, etc. he is saying that God has connected himself to us in a way other than the way he has stated. So Peter, what is the way...via pond scum and the random pain of billions of years of evolutionary chance...gag me with a spoon!
Peter has stepped straight past some critical aspects of the scriptures when he thinks that their time and world-frame has no real part to play in their theology, the basic covenant between creator and creature, or the interaction between creator, creation and creatures.
There is probably a pile of aspects to this set of connections, but I'll mention only a couple.
The incarnation is set in the Bible in identical terms to the creation and its events: that is, both occur as discrete event sequences within the contiguous time-space that we inhabit, and are constrained by. If the creation is a reference by imagery of some other thing that happened, then it ceases to act in counterpoint to the incarnation, which was an event in 'dateable time', to quote John Dickson's recent video.
If the creation was outside the concrete and direct realism by which it is related to us, then it seems hard to pin down the precise connection between us and God, which connection is important for the incarnation: thus Luke 3, as cited above. Otherwise, the whole enterprise is based on a tale of mythic proportions that cannot argue a direct and close connection with our lives, or our collective life-history. We are no better off than ancient mystery religion worshippers.
But, if God did create in dateable time, and in the world constrained as we experience it, then he could say so, putting his work, our lives, and the incarnation both on the one time-line, and in the one time-space world, meaning, pretty directly, that our collective life is from God, before God and in relationship to God (either good or bad, now bad, of course, but for Christ) in the most palpable way. Myth, the vageness of chance and the 'fates' have no space in which to intervene and push God's realness out of our realness.
All this goes, of course, if God does evaporate into the never-never past. He becomes one with the dreamtime tales of Australian aborigines and his connection with our lives is mythic, not real, his salvation is just words, and not lives reborn.
Peter must be relying on a description of our collective history that is other than from the hand of God. His reliance is on a materialist myth to which he adds God, but fails to make God critical to the success of the tale: God in or God out of the materialist story, and you still have the materialist story; 'God' as an idea doesn't make the story change or show us where the lacunae are repaired. At root Peter calls on a materialist account of the cosmos to which God is a foreigner.
But God's story is different, and he makes that difference connect with our world by showing that he is the creator of what we are standing in, in the same terms that operate within the world we experience: ontological contiguity is the prime frame of Genesis 1, and we jetison at the peril of a meaningful Christian theology and proclamation of our Lord's salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
