When Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen and adherents propose evolution as the means by which God created what are they saying?
In spite of what complimentary biblical accounts Gen 1, Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 record of the creation of the world, these latter day interpreters propose some creative means far and away in contradistinction. Indeed, to propose as they do they must force the texts to say something that the texts clearly do not say. So what is it that Archbishop Jensen and others are saying?
How do we interpret the actions of those who promote themselves to the world as being guardians of evangelicalism and rigorous defenders of the integrity of Scripture? What are we to make of those who on issues such as ordination of women, marriage, adultery, homosexuality, leadership of the Church, stand against the world in applying a straightforward reading of Scripture yet force Scripture on the issue of origins so as to accommodate the world's view?
There is only one conclusion to be drawn but a little background is helpful in the first instance.
Evangelicals through the generations have at least one thing in common. They will not consciously trifle with God. They are respecters of God, even fearers of God. When God speaks they listen. Consider your uneasiness when reading of Moses inciting the anger of God by baulking at God's request to lead Israel in contest with Pharaoh (Ex 4:13-14) or Job's encounter with angered God (Job 38:1-3 and 40:1-2). From where I sit the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese appears to hold the same fear of God and, on issues I've mentioned already regarding Church order, they have acted with reverence.
So what is going on with the issue of origins? Our Lord Jesus Christ alludes to what is going on when he says "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master." (Matt 10:24-25) Well then, we need only look to the teacher and master of Archbishop Jensen and adherents on origins - Charles Darwin.
On 24 November 1880 Charles Darwin wrote to Frederick McDermott and said "I am sorry to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God." Charles Darwin's erroneous perception of the order of life took him from being a candidate for 'Cure of Souls' to rejecting Scripture as divine revelation. This then exposes the position of Archbishop Jensen and adherents. They do not regard Gen 1, Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 as being divine revelation. They cannot, otherwise they would respond with reverence and acceptance of what God is saying. Instead their reverence and acceptance is toward Charles Darwin inasmuch as they honour his mechanism albeit with God superimposed over the mechanism.
What else are we to conclude but that Archbishop Jensen and adherents accept some Scripture as divine revelation but not all Scripture. Those passages of Scripture which, by straightforward reading, present God, through Jesus Christ, creating the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days (as we experience days) only thousands of years ago are not, according to Archbishop Jensen and adherents, divine revelation. In all all honesty, they wouldn't tamper with it if it were, in their mind, divine revelation would they?
This is a sad revelation which, unless sufficiently corrected by Archbishop Jensen and adherents, must stand.
I invite Archbishop Jensen to correct my perception of the situation if I am in error or repent of this heresy.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Hey atheists [and theistic evolutionists], guess why?
As reported in Monday’s Jakarta Post, Kaing Guek Eav is the only Cambodian from Pol Pot’s killing fields who has confessed to his crimes. This 66 year old, better known as Duch, is on trial for being the former superintendent at the S-21 torture centre. Here they routinely tortured and murdered, inter alia, new-born infants, anyone wearing glasses and soft-handed people. The other co-conspirators still insist that they did nothing but right. Given this anomaly, one should surely enquire why Duch is up until now the only one of this regime to have expressed his guilt and contrition. The answer is quite easily discovered from his comments: He has recently become a Christian. His former colleagues in crime, partners in, arguably, the most violent social experiment in human history, remain atheists.
Atheists would reject the idea that “as a man thinks, so he is”, yet here is living proof that this is all too true. It’s not that atheism qua atheism makes a man necessarily inhumane…it’s just that there really isn’t anything in atheism as such that necessarily makes a man a good one. Chesterton stated this well when he said that when a man disbelieves in God it isn’t that he believes in nothing, but that he will believe anything…including the mass murder of his fellow human beings.
Atheists would reject the idea that “as a man thinks, so he is”, yet here is living proof that this is all too true. It’s not that atheism qua atheism makes a man necessarily inhumane…it’s just that there really isn’t anything in atheism as such that necessarily makes a man a good one. Chesterton stated this well when he said that when a man disbelieves in God it isn’t that he believes in nothing, but that he will believe anything…including the mass murder of his fellow human beings.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 10 documentary rebuttal
The reasons advanced for the separation of the whole into four major documents are again mainly four. First and foremost to this day the use of the divine names is a mark of authorship. Thus: the Jahvist (or Yahwist) uses the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh almost exclusively; the Elohist uses Elohim, the common name for God in the Hebrew; the Priestly writer also prefers Elohim; the Deuteronomist is marked by other characteristics. Secondly, each of these writers is said to have developed a vocabulary which is distinctly his own. However, in the case of J and E this is not as prominent a feature as in reference to P and D. Thirdly, certain types of subject matter are found quite regularly in certain of these original documents: J likes narratives whose scenes are laid in Judah; E prefers those that played in the territory of the Northern Kingdom; P deals with matters of legislation; and D is hortatory in his treatment of all he presents. Lastly, the style of these four presents quite naturally four different aspects: "J excels in picturesque `objectivity' of description"; "E, on the other hand, frequently strikes a vein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos"; P is precise and formal; D is the orator. It must be admitted that an imposing array of arguments confronts us here. Certainly, an immense amount of labour has been expended on these studies. Many of the issues involved are of a so highly technical nature as to confuse the layman, especially when Hebrew terms multiply, that he believes the issues must be left to professional theologians and is all too ready to follow their guidance if they adopt, as is often the case, a tone of utter finality.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Frame Frames it Fittingly
Well, not quite, it’s a bit of an each way bet!
Tom Frame, previously bishop of bullets and guns and now bishop of books and writing has run an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the limits of Darwinism.
One of my favourite review lines applies: “there’s a lot to like about this article” but, and there’s always a ‘but’ after ‘there’s a lot to like’, he runs an each way bet by standing up the variety of Christian views of origins, irrespective of the degree to which they strain their connection with Genesis 1.
He has a slam at Dawkins, which is always fitting, because Dawkins’ usually acts like a bit of a loon; others however, have slammed him more effectively in the past. But I expect Frame was running against the word ration the SMH gave him.
Tom has a number of quite amusing things to say:
“Evolutionary theory does not explain everything we want to know about the natural world or human life, and some of what evolutionary theory purports to explain it hardly elucidates at all. While we might know how some things occurred we still want to know why. Most importantly, why is there something rather than nothing?”
Well, the truth be known, evolutionary theory explains nothing at all. From Darwin on its been smoke screening, equivocation, and argument by personal credulity (Darwin’s Origin is full of it, as Dissenter continuously shows. In thrall to idealism (the dominant philosophy underpinning contemporary theology, in my view, but in vigorous rejection of any biblical realism, the philosophy that should underpin theology), Tom thinks that the basic existiential question can be answered apart from the question of origins, which leads directly to the answer to the basic existential question. I raised my eyebrows too!
In the very next paragraph, Tom asks, as though the question is decided: “So how does a Christian account for the origin of life and the emergence of religious faith in the light of evolutionary theory?”
Well, this Christian is relieved of the conundrum. How does a Darwinist account for the origin of life and the emergence of rationality in the light of there being no evidence, no mechanism and no theoretical means (no, I mean a real one, not the string of empty words that Dawkins and his ilk string us along with) in a materialistic paradigm?
Tom lets us in on the trade secret of modern theologians:
“Evolutionary theory requires creation to be understood as a continuous process rather than an isolated act in the distant past. In this view, God creates in and through natural processes.”
Sure, it’s a view, and its an interesting theological point as to whether God creates in and through natural processes, or by speaking, as Gen 1, 2, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3 tell us. Here’s the choice: Tom or the Holy Spirt. Any thoughts Tom? And what about continuous (in this 'view') vs Genesis 1: '...and it was so'. Continuous process seems to be at odds with the kinds of actions described in the in the six days and the way the creatures made are described. But then, facts, no matter how perspicuous, have never been successfully able to obstruct the vain speculations of much modern theology.
I could go on and on, but will spare reader and self that detail.
So, the best one for the last:
“I share the conviction of Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeontology at the University of Cambridge: nature controls the course of evolution but convergence, implying a higher purpose, controls nature.
Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now.”
Good, Tom. Now, what experimental evidence do you, or Simon have for this? I could ask much the same question of Barth, who decided that nothing in the real world, could affect the faith world. Did Karl do any experiements...ah, theology is so easy!
Tom Frame, previously bishop of bullets and guns and now bishop of books and writing has run an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the limits of Darwinism.
One of my favourite review lines applies: “there’s a lot to like about this article” but, and there’s always a ‘but’ after ‘there’s a lot to like’, he runs an each way bet by standing up the variety of Christian views of origins, irrespective of the degree to which they strain their connection with Genesis 1.
He has a slam at Dawkins, which is always fitting, because Dawkins’ usually acts like a bit of a loon; others however, have slammed him more effectively in the past. But I expect Frame was running against the word ration the SMH gave him.
Tom has a number of quite amusing things to say:
“Evolutionary theory does not explain everything we want to know about the natural world or human life, and some of what evolutionary theory purports to explain it hardly elucidates at all. While we might know how some things occurred we still want to know why. Most importantly, why is there something rather than nothing?”
Well, the truth be known, evolutionary theory explains nothing at all. From Darwin on its been smoke screening, equivocation, and argument by personal credulity (Darwin’s Origin is full of it, as Dissenter continuously shows. In thrall to idealism (the dominant philosophy underpinning contemporary theology, in my view, but in vigorous rejection of any biblical realism, the philosophy that should underpin theology), Tom thinks that the basic existiential question can be answered apart from the question of origins, which leads directly to the answer to the basic existential question. I raised my eyebrows too!
In the very next paragraph, Tom asks, as though the question is decided: “So how does a Christian account for the origin of life and the emergence of religious faith in the light of evolutionary theory?”
Well, this Christian is relieved of the conundrum. How does a Darwinist account for the origin of life and the emergence of rationality in the light of there being no evidence, no mechanism and no theoretical means (no, I mean a real one, not the string of empty words that Dawkins and his ilk string us along with) in a materialistic paradigm?
Tom lets us in on the trade secret of modern theologians:
“Evolutionary theory requires creation to be understood as a continuous process rather than an isolated act in the distant past. In this view, God creates in and through natural processes.”
Sure, it’s a view, and its an interesting theological point as to whether God creates in and through natural processes, or by speaking, as Gen 1, 2, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3 tell us. Here’s the choice: Tom or the Holy Spirt. Any thoughts Tom? And what about continuous (in this 'view') vs Genesis 1: '...and it was so'. Continuous process seems to be at odds with the kinds of actions described in the in the six days and the way the creatures made are described. But then, facts, no matter how perspicuous, have never been successfully able to obstruct the vain speculations of much modern theology.
I could go on and on, but will spare reader and self that detail.
So, the best one for the last:
“I share the conviction of Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeontology at the University of Cambridge: nature controls the course of evolution but convergence, implying a higher purpose, controls nature.
Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now.”
Good, Tom. Now, what experimental evidence do you, or Simon have for this? I could ask much the same question of Barth, who decided that nothing in the real world, could affect the faith world. Did Karl do any experiements...ah, theology is so easy!
Monday, February 9, 2009
Big Day In(spirational)? I Don't Think So.
In comments to the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Charles Darwin on 7 February 2009, the Sydney Episcopalian Archbishop, Peter Jensen, said such things as "Does evolution exclude a God whose loving rule extends to the natural world? Some would say yes, but not because the theory of evolution requires it. Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God ... Faith in a divine Creator and belief in an evolutionary universe can coexist."
If science, among other things, is the study of the creation then Archbishop Jensen has set himself against the Apostle Paul who at Romans 1:18-23 makes it clear that the study of the creation will reveal the Creator. I would throw myself into the camp of the Apostle Paul and leave the Archbishop to run last in his theology at this point.
As Neil Moore astutely observed in relation to Sir David Attenborough in a recent blog, there is no connection between a "loving rule" and a Creator who uses evolution as a creative process from the beginning.
There is no coexistence between the God of the Bible and a God who uses evolution as the means of creation. World history as recorded in Scripture makes this clear.
Connect 09 kicked off officially yesterday with live broadcasts into Episcopalian congregations around the Diocese. If presentation is a sign then I fear a flop. It was uninspiring. Words uttered were out of sync with lip movement. I hope this is not a symbol of the rhetoric of Connect 09 not matching action.
Sam Drucker
If science, among other things, is the study of the creation then Archbishop Jensen has set himself against the Apostle Paul who at Romans 1:18-23 makes it clear that the study of the creation will reveal the Creator. I would throw myself into the camp of the Apostle Paul and leave the Archbishop to run last in his theology at this point.
As Neil Moore astutely observed in relation to Sir David Attenborough in a recent blog, there is no connection between a "loving rule" and a Creator who uses evolution as a creative process from the beginning.
There is no coexistence between the God of the Bible and a God who uses evolution as the means of creation. World history as recorded in Scripture makes this clear.
Connect 09 kicked off officially yesterday with live broadcasts into Episcopalian congregations around the Diocese. If presentation is a sign then I fear a flop. It was uninspiring. Words uttered were out of sync with lip movement. I hope this is not a symbol of the rhetoric of Connect 09 not matching action.
Sam Drucker
Saturday, February 7, 2009
On History
My recent reading in some commentaries on Classical literature (the Romans, not the Greeks) has lead me to one writer who made the claim that the Hebrews did not write history; but their books (in the Old Testament) regarded as 'history' are in fact not history as western tradition has come to understand it.
As I thought about this, I think I could see the author's viewpoint.
History in Ancient Rome was concerned with polemic to a large extent, as one example to grab from the shelf: Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars. For instance, the Wikipedia entry says: "This military campaign is painstakingly described by Julius Caesar himself in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which still is the most important historical source. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome."
Other historians had other things to say, argument or portrayal regarding factors and players, the forces that did or did not result in an event or outcome, etc. Western History has tended to follow in this fashion, with some modern writers even picking up the Ancient's tendentiousness. See for instance Windschuttle on the fake history of oppression of Aboriginies.
But OT history is not like this. Indeed, as the commentator I refer to above claimed, it is not history in our sense, but more a chronicle or explanation of the acts of God in bringing about the effects of his covenant. A very directed and purposeful relating of events that bring to life his overarching act in Christ.
So, extending this line, one could wonder that, if the Hebrews did not weave literary speculation into their history, but sought to chronicle the acts of God, often in a rather blunt and unadorned manner, then it would be highly unlikely that Genesis 1 would be the literary 'art' formulation that some (the so-called 'genre' critics, for instance, John Dickson, bete noire of this blog) make it out to be, and thus overturning their claim that it does not refer to the events that it describes, but some other events which it does not describe (astonishing but true) and is a literary representation of how we should think of God; not, mind you because of what it says, but I guess, because of what it doesn't say!
As I thought about this, I think I could see the author's viewpoint.
History in Ancient Rome was concerned with polemic to a large extent, as one example to grab from the shelf: Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars. For instance, the Wikipedia entry says: "This military campaign is painstakingly described by Julius Caesar himself in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which still is the most important historical source. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome."
Other historians had other things to say, argument or portrayal regarding factors and players, the forces that did or did not result in an event or outcome, etc. Western History has tended to follow in this fashion, with some modern writers even picking up the Ancient's tendentiousness. See for instance Windschuttle on the fake history of oppression of Aboriginies.
But OT history is not like this. Indeed, as the commentator I refer to above claimed, it is not history in our sense, but more a chronicle or explanation of the acts of God in bringing about the effects of his covenant. A very directed and purposeful relating of events that bring to life his overarching act in Christ.
So, extending this line, one could wonder that, if the Hebrews did not weave literary speculation into their history, but sought to chronicle the acts of God, often in a rather blunt and unadorned manner, then it would be highly unlikely that Genesis 1 would be the literary 'art' formulation that some (the so-called 'genre' critics, for instance, John Dickson, bete noire of this blog) make it out to be, and thus overturning their claim that it does not refer to the events that it describes, but some other events which it does not describe (astonishing but true) and is a literary representation of how we should think of God; not, mind you because of what it says, but I guess, because of what it doesn't say!
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sydney Anglican Archbishop Stumped
The following is an extract of a recent article which appeared in the U.K.'s Guardian Newspaper.
"Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: 'They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance.'
Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
There are two things to say about Sir David Attenborough's comments.
First, if he is accurately quoting Christian Creationists who contacted him then shame on them. It is not theirs or our place to assign people to heaven or hell. It is a matter for the Lord and, from what we observe in Scripture, it depends on the person's relationship with Creator, Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
The second thing to say is that the Most Rev Peter Jensen, Archbishop of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, has nothing convincing to say to Sir David Attenborough that might help Sir David come to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is this so?
Sir David has 'observed' that by evolutionary process a worm has evolved which has no other means of survival than to burrow through the eyeball of a little child in east Africa. Sir David concludes that a god who could create this scenario is not a god that he wants anything to do with. The problem for Most Rev Peter is that, being a Theistic Evolutionist, he also believes that the worm evolved that way and that the god he espouses is the one who did it. Most Rev Peter can't really introduce the Fall as explanation because, according to his theology his god had been creating in this way both before and after the Fall.
So here we are launching into Connect 09 under the inspiration of the Most Reverent Peter Jensen but if Sir David Attenborough were to stumble into Sydney there is nothing Most Rev Peter or many others in the Diocese could say to connect with Sir David. Amen, Sir David.
Neil
"Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: 'They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance.'
Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
There are two things to say about Sir David Attenborough's comments.
First, if he is accurately quoting Christian Creationists who contacted him then shame on them. It is not theirs or our place to assign people to heaven or hell. It is a matter for the Lord and, from what we observe in Scripture, it depends on the person's relationship with Creator, Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
The second thing to say is that the Most Rev Peter Jensen, Archbishop of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, has nothing convincing to say to Sir David Attenborough that might help Sir David come to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is this so?
Sir David has 'observed' that by evolutionary process a worm has evolved which has no other means of survival than to burrow through the eyeball of a little child in east Africa. Sir David concludes that a god who could create this scenario is not a god that he wants anything to do with. The problem for Most Rev Peter is that, being a Theistic Evolutionist, he also believes that the worm evolved that way and that the god he espouses is the one who did it. Most Rev Peter can't really introduce the Fall as explanation because, according to his theology his god had been creating in this way both before and after the Fall.
So here we are launching into Connect 09 under the inspiration of the Most Reverent Peter Jensen but if Sir David Attenborough were to stumble into Sydney there is nothing Most Rev Peter or many others in the Diocese could say to connect with Sir David. Amen, Sir David.
Neil
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 9 criticism
6. Criticism
Unfortunately, in the field of the Mosaic writings negative literary criticism--higher literary criticism so called--has wrought incalculable confusion and still is the bane of fruitful investigations in this field. Therefore it behoves us, first of all, very briefly to summarize the critical position in reference to Genesis or, for that matter, in reference to the entire Pentateuch. This summary is designed primarily for non-theologians and, therefore, makes no claim to completeness.
Critics speak with much assurance, as though the proof for their position were unassailable, , of the various sources that have been worked into the Pentateuch as we now have it; and they assure us that this composite work was finally compiled by an editor- commonly called Redactor (R)--after the time of the Exile perhaps as late as 400 B. C. The four major documents that have been worked into the Pentateuch are not only occasionally discernible in the work as a whole, but the cord has, as it were, been unravelled, and the four strands that compose it are laid before us side by side. The names given to these four documents or their authors are: (a) the Elohistic document, written by the Elohist--abbreviated designation E-;( b) the Jahvistic or Yahwistic document--described as J; (c) the Priestly document or P; and (d) the Deuteronomic document--or D. Some critics consider E, J, D, and P as persons, others regard them as literary schools.
Unfortunately, in the field of the Mosaic writings negative literary criticism--higher literary criticism so called--has wrought incalculable confusion and still is the bane of fruitful investigations in this field. Therefore it behoves us, first of all, very briefly to summarize the critical position in reference to Genesis or, for that matter, in reference to the entire Pentateuch. This summary is designed primarily for non-theologians and, therefore, makes no claim to completeness.
Critics speak with much assurance, as though the proof for their position were unassailable, , of the various sources that have been worked into the Pentateuch as we now have it; and they assure us that this composite work was finally compiled by an editor- commonly called Redactor (R)--after the time of the Exile perhaps as late as 400 B. C. The four major documents that have been worked into the Pentateuch are not only occasionally discernible in the work as a whole, but the cord has, as it were, been unravelled, and the four strands that compose it are laid before us side by side. The names given to these four documents or their authors are: (a) the Elohistic document, written by the Elohist--abbreviated designation E-;( b) the Jahvistic or Yahwistic document--described as J; (c) the Priestly document or P; and (d) the Deuteronomic document--or D. Some critics consider E, J, D, and P as persons, others regard them as literary schools.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Jensen says
A recent post on another blog by Michael Jensen (son of the Lord High Poobah Jensen...see Matthew 23:5-12) as a comment on a discussion about imputation.
Who is denying imputation? Not me. Not Bird.
But getting it in its right biblical context is vital. As is understanding the texts in their own context and not squashing them into a pre-fabricated theology, which seems to be the go in some Calvinist circles these days.
Michael, how true, how true! I wonder if theistic evolution is a 'pre-fabricated theology'?
Interestingly in this same thread Michael very nicely mentioned that some ['laypeople' I would guess, in counter biblical terminology] can be quite intelligent. ("Far more dangerous to ordinary believers are those bible teachers who enforce a system on the text and force the text to say what it plainly doesn't. So-called 'ordinary believers', who are usually more intelligent than we give them credit for") See Matt 23:5-12 again...Michael.
Just for the record an excerpt of the blog comments, including the comment in point is here
Who is denying imputation? Not me. Not Bird.
But getting it in its right biblical context is vital. As is understanding the texts in their own context and not squashing them into a pre-fabricated theology, which seems to be the go in some Calvinist circles these days.
Michael, how true, how true! I wonder if theistic evolution is a 'pre-fabricated theology'?
Interestingly in this same thread Michael very nicely mentioned that some ['laypeople' I would guess, in counter biblical terminology] can be quite intelligent. ("Far more dangerous to ordinary believers are those bible teachers who enforce a system on the text and force the text to say what it plainly doesn't. So-called 'ordinary believers', who are usually more intelligent than we give them credit for") See Matt 23:5-12 again...Michael.
Just for the record an excerpt of the blog comments, including the comment in point is here
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Christians and slavery
Many anti-Christians love to invent stories about Christians. They also like to perpetuate myths which have long ago been found to be lacking in any real historical substance. The favourite is that Christians invented slavery or, in the very least, are the most culpable because they supposedly propped it up for so long. As we all know, it was Christians who strove to make it illegal. Here's a fascinating video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2237312499464971431
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2237312499464971431
Monday, January 26, 2009
It's about time!
A couple of recent comments to Neil's recent post point to a factor that might be part of the attraction of theistic evolution in some modern theologies.
If there has been a strong influence from ancient pagan ideas, including both Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, in its various forms, then it is understandable that theistic evolution is, if not welcomed, then regarded as acceptable as a metatheological pathway to regarding Genesis 1-3.
The particular points of possible influence run along the lines of the pagan/Neoplatonic (and Gnostic) disdain for the material and rejection of the idea of the divine having anything to do with it.
Thus, for some lines of thinking, the need arose to separate ‘evil’ from the divine or from ‘spirit’. Ironically, in Christian theology, the problem of evil runs the other way, and it is not the material that is the problem, but the spirit (Jeremiah 17:9)!
For Gnostics this lead to the invention of a demi-urge, a type of sub-god that did the creating that resulted in material, and put the real god at a distance from this distasteful and evil-prone stuff.
Theistic evolution has similar marks to it.
It seems to run from the material in disdain and puts a process between God and his creation that also must push God away from us. This God is no longer close, but far off! It’s akin to pagan gods who are not personable or knowable in love, but distant, remote, devoid of possible relationship and needing to be ‘served’ in all sorts of nonsensical ways.
This theistic evolutionary god is one who doesn’t need to ‘get his hands dirty’ with the mess of creating, but is able to build a cosmos that will run such that a creative outcome results.
But this is not the God of the Bible, a God who is impressively, astonishingly close to his creation, who entered into it by incarnation, and who is separated from his creation not by a great affective distance (or a great time, according to the Bible), but by his creatures’ moral rejection of him.
Indeed, the God of the Bible directly gets his hands ‘dirty’ by making Adam out of soil: if anyone seeks a ‘method’ by which God created (for those unhappy with his word, obviously), then this is it: he formed man by directly acting upon the clay which he also made.
He is also a God who is close to his creatures and concerned for them: he reaches out to them, and meaningfully, not in some mythic manner that pretends to cross the divide of aeons (which the fictional long ages of modern materialism/deism require), but directly, on a time stage that is comprehensible to human history and experience, that makes the personal the core and provides a setting for the formation of covenant between God and man that we can take into our understanding of historical relationships.
A number of theologically interesting avenues of enquiry may be opened by this past paragraph; however, not for theistic evolution, which has already decided that its god is remote and comparatively uninvolved and whose making of a setting for the relationship and covenant is almost an accident of the machinery of some initial creative conditions. This is more like deistic disinterest than a Christian passion for life and redemption. Theistic evolution thus has trouble instantiating the person from which its whole scheme escapes, in idealist rejection of the very material that was expressly created by God; not their god, who is unimaginably and incomprehensibly far away, but our God, who is in consonance with the circumscription of our history for which he formed the setting, origin and end.
If there has been a strong influence from ancient pagan ideas, including both Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, in its various forms, then it is understandable that theistic evolution is, if not welcomed, then regarded as acceptable as a metatheological pathway to regarding Genesis 1-3.
The particular points of possible influence run along the lines of the pagan/Neoplatonic (and Gnostic) disdain for the material and rejection of the idea of the divine having anything to do with it.
Thus, for some lines of thinking, the need arose to separate ‘evil’ from the divine or from ‘spirit’. Ironically, in Christian theology, the problem of evil runs the other way, and it is not the material that is the problem, but the spirit (Jeremiah 17:9)!
For Gnostics this lead to the invention of a demi-urge, a type of sub-god that did the creating that resulted in material, and put the real god at a distance from this distasteful and evil-prone stuff.
Theistic evolution has similar marks to it.
It seems to run from the material in disdain and puts a process between God and his creation that also must push God away from us. This God is no longer close, but far off! It’s akin to pagan gods who are not personable or knowable in love, but distant, remote, devoid of possible relationship and needing to be ‘served’ in all sorts of nonsensical ways.
This theistic evolutionary god is one who doesn’t need to ‘get his hands dirty’ with the mess of creating, but is able to build a cosmos that will run such that a creative outcome results.
But this is not the God of the Bible, a God who is impressively, astonishingly close to his creation, who entered into it by incarnation, and who is separated from his creation not by a great affective distance (or a great time, according to the Bible), but by his creatures’ moral rejection of him.
Indeed, the God of the Bible directly gets his hands ‘dirty’ by making Adam out of soil: if anyone seeks a ‘method’ by which God created (for those unhappy with his word, obviously), then this is it: he formed man by directly acting upon the clay which he also made.
He is also a God who is close to his creatures and concerned for them: he reaches out to them, and meaningfully, not in some mythic manner that pretends to cross the divide of aeons (which the fictional long ages of modern materialism/deism require), but directly, on a time stage that is comprehensible to human history and experience, that makes the personal the core and provides a setting for the formation of covenant between God and man that we can take into our understanding of historical relationships.
A number of theologically interesting avenues of enquiry may be opened by this past paragraph; however, not for theistic evolution, which has already decided that its god is remote and comparatively uninvolved and whose making of a setting for the relationship and covenant is almost an accident of the machinery of some initial creative conditions. This is more like deistic disinterest than a Christian passion for life and redemption. Theistic evolution thus has trouble instantiating the person from which its whole scheme escapes, in idealist rejection of the very material that was expressly created by God; not their god, who is unimaginably and incomprehensibly far away, but our God, who is in consonance with the circumscription of our history for which he formed the setting, origin and end.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
With rhyme and reason, or ‘style with substance’
A while back on this blog, there was a discussion about the use of literary forms to predict the facticity of a piece of writing. To whit, Genesis 1. This arose from an article by John Dickson then a paid Christian of the Sydney Diocese presented at an ISCAST chinwag.
Dickson’s thesis seemed to be that because Genesis 1 was a highly structure piece of writing replete with numbers, literary devices and good spelling and so could not be factual.
Well, some interesting quotes below, admittedly about literature from many centuries after the date of composition or compilation of Genesis 1 (or Genesis 1-3, because it is this unit that fully treats the creation, IMO, but more of that another time), but still long before our modern approach to literature.
112: Manilius wrote, between AD 10 and c. 16, a poem on astrology, stressing throughout Divine Providence and the role of Fate. Unlike Virgil’s Georgics, it is a true didactic poem, that is, it is meant to give a thorough and reliable account of the subject in an attractive format. In that sense it is the verse equivalent of a prose text-book
119: Virgil’s intimate love of country life led him to follow the Eclogues with a more elaborate and more ambitious poem in four books on husbandry (the Georgics), which he composed between 35 and 30 BC [they counted backwards in those days]. Once again he chose a Greek model. About 700 BC Hesiod had written down a collection of Greek hexameters which contained much traditional lore about agricultural tasks and when they should be performed (Works and Days). The poem was intended to be of practical value: poetry is much more memorable than prose, and didactic advice can be conveyed more easily to a wider audience by that medium.
from Ogilvie, Roman Literature and Society, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980.
The conclusion that one could explore from these quotes is that if an ancient work has highly refined literary structure, and wants to instruct, then it is probably factual, contra Dickson, who, surprisingly is a PhD in ancient history!!
Dickson’s thesis seemed to be that because Genesis 1 was a highly structure piece of writing replete with numbers, literary devices and good spelling and so could not be factual.
Well, some interesting quotes below, admittedly about literature from many centuries after the date of composition or compilation of Genesis 1 (or Genesis 1-3, because it is this unit that fully treats the creation, IMO, but more of that another time), but still long before our modern approach to literature.
112: Manilius wrote, between AD 10 and c. 16, a poem on astrology, stressing throughout Divine Providence and the role of Fate. Unlike Virgil’s Georgics, it is a true didactic poem, that is, it is meant to give a thorough and reliable account of the subject in an attractive format. In that sense it is the verse equivalent of a prose text-book
119: Virgil’s intimate love of country life led him to follow the Eclogues with a more elaborate and more ambitious poem in four books on husbandry (the Georgics), which he composed between 35 and 30 BC [they counted backwards in those days]. Once again he chose a Greek model. About 700 BC Hesiod had written down a collection of Greek hexameters which contained much traditional lore about agricultural tasks and when they should be performed (Works and Days). The poem was intended to be of practical value: poetry is much more memorable than prose, and didactic advice can be conveyed more easily to a wider audience by that medium.
from Ogilvie, Roman Literature and Society, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980.
The conclusion that one could explore from these quotes is that if an ancient work has highly refined literary structure, and wants to instruct, then it is probably factual, contra Dickson, who, surprisingly is a PhD in ancient history!!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Big Idea
There's a series of posts on the way over at Question Darwin on the Darwin's Big Idea exhibition in London. Notice how, on the one hand the SADs think that questions of origins are minor and do not have significant religious implications (so what Bible do they read?) and that the question is really a 'non-issue'; and on the other, the year of Darwin is being hailed as a great step forward in modern western rejection of a religious understanding of humankind! I don't remember any similar great noise being made about Kepler, or Copernicus or even Newton...because their discoveries did not establish the alternative religion of modern materialism!
So off we go, Connect09-ing answering questions that no one is asking, while we let the most dominant challenge to Christian belief slide by in spades. Half-witted at best.
So off we go, Connect09-ing answering questions that no one is asking, while we let the most dominant challenge to Christian belief slide by in spades. Half-witted at best.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Darwin did it
I liked the post on Science and Values recently. Its one of the blogs we watch (in the side column), but I thought I'd post up this quote from the linked piece:
"Appleyard comments that Le Fanu considers that Darwin is directly implicated in a contemporary cultural malaise: “He changed the world fundamentally. Along with those now fallen idols Marx and Freud, he accounts for the secularisation of western society. Darwinism is the foundational theory of all atheistic, scientific and materialist doctrines and of the notion that everything is ultimately explicable and that there is nothing special about it – the self-denigration and self-hatred, the great ‘nothing but’ story.”
Check out the whole story.
"Appleyard comments that Le Fanu considers that Darwin is directly implicated in a contemporary cultural malaise: “He changed the world fundamentally. Along with those now fallen idols Marx and Freud, he accounts for the secularisation of western society. Darwinism is the foundational theory of all atheistic, scientific and materialist doctrines and of the notion that everything is ultimately explicable and that there is nothing special about it – the self-denigration and self-hatred, the great ‘nothing but’ story.”
Check out the whole story.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 8
It is rather a straightforward, strictly historical account, rising, indeed, to heights of poetic beauty of expression in the Creation account, in the Flood story, in the record of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, in Judah's plea before Joseph, and the like. But the writer uses no more of figurative language than any gifted historian might, who merely adorns a strictly literal account with the ordinary run of current figures of speech, grammatical and rhetorical.
The various other types of construction put particularly upon the patriarchal stories, like the tribal or ethnological theory; the astral myth theory; the purely mythical theory, and the like are evaluated at the beginning of the patriarchal record (Gen. 12).
Rather closely tied up with the question of history is that of chronology. The prevailing attitude on questions of chronology is to discard the Biblical data and to accept as authoritative the far more difficult and uncertain Babylonian and Egyptian systems of reckoning, as they are computed in our day. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, (Philadelphia, 1937), p. 56-61, gives the beginner a good idea how these computations are made and how far back they reach with a fair measure of accuracy. But it must be said with emphasis that the Biblical chronology excels all others in completeness, simplicity and accuracy; and, though, indeed, there are unsolved chronological problems, the Biblical chronology deserves our fullest confidence also for the pre-Mosaic age and for the earliest history of mankind. Michell, The Historical Truth of the Bible, (London, 1926) shows excellently how Babylonian and Egyptian chronology, rightly construed, agrees with the Biblical system of chronology.
The various other types of construction put particularly upon the patriarchal stories, like the tribal or ethnological theory; the astral myth theory; the purely mythical theory, and the like are evaluated at the beginning of the patriarchal record (Gen. 12).
Rather closely tied up with the question of history is that of chronology. The prevailing attitude on questions of chronology is to discard the Biblical data and to accept as authoritative the far more difficult and uncertain Babylonian and Egyptian systems of reckoning, as they are computed in our day. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, (Philadelphia, 1937), p. 56-61, gives the beginner a good idea how these computations are made and how far back they reach with a fair measure of accuracy. But it must be said with emphasis that the Biblical chronology excels all others in completeness, simplicity and accuracy; and, though, indeed, there are unsolved chronological problems, the Biblical chronology deserves our fullest confidence also for the pre-Mosaic age and for the earliest history of mankind. Michell, The Historical Truth of the Bible, (London, 1926) shows excellently how Babylonian and Egyptian chronology, rightly construed, agrees with the Biblical system of chronology.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Sydney Anglicans' Embarrassing Discovery
I am reliably informed that a couple of decades ago groups of Sydney Anglican clergy and parishioners would troop off to the USA to some large and seemingly Lord blessed Baptist Churches for conferences. What the USA churches thought of Sydney Anglicans is cause for wonder given the theological and moral decline of the USA equivalent of the Anglican Church. Best to leave it that there would likely be some serious suspicion.
Anyway, one of the Baptist Churches attended was Grace Baptist Church, Los Angeles, pastored by John MacArthur jnr. Whether the subject came up during the conferences, I am not sure, but if John MacArthur jnr had been given the opportunity to speak on the matter of origins I am confident he would have caused distress to most Sydney Anglicans present.
I provide herewith an extract of a sermon given by John MacArthur jnr in later years. Let there be no doubt, this sermon, if delivered in the hearing of most Sydney Anglicans would have had them quivering and looking for the next flight out of LA.
"Now when you talk about origins you're going to have to go back to Genesis. This is a book of origins. And let me put it again on the line where I put it last Lord's day. Either you believe Genesis or you don't. It's that simple. Either you believe what Genesis says about all of those origins or you don't. And that would include either you believe the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 or you don't. And if you don't believe the Genesis account, then I just...I have to tell you, you have no hope of coming to the truth. You're not going to discover it. Unconverted scientists aren't going to discover it. You either believe Genesis or you don't.
And what is really intolerable is to say you believe the Bible but not just the Genesis creation account. You believe Genesis, you believe about the origin of sin, you believe chapter 3 on maybe. Or maybe you're not sure about that because you don't really believe there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve. You've got a small problem because, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," and there was a real Christ, so you can be sure there was a real Adam. But just in case you don't believe in a real Adam, maybe you don't sign on until chapter 6, maybe you just believe the Flood. Well, maybe you don't believe that, maybe you believe when the Tower of Babel is described later on in chapter 11, or maybe you don't believe that. Maybe you don't check in until Abraham shows up in chapter 12. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Who are you to be sitting in judgment on Scripture?
You know, I'm never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I'm just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation. As you will see, it will do that.
All you can know about how God created is what He said. That's all you can know. And if you don't believe what He said about creation, what kind of precedent have you established for the rest of the Bible?
And what about the end? Do you know how all of redemptive history ends? You know how the whole story of humanity ends? It ends according to 2 Peter when the Lord uncreates the universe, I like to use that word. The elements melt with fervent heat. There's some kind of a...literally an implosion as the nuclear structure, the atomic structure of the universe literally is totally turned against its existence and takes it right back out of existence when He uncreates, when the elements melt as with a fervent heat in that kind of nuclear holocaust that ends human history.
And immediately after that it says in Revelation that He creates a...what? A new heaven and a new earth. Let me ask you this, do you believe He can do that? Or is that going to be another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and the new earth cranked up? Is it going to take billions of years to evolve the new heaven and the new earth, or do you really believe God might be able to do that just by fiat, just by making the statement and calling it into existence? If you believe that, then what's your problem in Genesis?
If God can wipe the entire universe out in a split second, if He can dissolve the whole thing, if He can send it reeling in the time of the Tribulation and refurbish it during the time of the Kingdom and then totally uncreate it at the end of the thousand years, if He can do all of that then I don't know why you have a problem with Him creating it all in six days. You see, the implications of rejecting the account of Genesis are profound.
And listen to me because what I'm going to say is very important. It is not necessary to reject the six-day creation. It is not necessary. We have yielded up territory to evolution without cause. Science knows nothing. Science proves nothing that contradicts a six-day creation...nothing. In fact, science as it keeps advancing makes its own claims to evolution ridiculous, more ridiculous all the time.
You know, and having a perspective on this is very important. We've caved in to the scientists too long and it's time to stop. If you want to do some reading on this, get Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, it just devastates the scientific perspectives. Christian people literally accepting the scientific descriptions of origins and come out of an evolutionary bias as if somehow they've been proven and somehow the Bible is going to have to give at that point because a six-day creation is not scientifically possible. That is just not true. But the results are staggering.
Master's College, for example, is a member of the Christian College Coalition. It's a coalition of Christian colleges across America of which there are about 110 colleges. Of the 110 Christian colleges in the coalition, six that we know of believe in the creation account in Genesis. Six out of 110 Christian colleges, that's a small, small fraction. And most Christian leaders and most Christian educators have allowed the teachings of evolution to one degree or another to be added to the Bible. They sort of stuff evolution in between the verses in Genesis. Most Christian leaders have accepted the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Yet clearly from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days. And Christian leaders can't deny that that's what it says cause that's what it says. You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out...the word yom means day and you have six of them.
But they believe somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old. So they believe you've got to go back to Genesis and fix it. And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right? It's serious stuff.
If the words of the Bible means six days, and you conclude...but so-called science says that's not true...then science is right and the Bible is wrong. Now if you can't trust the words of Genesis, when do you start trusting the Bible? It's a sad indictment of the church, isn't it? And the humanists even use the compromising the Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine Christianity. And what we have is a kind of Christianity today that loses its absolutes in Genesis 1. That's sad.
Christian leaders might not sign on, of course, to humanistic evolution. They would say, "Yes, there's a God and somehow God's involved in the evolutionary process," that's called theistic evolution, sometimes called progressive creationism, a term developed by Russell Mixter(?) in the science department of Wheaten College a number of years ago. But they would say, "No, there is a God and God is...sort of injects Himself at points at theistic evolution." Says, "God launched it and started it." Progressive creationism says, "He jumps in along the way but it still took millions and millions and billions of years for it to happen." These people call themselves believers in God. They probably would say they believe the Scripture. But they don't want to allow for a six-day creation. This poses immense problems...immense problems.
Here's one of them, I'm not going to give you all, but here's one...just strikes me as a serious problem. If man is created at the end of the evolutionary process, whether it's a naturalistic evolutionary process, or it's a theistic evolutionary process launched by God which some Christians think they have to affirm in order to pay homage to science, or if it's a progressive creationists view where God injects Himself along the way, the problem you've got is evolution is a process...listen carefully...evolution is a process by nature of death. It's a process known as the survival of...what?...the fittest. It's a process of violence. It's a process of bloodshed. It's a process of suffering. It's a process of disease. It's a process of death as the order rises higher and higher and higher until it gets to man.
Now here's a serious problem. You don't have man until billions of years and when man appears he is perfect and he is sinless and there's no such thing as death. Death doesn't even come in to the picture until man does...what?...sins. How can you have death before the Fall? You don't even have a cursed earth. The whole...the whole of the Genesis record is stood on its head. If there's been all kinds of death in this billions of years of evolutionary processing, then what did sin do to the world that hadn't already been done? And how could God who looked over this whole evolutionary deal when it finally reached its completion in man and said, "He saw it and He looked at it and He said it is good." How could God say that?
You see, then the sin of Adam and the curse of death is meaningless because there's been death for millennia and for billions of years, just convolutes all of the biblical record. Cause what you have in Genesis is a perfect world until Adam is confronted by the serpent and falls into sin and God curses the universe and then comes death and disease and suffering and violence and bloodshed and not before. Evolution makes no sense in that perspective.
You know, I...Christians will get out there, you know, and they'll say, "Boy, we're against abortion and we're against homosexuality and we're against Jack Kivorkian(?) because he's murdering people and we're against euthanasia and we're against genocide and, you know, we're against the moral evils of our society, etc., etc., etc.
Why are we against those things? Can you tell me why? Why are we against those things? Give me one reason. Here it is, because they're forbidden in Scripture, is that not true? The only reason we're against abortion is because God's against it. How do we know that? Because it's in the Word of God. The reason we're against homosexuality, adultery, etc., etc., is because of the Bible. You see, we stand on the Scripture.
But the problem is we don't want to stand on the Scripture in Genesis. So we equivocate on whether or not the Bible is an authority at all. What do you think the watching world thinks about our commitment to Scripture? Pretty selective, isn't it? And again I say, such capitulation to evolution is completely unnecessary. Nothing requires evolution. In fact, evolution cannot happen...it can't happen."
Enough said. John MacArthur jnr goes on to quote eminent scientist A.E. Wilder-Smith's account of how the evolutionary model fails to adequately explain the emergence of life on earth.
As far as I can tell, Sydney Anglicans no longer attend conferences at Grace Baptist Church, Los Angeles. Is it because John MacArthur jnr's faithfulness to the Word of God is an embarrassment to Sydney Anglicans' worldly view?
Neil
Anyway, one of the Baptist Churches attended was Grace Baptist Church, Los Angeles, pastored by John MacArthur jnr. Whether the subject came up during the conferences, I am not sure, but if John MacArthur jnr had been given the opportunity to speak on the matter of origins I am confident he would have caused distress to most Sydney Anglicans present.
I provide herewith an extract of a sermon given by John MacArthur jnr in later years. Let there be no doubt, this sermon, if delivered in the hearing of most Sydney Anglicans would have had them quivering and looking for the next flight out of LA.
"Now when you talk about origins you're going to have to go back to Genesis. This is a book of origins. And let me put it again on the line where I put it last Lord's day. Either you believe Genesis or you don't. It's that simple. Either you believe what Genesis says about all of those origins or you don't. And that would include either you believe the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 or you don't. And if you don't believe the Genesis account, then I just...I have to tell you, you have no hope of coming to the truth. You're not going to discover it. Unconverted scientists aren't going to discover it. You either believe Genesis or you don't.
And what is really intolerable is to say you believe the Bible but not just the Genesis creation account. You believe Genesis, you believe about the origin of sin, you believe chapter 3 on maybe. Or maybe you're not sure about that because you don't really believe there was an actual Adam and an actual Eve. You've got a small problem because, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," and there was a real Christ, so you can be sure there was a real Adam. But just in case you don't believe in a real Adam, maybe you don't sign on until chapter 6, maybe you just believe the Flood. Well, maybe you don't believe that, maybe you believe when the Tower of Babel is described later on in chapter 11, or maybe you don't believe that. Maybe you don't check in until Abraham shows up in chapter 12. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Who are you to be sitting in judgment on Scripture?
You know, I'm never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I'm just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation. As you will see, it will do that.
All you can know about how God created is what He said. That's all you can know. And if you don't believe what He said about creation, what kind of precedent have you established for the rest of the Bible?
And what about the end? Do you know how all of redemptive history ends? You know how the whole story of humanity ends? It ends according to 2 Peter when the Lord uncreates the universe, I like to use that word. The elements melt with fervent heat. There's some kind of a...literally an implosion as the nuclear structure, the atomic structure of the universe literally is totally turned against its existence and takes it right back out of existence when He uncreates, when the elements melt as with a fervent heat in that kind of nuclear holocaust that ends human history.
And immediately after that it says in Revelation that He creates a...what? A new heaven and a new earth. Let me ask you this, do you believe He can do that? Or is that going to be another umpteen billion years of evolutionary process to get the new heaven and the new earth cranked up? Is it going to take billions of years to evolve the new heaven and the new earth, or do you really believe God might be able to do that just by fiat, just by making the statement and calling it into existence? If you believe that, then what's your problem in Genesis?
If God can wipe the entire universe out in a split second, if He can dissolve the whole thing, if He can send it reeling in the time of the Tribulation and refurbish it during the time of the Kingdom and then totally uncreate it at the end of the thousand years, if He can do all of that then I don't know why you have a problem with Him creating it all in six days. You see, the implications of rejecting the account of Genesis are profound.
And listen to me because what I'm going to say is very important. It is not necessary to reject the six-day creation. It is not necessary. We have yielded up territory to evolution without cause. Science knows nothing. Science proves nothing that contradicts a six-day creation...nothing. In fact, science as it keeps advancing makes its own claims to evolution ridiculous, more ridiculous all the time.
You know, and having a perspective on this is very important. We've caved in to the scientists too long and it's time to stop. If you want to do some reading on this, get Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, it just devastates the scientific perspectives. Christian people literally accepting the scientific descriptions of origins and come out of an evolutionary bias as if somehow they've been proven and somehow the Bible is going to have to give at that point because a six-day creation is not scientifically possible. That is just not true. But the results are staggering.
Master's College, for example, is a member of the Christian College Coalition. It's a coalition of Christian colleges across America of which there are about 110 colleges. Of the 110 Christian colleges in the coalition, six that we know of believe in the creation account in Genesis. Six out of 110 Christian colleges, that's a small, small fraction. And most Christian leaders and most Christian educators have allowed the teachings of evolution to one degree or another to be added to the Bible. They sort of stuff evolution in between the verses in Genesis. Most Christian leaders have accepted the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Yet clearly from the words of Scripture, God created the universe in six literal days. And Christian leaders can't deny that that's what it says cause that's what it says. You can translate it any way you want, it all comes out...the word yom means day and you have six of them.
But they believe somehow that scientists have proved that the age of the earth must be billions and billions and billions of years old. So they believe you've got to go back to Genesis and fix it. And in so doing they have allowed the authority of the Bible to be undermined, right? It's serious stuff.
If the words of the Bible means six days, and you conclude...but so-called science says that's not true...then science is right and the Bible is wrong. Now if you can't trust the words of Genesis, when do you start trusting the Bible? It's a sad indictment of the church, isn't it? And the humanists even use the compromising the Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine Christianity. And what we have is a kind of Christianity today that loses its absolutes in Genesis 1. That's sad.
Christian leaders might not sign on, of course, to humanistic evolution. They would say, "Yes, there's a God and somehow God's involved in the evolutionary process," that's called theistic evolution, sometimes called progressive creationism, a term developed by Russell Mixter(?) in the science department of Wheaten College a number of years ago. But they would say, "No, there is a God and God is...sort of injects Himself at points at theistic evolution." Says, "God launched it and started it." Progressive creationism says, "He jumps in along the way but it still took millions and millions and billions of years for it to happen." These people call themselves believers in God. They probably would say they believe the Scripture. But they don't want to allow for a six-day creation. This poses immense problems...immense problems.
Here's one of them, I'm not going to give you all, but here's one...just strikes me as a serious problem. If man is created at the end of the evolutionary process, whether it's a naturalistic evolutionary process, or it's a theistic evolutionary process launched by God which some Christians think they have to affirm in order to pay homage to science, or if it's a progressive creationists view where God injects Himself along the way, the problem you've got is evolution is a process...listen carefully...evolution is a process by nature of death. It's a process known as the survival of...what?...the fittest. It's a process of violence. It's a process of bloodshed. It's a process of suffering. It's a process of disease. It's a process of death as the order rises higher and higher and higher until it gets to man.
Now here's a serious problem. You don't have man until billions of years and when man appears he is perfect and he is sinless and there's no such thing as death. Death doesn't even come in to the picture until man does...what?...sins. How can you have death before the Fall? You don't even have a cursed earth. The whole...the whole of the Genesis record is stood on its head. If there's been all kinds of death in this billions of years of evolutionary processing, then what did sin do to the world that hadn't already been done? And how could God who looked over this whole evolutionary deal when it finally reached its completion in man and said, "He saw it and He looked at it and He said it is good." How could God say that?
You see, then the sin of Adam and the curse of death is meaningless because there's been death for millennia and for billions of years, just convolutes all of the biblical record. Cause what you have in Genesis is a perfect world until Adam is confronted by the serpent and falls into sin and God curses the universe and then comes death and disease and suffering and violence and bloodshed and not before. Evolution makes no sense in that perspective.
You know, I...Christians will get out there, you know, and they'll say, "Boy, we're against abortion and we're against homosexuality and we're against Jack Kivorkian(?) because he's murdering people and we're against euthanasia and we're against genocide and, you know, we're against the moral evils of our society, etc., etc., etc.
Why are we against those things? Can you tell me why? Why are we against those things? Give me one reason. Here it is, because they're forbidden in Scripture, is that not true? The only reason we're against abortion is because God's against it. How do we know that? Because it's in the Word of God. The reason we're against homosexuality, adultery, etc., etc., is because of the Bible. You see, we stand on the Scripture.
But the problem is we don't want to stand on the Scripture in Genesis. So we equivocate on whether or not the Bible is an authority at all. What do you think the watching world thinks about our commitment to Scripture? Pretty selective, isn't it? And again I say, such capitulation to evolution is completely unnecessary. Nothing requires evolution. In fact, evolution cannot happen...it can't happen."
Enough said. John MacArthur jnr goes on to quote eminent scientist A.E. Wilder-Smith's account of how the evolutionary model fails to adequately explain the emergence of life on earth.
As far as I can tell, Sydney Anglicans no longer attend conferences at Grace Baptist Church, Los Angeles. Is it because John MacArthur jnr's faithfulness to the Word of God is an embarrassment to Sydney Anglicans' worldly view?
Neil
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Leupold Genesis part 7
A proper evaluation of the facts enumerated above leads definitely to the conclusion that Genesis gives a sober, accurate, historical account of the events that led to the separation of Israel from among the nations and to her establishment as a new nation with a divinely given destiny. If the other nations of this period are known to have had no records that for accuracy and sound historical pragmatism can begin to compare with the Biblical accounts, that cannot in any wise impugn the singular merit of the latter. Criticism has shown itself singularly weak in the direction of evaluating comparatively the merit of Biblical history. Attempts to cut everything of superior merit found in Israel's Sacred Writings down to the level of contemporary literature is still the bane of scholarship in the Old Testament field.
We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently, they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception, involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual. We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not conform to the facts of the
We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently, they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception, involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual. We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not conform to the facts of the
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Wrath of Sydney Anglican Diocese
Most writers and readers of this site will be familiar with a man called Mike Paget. He reasonably represents Sydney Anglican attitude which really needs a clean out from the Diocese. I had great disappointment with him about this time last year, principally because he told me an untruth. He said he would return from the CMS Summer Camp and resume dialogue on a matter of importance to me. He did not honour his word, he did not return, he did not give any reason.
Mike Paget also defends the unbiblical position taken by the Sydney Anglican Diocese on the Creation account and will not entertain criticism of what some writers here regard as a proud or elevated view many Sydney Anglicans have of their Diocese and its institutions.
This sydneyanglicanheretics blogspot is an anathema to them. We have the 'hide' to criticise their way and, in retaliation, it means little for them to misrepresent us to others.
It has been pointed out to me that Mike Paget recently went onto a blogger site run by atheists in Sydney and said the following: "BTW, I've met Sydney Anglican Heretics crew online, and it was a most unpleasant experience. I can assure you that they're not so much rattled as gleeful that you had a bigger presence at the Festival than Anglican Christians."
This is in response to Sam Drucker's blog here concerning his observation of no presence of Diocesan representatives at Newtown Festival. Sam's blog was apparently noticed by the atheists. Mike Paget's comments are a misrepresentation of our position. We are not gleeful at the sorry state of evangelism in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. We are instead grieved. A few of us are Sydney Anglicans and are grieved at how the Diocese has stepped away from God and toward man. This will have disastrous consequences and we see elements of this in the lacklustre commitment to evangelism within the Diocese on the eve of Connect 09. This is not a matter for glee! Atheists 'outevangelising' Christians is cause for concern.
Instead of acknowledging and acting positively on our 'wake up call' the Diocese has chosen, like Israel did with Jeremiah, to disdain and ignore the messenger. I wonder whether they might even attempt some form of 'doing away' with the messenger.
Such actions only demonstrate some parallels with the history of Israel.
Take your medicine Mike Paget & Co. Repent and believe on the Word of God and don't go running off to form some form of allegiance with atheists against us.
Neil
Mike Paget also defends the unbiblical position taken by the Sydney Anglican Diocese on the Creation account and will not entertain criticism of what some writers here regard as a proud or elevated view many Sydney Anglicans have of their Diocese and its institutions.
This sydneyanglicanheretics blogspot is an anathema to them. We have the 'hide' to criticise their way and, in retaliation, it means little for them to misrepresent us to others.
It has been pointed out to me that Mike Paget recently went onto a blogger site run by atheists in Sydney and said the following: "BTW, I've met Sydney Anglican Heretics crew online, and it was a most unpleasant experience. I can assure you that they're not so much rattled as gleeful that you had a bigger presence at the Festival than Anglican Christians."
This is in response to Sam Drucker's blog here concerning his observation of no presence of Diocesan representatives at Newtown Festival. Sam's blog was apparently noticed by the atheists. Mike Paget's comments are a misrepresentation of our position. We are not gleeful at the sorry state of evangelism in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. We are instead grieved. A few of us are Sydney Anglicans and are grieved at how the Diocese has stepped away from God and toward man. This will have disastrous consequences and we see elements of this in the lacklustre commitment to evangelism within the Diocese on the eve of Connect 09. This is not a matter for glee! Atheists 'outevangelising' Christians is cause for concern.
Instead of acknowledging and acting positively on our 'wake up call' the Diocese has chosen, like Israel did with Jeremiah, to disdain and ignore the messenger. I wonder whether they might even attempt some form of 'doing away' with the messenger.
Such actions only demonstrate some parallels with the history of Israel.
Take your medicine Mike Paget & Co. Repent and believe on the Word of God and don't go running off to form some form of allegiance with atheists against us.
Neil
Friday, December 19, 2008
Blog news
I've just added the Anglican Origins blog to our list of blogs...it seems to be along our lines and otherwise pretty innocuous(just what you'd expect from the North Shore, where it appears to be based) and low volume (pity), but if it is a trick from Moore College, it's out!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Leupold Genesis part 6 historical character
5. Historical Character of the Record
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18; 26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80 ff.) gives additional material on this score.
The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch, etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning, which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible; so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides, the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:
a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);
b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20; Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);
c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14; 20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);
d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);
e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18; 26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80 ff.) gives additional material on this score.
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Heard on ABC FM Sunday 14 Dec 08:
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Heard on ABC FM Sunday 14 Dec 08:
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Ralph Vaughan Williams great uncle was Charles Darwin. Ralph was young at the time of the controversies surrounding Darwin’s famous works, but was aware of them. He is reported to have asked his mother what the fuss was about. She replied along the lines of: “The Bible tells us that God made the world in 6 days. Uncle Charles thinks it took a little longer. But it doesn’t matter, either way, it’s quite marvelous.”
I also note that the theme of the New Year’s fireworks in Sydney this year is ‘creation’. In an article about that the designer remarked that ‘creation puts us in touch with nature’…it used to put us in touch with God, of course, but a century and a half of evolutionary fiction has made the disjunct between the creation and its creator…just as Paul observed in Romans 1.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Ebbs and Flows
"There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as [evolutionary scientists] use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called [academia] and the BBC, and Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst."
One of the defences used against the arguments of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' by Atheists, Skeptics and even the compromising Church is to cite the absence of published research of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' in "reputable" scientific journals. To reply saying that secular journals refuse to publish work of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' just doesn't cut it with accusers. Either the accusers believe that 'reputable' journals are thoroughly objective or accusers just want reasons for sticking with the world view.
The aforesaid quote may well have been made by numerous 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' because it reflects what they have encountered when attempting to have their work published in scientific journals of international reputation. However, the quote, except for my insertions, were those of David Bellamy, Botanist, author of 35 books and presenter of 400 television programs and the topic under discussion was Global Warming. Instead of saying evolutionary scientists Bellamy said "Gore" [Al] and instead of saying academia Bellamy said "Greens".
David Bellamy was lamenting that he no longer gets television work after having criticised the case for Global Warming. He said "When I first stuck my head up above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions."
He went on to say "It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC, you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that."
"At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me" Bellamy said. See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU209&q=david+bellamy+global+warming+australian
Such is the penalty for swimming against the tide. You may be 100% correct in your assertions but if you aren't in with the flow you are an outcast and given no recognition at all. This has been going on almost since the dawn of time. Noah was mocked for building an ark for refuge from a forthcoming event - the concept of which was outside the world view, then and now. I can write pages of examples from history of those who spoke against a particular world view, who suffered abuse for it but were later proven correct. Even then, in spite of the later acknowledged merit of a work or assertions one can still receive scorn or abuse because of being "not one of us."
An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins and poses problems for the world view that has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. Schweitzer remains convinced that the current world view is valid in spite of her find yet she has lamented her difficulty in getting her worked published in 'reputable' journals because of the perceived difficulties her find presents for the current world view. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5363/
Take the case of Richard Damadian, key scientist in the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning machine. This machine has been of enormous benefit in the detection of cancers and other disorders within the human body. Such has been the perceived benefit to humanity that a Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology and Medicine ensued. However, the award did not go to Damadian but to his lesser assistants in the development of the MRI scanner. Why? Why would such an anomaly and injustice occur? Simply because Richard Damadian is on record for having declared his agreement to the 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' position on Origins. It was an embarrassment to Damadian's colleagues who received the award and it brought disgrace to the whole process of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4705/
You might bestow on the world the greatest benefit the world has ever seen but if you are not in with the flow you will suffer for it. Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example.
David Bellamy would do well to utilise his most recent experience as impetus for reviewing how the world treats those who "buck the system" and he ought apply a more objective test to what dissidents are producing in the way of research which speaks against the evolutionary model for the origin of life and how long ago it was that life emerged on earth.
As for Episcopalians of the Sydney Diocese take this advice. Stop running with those ravenous, wild dogs who think nothing of devouring lone Sheep. Trust the Word of God for it will be proven right.
Sam Drucker
One of the defences used against the arguments of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' by Atheists, Skeptics and even the compromising Church is to cite the absence of published research of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' in "reputable" scientific journals. To reply saying that secular journals refuse to publish work of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' just doesn't cut it with accusers. Either the accusers believe that 'reputable' journals are thoroughly objective or accusers just want reasons for sticking with the world view.
The aforesaid quote may well have been made by numerous 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' because it reflects what they have encountered when attempting to have their work published in scientific journals of international reputation. However, the quote, except for my insertions, were those of David Bellamy, Botanist, author of 35 books and presenter of 400 television programs and the topic under discussion was Global Warming. Instead of saying evolutionary scientists Bellamy said "Gore" [Al] and instead of saying academia Bellamy said "Greens".
David Bellamy was lamenting that he no longer gets television work after having criticised the case for Global Warming. He said "When I first stuck my head up above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions."
He went on to say "It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC, you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that."
"At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me" Bellamy said. See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU209&q=david+bellamy+global+warming+australian
Such is the penalty for swimming against the tide. You may be 100% correct in your assertions but if you aren't in with the flow you are an outcast and given no recognition at all. This has been going on almost since the dawn of time. Noah was mocked for building an ark for refuge from a forthcoming event - the concept of which was outside the world view, then and now. I can write pages of examples from history of those who spoke against a particular world view, who suffered abuse for it but were later proven correct. Even then, in spite of the later acknowledged merit of a work or assertions one can still receive scorn or abuse because of being "not one of us."
An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins and poses problems for the world view that has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. Schweitzer remains convinced that the current world view is valid in spite of her find yet she has lamented her difficulty in getting her worked published in 'reputable' journals because of the perceived difficulties her find presents for the current world view. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5363/
Take the case of Richard Damadian, key scientist in the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning machine. This machine has been of enormous benefit in the detection of cancers and other disorders within the human body. Such has been the perceived benefit to humanity that a Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology and Medicine ensued. However, the award did not go to Damadian but to his lesser assistants in the development of the MRI scanner. Why? Why would such an anomaly and injustice occur? Simply because Richard Damadian is on record for having declared his agreement to the 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' position on Origins. It was an embarrassment to Damadian's colleagues who received the award and it brought disgrace to the whole process of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4705/
You might bestow on the world the greatest benefit the world has ever seen but if you are not in with the flow you will suffer for it. Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example.
David Bellamy would do well to utilise his most recent experience as impetus for reviewing how the world treats those who "buck the system" and he ought apply a more objective test to what dissidents are producing in the way of research which speaks against the evolutionary model for the origin of life and how long ago it was that life emerged on earth.
As for Episcopalians of the Sydney Diocese take this advice. Stop running with those ravenous, wild dogs who think nothing of devouring lone Sheep. Trust the Word of God for it will be proven right.
Sam Drucker
Monday, December 1, 2008
Leupold Genesis part 5 purpose and text
3. Purpose
The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as His people.
4. Text
Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text. No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme, namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is, furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles, such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.
The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27-28; 12:1-3, and many other passages).
The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as His people.
4. Text
Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text. No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme, namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is, furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles, such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.
The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27-28; 12:1-3, and many other passages).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
