Thursday, June 4, 2009

Meditate on this...

"He (God) stretches out the north over empty space and
hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7 (parenthesis added)


"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

211 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 211 of 211
Chris said...

-cont-
Reynold –

Bart D. Ehrman, a James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill wrote a book called Jesus, Interrupted that you may want to read sometime.

Yes, Bart D. Ehrman, the new media darling. A spectacle of bad scholarship and a demonstration of just how easy it is for people to lie (Bart knows good and well the truth of his false claims) when tempted with best-selling books, television appearances, frequent references and a bit of fame. The world would rather believe the lie than to make sure he’s actually telling the truth. Bart is, as well, without excuse. You want to talk about ‘elementary mistakes in the field’ – Bart is a shining example. Textual Criticism is a field better left to others and his books really don’t deal with what his specialty is. Conveniently leaving out information here and there, presenting assumptions with no data to back them up is just bad scholarship. He has no history of exegesis or historical work. Ben Witherington put it best I think, in his 5-part review of the book:

It is not sufficient to reply that Bart is writing for a popular audience and thus we would not expect much scholarly discussion even in the footnotes. Even in a work of this sort, we would expect some good up to date bibliography for those disposed to do further study, not merely copious cross-references to one’s other popular level books. Contrast for example, my last Harper book What Have They Done with Jesus? The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with NT historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis. Again, I would be glad to be proved wrong about this, but it would certainly appear I am not. This book could have been written by an intelligent skeptical person who had no more than a seminary level acquaintance and expertise in the field of NT studies itself. And I do not say this lightly, for this book manifests problems in all areas, if one critiques it on the basis of NT scholarship of the last thirty or so years. There are methodological problems, historical problems, exegetical problems, theological problems, and epistemological problems with this book, to mention but a few areas.

Bart’s claims are ridiculous and quickly dismantled. Anyone can look this stuff up and see just how stupid they are. So, I’ll go through each of the ones you brought up here for fun. His stuff only works on a Biblically illiterate populace. Because ministers today refuse to preach and teach the Word, the congregation can easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.

July 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Chris said...

Claim #1
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they're attributed. Others are likely forgeries.

This is a grand generalization, especially since Hebrews isn’t attributed to anyone. Instead of just claiming 19 of the NT books are forgeries, he should help us understand who forged them. It demonstrates no study of the early church fathers and their commentaries, letters, writings, etc. that illuminate not only the formation of the New Testament but further validate what we have today to be authentic. There is much discussion in their writings (ranging from 100 to 400 AD) about discoveries of forgeries that prove the issue was taken extremely seriously. Forgeries that were discovered, such as 3 Corinthians, were written to further validate Paul’s writings that were being carried around. Since it (among others) did nothing to actually hurt the New Testament but further attempt to substantiate Paul, it would seem that if the ECF’s were really wanting to purport false information in any way possible to keep their venerated Scripture’s they wouldn’t have exposed the elder who wrote the forgery in the first place. That’s just one example of *many* of such cases.

But that’s just the beginning. Ehrman takes a flying leap from the issue of the apocryphal, pseudepigrapha and the Gnostic gospels which are indeed known forgeries (those especially which were already around at the time of Eusebius, such as the gospels of Peter and Thomas) and then pushes that upon the New Testament writings which underwent much more scrutiny by the ECF’s and had much more history behind them. The very fact that those writings are called out for what they are, is a testament to the fact that this matter wasn’t a light one. What was and wasn’t accepted by the time of Eusebius is a huge deal. We can recompile the New Testament in its entirety save for some 11 verses using nothing but 3rd party quotations of the text from all the ECF writings. If there were any question as to the appropriate authorship of any of the NT books it’d be fewer than 7, all of which are primarily dealing with a Hebrew audience as opposed to a Gentile one. The interesting thing about the ancient disputes over James, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Jude is that these are the Hebrew epistles dealing with very Hebrew mindsets. They demand a very good understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. Revelation was both regarded as received and disputed for some time, but it’s a perfect example of the necessity of the Old Testament in order to make sense of it. Revelation is written in code, entirely from idioms in the OT. Indeed, the key to unraveling it is the OT.

July 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Chris said...

-continuing: Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they're attributed. Others are likely forgeries.

Ehrman’s case falls further when we just study the Bible by itself. NT authors quote each other, affirm each other and challenge each other. These things come out in any translation, they don’t get lost and you don’t have to revert to the original languages to get at them. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul gives two quotes, Deuteronomy 25:4 AND Luke 10:7, and calls them Scripture. That means the Gospel of Luke was already written and already considered Scripture. Paul, a Pharisee, well learned in the books of Moses would know you NEVER put anything next to the writings of Moses and call it Scripture. The matter is worse since Luke is a Gentile. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. His Gospel must have an early date since it was written as a prequel to Acts. Acts catalogues Paul’s travels and is a sequel to his Gospel. Some scholars regard Luke and Acts as briefs to Rome in Paul’s defense, especially in seeing how Acts ends. So now Paul affirms Luke and Luke affirms Paul – well which came first?

Paul deals with forgeries himself. People were writing letters and claiming them to be from Paul (2 Thess 2:1-2). That shows us two things: 1, that at the time of Paul’s missionary life, he carried the authority you’d expect from reading his letters (ie, his authority wasn’t some contrived creation by the ECF’s later on) and 2, there had to be a way to distinguish forgeries from true letters. Well there was. In 2 Thess 3:16-18 (since Paul is writing to combat forgeries going around) he stresses two things: 1, that he signs his letters with his own hands (meaning the amanuensis didn’t write the benedictions) and 2, they all end a specific way: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. This mark of authentication can be found in Romans 16:24, 1 Cor 16:16, 2 Cor 13:14, Gal 6:11, Eph 6:24, Phi 4:23, Col 4:18, 1 Thess 5:15, 2 Thess 3:18, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 4:22, Titus 3:15, Phil 25 and interestingly enough Heb 13:25, but that’s another discussion. That’ roughly takes care of 14 books. Paul affirms the apostles in his writings (as did Christ) and all of these writings date to the time period when anyone could tell the difference. Since Paul is having to combat forgeries himself, anyone could have disputed the other writings as well. Peter alludes to his own writings, Hebrews and Jude (or did Jude allude to Peter?) and calls Paul’s writings God-breathed. 2 Peter gets so much grief because people fail to realize the writers had amanuenses taking dictation (Matthew was a tax collector and as a requirement of the job had to be able to take short-hand – hence the dialogue in Matthew being so extensive). We know Silvanus wrote 1 Peter and the poor Greek in 2 Peter actually helps to build a strong case for Peter writing the epistle himself. We can go on and on here but there are others to get to and this case should be used to further the others, for the most part. The point is there’s too much evidence in the text itself that doesn’t lend itself to forgeries contrary to what Bart claims.

July 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Chris said...

Claim 2 & 6

The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.

The commonly told story of Jesus -- his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.

I’m linking these together since they really are the same accusation. These just don’t fly, if you know the Scriptures. They are more generalizations.

The Gospels give different portrayals, and for a good reason, however, they do not contradict each other like Bart is trying to allude to. Matthew is a Jew and his goal is to present Jesus as the King of the Jews (Lion of the Tribe of Judah). His genealogy works to that effect and Matthew links Him specifically to David and Abraham in the very first verse. His record of the birth of Christ works to this effect as well, to demonstrate importantly the virgin birth (mandatory for the Messiah due to the Old Testament) the linkage to Bethlehem (city of David; idiom from Ruth/Boaz; Micah) the stress of one ‘born’ King of the Jews, the magi, Herod’s fear of anyone usurping his place (Herod wasn’t in the royal line, he was a puppet and therefore could not truly claim the linkage) and the gifts of the magi: Gold = Royalty (Kingship), Frakincense = Priesthood (High Priest/Intercession), Myrrh = Prophet (death/burial/resurrection).

Mark portrays Jesus as the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53; the Ox) and presents the cost of Discipleship. Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man (Man/Genesis 5/Isaiah’s Fully God, Fully Man/Proverbs 30). Luke is a doctor and naturally presents the humanity of the Son of God. His genealogy goes back to Adam (the first, Jesus is the last). John presents Christ as the Son of God and has the genealogy of the pre-existent Word (John 1:1-14) made flesh. John ends his Gospel with the promise of the second coming. It is a prequel to Revelation.

Once you get those under your belt, they all start falling into place very nicely.

July 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Chris said...

Claim 3

The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at
odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.

This is another bogus generalization. Completely at odds? Hardly. I don’t have the book with me, so I’m not sure what the specific claims are.

Claim 4

The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.

I really just want to answer ‘So?’ What does it matter? They’re doctrines, gleaned from the whole of Scripture. Bart’s intent is to make them appear to be conspiracies of the Church (hidden from the flock) but they’re either Biblical or they aren’t. Now, if Bart wants to prove them to be UN-Biblical doctrines, he’s got quite the task. We can nitpick here and there on little things but for the most part these will be very safe grounds. If we want to get into each, we can but I’m not sure it’ll serve much point. It’s another generalization on very weak grounds.

July 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Chris said...

Claim 5

Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.

Really? What Jesus are they the teachings of, then? The ones made up at the Jesus Seminar? On what grounds? What basis? What foundation?

No, they come right out of the Gospels and the Old Testament and to that I go back to my responses in Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6. If they’re un-Biblical then prove it. But if it’s un-Jesus Seminarian, then we have no reason to care.

July 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Chris said...

Reynold -

As for "whose clock are we on"? The bible gives no indication that first one frame of reference was used, then another frame of reference was used later. So Schroeder is pulling this out of thin air as far as I know.

Actually this isn't pulled out of thin air - it's quite Biblical and the ancient rabbinical commentaries go through this, which is part of the point Schroeder makes. They were on to these ideas from the texts of Genesis 1:1-2:4. Nahmanides wrote back in the 12th century in his commentary of Genesis 1 that there had to be 10 dimensions, 4 'knowable' and 6 'unknowable'. This is physics today. 3 + time = 4 knowable. The remaining 6 can only be inferred and not dealt with directly.

Scripture deals with two perceptions of time (more if you want to get into more mystic studies) - God's time and Man's time.

Mark Perakh writes:
There is nothing scientific in the notion that God's frame of reference may be vastly different from men's frame of reference.

That depends on your presupposition. If time is a physical property, about which Perakh has already noted that he (and any other physicists) should be in agreement on (along with Schroeder) then it boils down to whether there is a God or not and THAT is something Perakh doesn't want to allow as valid scientific inquiry (it belongs to the realm of faith, is the claim). IF there is a God who created everything (including time itself, as noted in Hebrews 1:2) then the notion of God's frame of reference being vastly different from man's frame of reference (2 Peter 3:8) fits quite nicely into modern physics.

So when Mark writes:
As far as faith is considered, the above assertion is not a new one, and is simply beyond any discussion in rational, scientific terms.

He's ruling the discussion null and void based on his presupposition that God doesn't exist and NOT on the issue of time itself. Looking at Mark's little rant more closely, his fallacies are becoming more apparent.

Mark Perakh writes:
To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, {pause}

Schroeder isn't using TSR, he's noted this as error in Perakh's accusations.

{cont} we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body,{pause}

No we don't.

{cont} second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, {pause}

No we don't.

{cont} and third, to imagine that, during the six days of creation, the Creator was rushing at an enormous speed past the universe he was creating.

No we don't.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. Where does Schroeder claim that 1, God is physical and 2, God creates from within the Creation? If he does, it's not in the stuff I've read and it's un-Scriptural. But I think Mark Perakh is presuming this upon Schroeder's work in an attempt to belittle it.

Why does he say that? Basically, this "frame of reference" involving different time scales involving the theory of relativity winds up contradicting some of the biblically listed properties of your "God":

Right... No, not quite. The properties of time help establish what the Bible's been saying all along. The only contradictions we're seeing here are those that Mark is forcing upon it and that doesn't quite fly either. It's deceitful and begins to chip away at whether or not we can trust Mark in the rest of his work.

Which gave no indication that you read anything. I at least tried to leave, you know, relevent comments...

Relevant, as in pointing to articles which redefine what 'information' is?

It's "aisle", I think

You can know this one, it's absolute. It should be aisle.

July 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Reynold said...

3) You don't care what anyone here says, so long as you can find a non-believing, Jesus-hating Jew to back your erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Nevermind it's their culture, Reynold: Jesus is THEIR MESSIAH. THEY SLEW HIM.
 
The "yelling" at the end of that comment of yours sure seems like it's generalized enough...

Even so, all I was doing was just pointing out that this is the kind of thing that the Christian anti-semites have been saying through history, not that you yourself were one.

Look up the words "Christ hating Jew" on google.

(Yes, you said "Jesus hating" not "Christ hating" but we know it's the same guy being referred to)

July 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Reynold said...

Chris, referring to my pointing out that people like Glen Morton who've refuted the global flood:
Over 270 legends of folklore around the entire ancient world that share not only a common story and theme but even down to the names at the roots telling the tale we can read of in Genesis 6-9. Fossils of marine life found in rock layers all over the Earth. From shellfish in the Himalayas to jellyfish in southern Australia
 
Take the advice that you gave me in that comment: Look up some of the opposing views! Those things are old news to actual geologists, which is why I referred you to Glen Morton in the first place! Again, you can also read up on this on the Talk Origin archives...just do a search.

Another reason I brought up Morton's site, besides him actually doing work in the field, is he's collected many stories of people who were trained in YEC "geology" in Henry Morris's ICR, and wound up suffering crises of faith once they actually got out into the field. YECism just didn't match up with what they found. Again, go to his site and look around under the: Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution section. Steve Robertson's Story: A Case History of What Happens to a Young-earth Advocate who works in Geology may be of interest to you.

There's also the fact that in China and Egypt they were happily going about their own business when the supposed "flood" was supposed to have happened. They don't even have flood stories, I believe.



IF there is a God who created everything (including time itself, as noted in Hebrews 1:2) then the notion of God's frame of reference being vastly different from man's frame of reference (2 Peter 3:8) fits quite nicely into modern physics.
 
No. Why? How can one "create time"?? The problem is obvious if one takes any time to think about it at all: Just by saying that God had created time means that "time" was not always there. At some point it had to be "created". Once there was no time, then later "God" created it.

Guess what? In order for that to happen, God would have to be within time itself. He'd have to be, since there's a sequence of events that's described...there was once no "time" then later on he "created" time.

July 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Reynold said...

Actually this isn't pulled out of thin air - it's quite Biblical and the ancient rabbinical commentaries go through this, which is part of the point Schroeder makes. They were on to these ideas from the texts of Genesis 1:1-2:4. Nahmanides wrote back in the 12th century in his commentary of Genesis 1 that there had to be 10 dimensions, 4 'knowable' and 6 'unknowable'. This is physics today. 3 + time = 4 knowable. The remaining 6 can only be inferred and not dealt with directly.
 
Problem is, what in those verses actually justifies that view? He may be right, but I don't see anything in the bible that justifies that view. In fact in Schroeder's book he describes the "big bang"...only that is NOT how the bible portrays the formation of the universe.

At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occured. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

It's a man-made interpretation that is more accurate than the reading of the scripture itself. Mind you, ask any astronomer about the "thin, intagible" substance that we came from, and I think they'd tell you the opposite... Anyway, the bible portrays everything being made from nothing, not from any really thin "intangible" matter. There is only one verse I know of where spreading out is described, in the verse Trish has at the top.

That's described in the Bible and Science site in the section The Bible and Science:
Do the Bible and Science Agree?



One interesting note: If Nahmanides was smart enough to figure out modern physics from the
bible, he was also smart enough to shoot down Christians who were trying to convert Jews by claiming
that the "prophecies" in the OT referred to Jesus. He argued that they did not. Just like those AISH and messiahtruth people do today.

As to Bart Ehrman's points, I'll just let the blog readers make up their own minds once they read his
books and do more research themselves. After all, as you said to me earlier: It’s information war.

Who can get to the truth anymore? Read this, read that. Why opposing views on everything? Look up some
of the following opposing views, Reynold.
 
Unlike you when it comes to evolution and geology, that's something I at least try to do instead of snarking off with that "who can get to the truth anymore" nonsense. At least I don't throw that at you when you list off your research.

July 3, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Reynold said...

we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body,

No we don't.

second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space,

No we don't.

and third, to imagine that, during the six days of creation, the Creator was rushing at an enormous speed past the universe he was creating.

No we don't.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. Where does Schroeder claim that 1, God is physical and 2, God creates from within the Creation?
 
If Schroeder's ideas are supposed to go along with the Theory of Relativity it has to. Remember:

To make a period of time that is billions of years long in one frame of reference, last only six days in the other frame of reference, these two frames of reference must move relative to each other with an extremely high speed.
 
That is the third point which you arbitrarily dismiss. As to the second, in order to exist within such a time frame in the first place, you'd have to be localized. If one exists in both frames then one can't really say that there are two frames in the first place.

If he does, it's not in the stuff I've read and it's un-Scriptural. But I think Mark Perakh is presuming this upon Schroeder's work in an attempt to belittle it.
 
I think Perakh is presuming this because he's trying to figure out how Schroeder's work would work within the boundaries of Special Relativity.

Then there's the fact that YECs in general seem to assume that the frame of references are the same,

what with the "yom" meaning a 24 hour day they're always bringing up in the supposed "creation week".

July 4, 2009 at 4:05 AM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 211 of 211   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)