Fish With Trish: Meditate on this...

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

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»

ExPatMatt said...: What does 'hangs the earth on nothing' mean?

Does it mean the earth is hanging, but it's hanging on nothing (like a yoyo dangling from the invisible finger of God). Or does it mean that the earth is not hung on anything because there's nothing to hang it from?

What is the context for Psalm 14:1?

Cheers,

PS. I don't meditate.; June 4, 2009 at 9:46 AM
BathTub said...: Well in the biblical cosmology I believe it used to refer to the abyss under the earth. Nowadays it's used to pretend that the bible didn't speak of a unmoving flat earth, with a solid dome sky, and instead means space!

http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/blogger/5806/1359/1600/Cosmos.png

Would be the equivalent to sheol in that image. One of the places the dead used to go before Jesus introduced Hell.; June 4, 2009 at 9:11 PM
stranger.strange.land said...: Thank you Trish for the Earth photo and the verses of Scripture. I am reminded of how God created the earth as a suitable habitation for the human race, and set in motion His plan to form a corporate companion for the Son of God. All this to His glory.

I hope and pray that my atheist friends, who, oddly enough, appear to be Fundamentalist Biblical literalists, will be part of that redeemed and glorified humanity, and escape the Hell that God created for the devil and those who have aligned themselves with him.

Craig; June 5, 2009 at 6:31 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt and BathTub:

The Bible describes, accurately, the way things are. Here it's using phenomenological language, such as it uses when describing sunrises and sunsets. It would appear from Apollo missions that the Earth indeed "hangs on nothing," that the medieval church magnates didn't know much about centrifugal force, gravity, and like cosmic laws and forces that do keep our planet in orbit is their ignorance, not the Scripture's.

So, in part, BathTub's right: the history of the church in describing the science behind our universe hasn't always been up to par, but for that matter: neither has the scientists! Mind you, the great discoveries of physical laws from Sir Isaac Newton (devout Christian), didn't come into play until centuries after such declarations as BathTub might cite.

As to the comment that somehow the Bible spoke of a flat earth: verse, please?

The truth is, here we have an example of God getting it right, though our finite minds and slow-as-centuries science hadn't quite caught up to the truth therein. It wouldn't be the first time God spoke centuries before a scientific discovery was made that backed up the Scripture.

Another such example is the history of the discovery of oceanic currents and mountains on the sea floor: both discoveries had the scientists look first to Scripture and then to Creation to discover...oh, here we go again: God was right after all!

Go figure.

:); June 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM
BathTub said...: Claims to ignorance are fairly lame, God could have told them the corrections needed.

Ok your kidding right? Have you actually read the bible?

1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...

Job 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Daniel 4:10-11., the king saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds

Matthew 4:8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

and of course all the 'four corners of the earth' verses and 'ends of the earth' verses too.

That's far from comprehensive. That's just sample of the Domed immovable flat earth verses. But feel free to say they are all metaphorical.; June 5, 2009 at 2:19 PM
ExPatMatt said...: So,

Does it mean the earth is hanging, but it's hanging on nothing (like a yoyo dangling from the invisible finger of God). Or does it mean that the earth is not hung on anything because there's nothing to hang it from?

And again, what is the context for Psalm 14:1?

Cheers,; June 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Reynold said...: About the bible being ahead of science: not really.

I've mentioned The Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies before, and I will again. Read through their The Bible and Science:
Do the Bible and Science Agree? section. They analyze the arguments of Henry Morris who once made the same kind of arguments that brazen hussey has said.

Basically, many facts get lost and rediscovered over time, and a lot of information was known before biblical times.; June 6, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ BathTub:

I'd follow ExPatMatt here and ask:

What's the context of these verses?

You quote Daniel--what do you know of apocryphal or prophetic hermeneutical principles? Do you actually read the Bible at all and think "it's all literal?"

If so, you do a sever disservice to the Book (not that you care) and to literature in general.

Or, is the Bible exempt from employing literary devices?

Of literary devices, do you realize there's over 700 types?

All that to say: the Bible in all these verses isn't claiming to be a science textbook--I'm not sure why you're arguing that way.

You have to take the verses to mean what they were meant to, which means:

context

So: care to enlighten? Or simply prooftext your way to pacifying your conscience?

And yes, to answer your query:

I've read the Bible. You ought to read a book on how to read a book.

I have one I'll loan you, it's called "How to Read Slowly," it's a great read.; June 6, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Basically, many facts get lost and rediscovered over time, and a lot of information was known before biblical times.

Such as? Bare assertions?; June 6, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: Can I take a moment of time to say:

Thanks to BathTub, ExPatMatt, and dare I include Reynold in this? sure: and Reynold for making this blog exciting.

NOT saying that I don't appreciate the Christians, but you guys do keep us on our toes. Otherwise, we'd be talking to ourselves.

Which isn't bad per se, but you really have a tenacious bent. Gives my brain the exercise.

I appreciate you all for your time.; June 6, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: I love this it's much more fun than talking about evolution.
We get to talk about the Word of God. Thanks BathTub for all the verses you quoted I have to go and look at all of those in context now to see what it was talking about.

Thanks everyone.; June 7, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Bathtub

Just reading the first verse you quoted 1 cor 16:30. If I follow your logic to the next verse 31 Let the heavens rejoice,and let the earth be glad; I would have to assume that the earth and heavens have emotions. It's only logical if you are implying that verse 30 is to be taken literally. And it goes on with the same sort of things in verse 32 and 33.
I love what it says in verse 33 "Then the trees of the woods shall rejoice before the Lord , For He is coming to judge the earth."; June 7, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ BathTub:

So, not only do you not know when the Bible is using literary devices such as personification, you want to impose a wooden literalist view on everything.

Do you apply this to other books you read?

Have you taken an English course recently?

I would seriously think twice before posting figures of speech from the Bible on the one hand, and on the other pretend that you understand hermeneutics.

I would recommend "Herman Who?" from Wretched Radio. It's a DVD and should prove fruitful to you.

Hermeneutics is far more interesting than digging up the earth and looking for transitional fossils that don't exist, I'm sure you'll find.; June 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ All:

I'm an idiot. I misread that last post and totally missed the point and the author.

Sorry!

Heading for church now...take care all!; June 7, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Reynold said...: Such as? Bare assertions?
&nbps;
Go to the site I mentioned, please.; June 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Aha!

and

Aha!

That was an almost informative site. The problem is, I mentioned the oceanographer who discovered the ocean currents because of his reading of the Psalms. After perusing the site you mentioned, this fact hasn't changed.

There was a scientist who read a verse and did some research and found the ocean currents.

The site you mentioned was arguing for the fact that the Bible is a spiritual book, not a science textbook. With that I wouldn't disagree, but it doesn't mean that these discoveries are no less valid.

These discoveries were inspired by these men reading the Bible, and the discoveries themselves remain valid. As to the hermeneutics presented on this site: they don't discount anything so far denoted.

The historicity of these discoveries is objective truth, Reynold.

With that, adieu, atheist friends (can I call you that?). I do enjoy our chats.; June 7, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Reynold said...: brazen hussy:

Here's what you left out from your perusal of the site about "paths of the sea". What you left out shows my point:

Homer in his book The Odyssey, (Book 3:71) says, "the paths of the sea water." Again in Book three (line 177) it says, "the ships ran before the wind on paths of the deep sea fish" (see also Book 4:389). Was Homer also communicating great scientific discoveries? Was he inspired, or was this just the common language that was used back then?

Apollonius Rhodius in the third century BC wrote in his book The Argonautica, "and the fishes came darting through the deep sea, great mixed with the small, and followed gambolling along the watery paths" (Book 1:574). Apollonius describes the fish playfully following the ship as sheep follow a shepherd.

In the Sibylline Oracles it says, "A king will come from Asia, brandishing a great spear, with countless ships. He will walk the watery paths of the deep, and will cut through a lofty mountain as he sails" (Book 4:76-78; Charlesworth 1983, 386). The king referred to here is Xerxes who invaded Greece in 480 BC. In another book of the Sibylline Oracles it says, "Rhea, marvel of women, bore Pluto as she went past Dodona, whence the watery paths of the river Europus flowed and the water ran to the sea mingled with Peneius, and they called it Stygian" (Book 3:143-6; Charlesworth 1983, 365).

That kind of knowledge can be, and in many cases, is discovered independently of the bible. Therefore, the bible may not be any more "inspired" than those other works just quoted.; June 8, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Reynold said...: Brazen Hussey's:

Hermeneutics is far more interesting than digging up the earth and looking for transitional fossils that don't exist, I'm sure you'll find.

Wow, you sure know a lot more about paleontology than all of them combined, don't you?

Here's a tip: Armchair quarterbacking from some character who has spent NO TIME in the field is not appreciated by those who actually DO THE WORK and who actually DO find fossils.

If you actually care about learning, which I know you don't at this point, try reading the Talk Origins archive, the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Fossil Hominids FAQ, and the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms.; June 8, 2009 at 2:56 AM
ExPatMatt said...: So,

Does it mean the earth is hanging, but it's hanging on nothing (like a yoyo dangling from the invisible finger of God). Or does it mean that the earth is not hung on anything because there's nothing to hang it from?

And again, what is the context for Psalm 14:1?

Cheers,; June 8, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

Do love your comments. Hermeneutical approach is everything. The figures of speech in Scripture (especially type's) are some of my favorites to get into.

I love Chuck Missler's response when people accuse him of taking the Bible 'literally' - usually by other theologians - he says 'No, I take the Bible seriously.'

And what does God say?

Hosea 12:10 I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables.

Isaiah 28:9-10 “To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message?

Those who are weaned from the milk,
those taken from the breast?

For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept,

line upon line, line upon line,

here a little, there a little.”

Hebrews 5:12-13 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

I tremble for those who not only don't rightly handle the Word of Truth, but flat out refuse to.; June 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Chris said...: BathTub -

1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.

Heath has hit this one and quite well established the basis for what I believe to be the issue with each of BathTub's assertions. These assertions are nothing more than a quick witted search to produce whatever he can in hopes to attack Scripture and ultimately those who ascribe themselves to it.

These types of claims largely go unanswered on sites like YouTube, etc. where atheist's abound and quickly pounce on any believer who dares leave a comment. To see what I'm getting at, go to Google and search for the words flat earth bible. Click on the first link which should be titled 'The Flat-Earth Bible' where you'll find not only the same Scriptures BathTub has cited here in the first chunk, but curiously in the same exact order, using the same exact translation. Job 37:18 is quoted a little further down.

Further yet, you'll find the Daniel 4:10-11 quote, 'comma the king' and all. The Matthew quote is in that same paragraph.

Comments like 'have you even read the bible?' are often attached to alleged discrepancies such as this.

So, 1 Chronicles 16? Verse 7 states this is a song of thanksgiving that David gave to Asaph and his brothers to sing. Verses 8-36 are the lyrics to that song.; June 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...

In Psalm 93:1 the word that get's translated 'world' is tebel H8398 and most often used in a poetical sense. This is also a psalm so literary devices (figures of speech) are going to be key here.

For H8398 (TWOT 835h) the outline of usage (I'm only giving the 1st three here to save space and for the sake of this passage) is as follows - pay attention to usage 1 as it is going to come back around:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

The second issue is with the word that gets translated 'also is established' which is kuwn H3559 which is often used in the sense of preparation (to prepare or arrange)

Finally the word that get's translated 'that it cannot be moved' is mowt H4131. It's meaning is roughly 'to totter, shake or slip'.

Now, if we go back to Psalm 93 in it's entirety, look carefully at verses 1-2; 5:

1The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;

the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.

Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

2Your throne is established from of old;

you are from everlasting.

and 5

5 Your decrees are very trustworthy;

holiness befits your house,

O Lord, forevermore.

Judging from the context of all 5 verses, particularly 1-2 and 5, the 'world' being discussed isn't the 'earthly' one we're so eager to ascribe to it, but God's Kingdom, which is always portrayed as everlasting, immovable, fixed.

I submit that the translation of Psalm 93:1 can quite possibly be:

The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;

the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.

Yes, His Kingdom is established; it shall never be moved.; June 8, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...

In Psalm 96:10 we have the same words as Psalm 93:1 which I discuss in the previous comment.

One thing to point out is in Psalm 96:1, the word for 'earth' there is erets which has a much more specific meaning ascribed to it such as:

1) land, earth
1a) earth
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)

The reason that is worth bringing up is because the two words are used in the same Psalm. If they were used for the exact same thing (as our atheist friends are alluding to) then why not use the same word? But as I pointed out in the previous comment, H8398 is a much more poetical form and carries with it a different meaning.

Psalm 96 in it's entirety will give you a completely different understanding of verse 10 instead of reading the verse having been ripped out of it's context (actually, a line out of the verse) as BathTub is eager for you to do. In fact, reading verse 10 alone in IT'S entirety will help clarify what I believe is actually being discussed here:

Psalm 96:10 Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!

Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved;

he will judge the peoples with equity.”

So, as BathTub would like us to read it - what, the LORD reigns - the earth will never be moved? No, I will offer the following and I think it's not only acceptable, but fits and reads quite well in the context of the entire Psalm.

Psalm 96:10 Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns!

Yes, His Kingdom is established; it shall never be moved;

he will judge the peoples with equity.”

For what it's worth.; June 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.

Psalm 104:5 is a little different. It just requires a little more careful reading. Verse 5 is speaking of the earth. The context of verses 5-9 are speaking of the earth and the flood of Noah. In fact, verse 9 speaks specifically to God's covenant with Noah in that He would never again destroy the Earth with a flood:

Psalm 104:9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,

so that they might not again cover the earth.

Back to verse 5, pay attention to what is italicized:

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations,

so that it should never be moved.

This doesn't say that the Earth doesn't move - it's talking about the fact that it will not be destroyed by any other force.

Here's Strong's definition of H4131; note specifically 1b, c and d:

1) to totter, shake, slip
1a) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
1b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
1c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
1d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken

This gives absolutely no indication that the Earth doesn't move nor that the Earth is flat. These types of assertions are so ridiculous that a little digging quickly demonstrates the true intent of those who make the claims. It's not that they're just mistaken - they are deliberate.

All of the tools to get to the bottom of these types of things are readily available to the layman for free on many sites (like the NET bible or the Blue Letter Bible). Not to mention, with software like Logos, people can quickly get at the original languages with ease.; June 8, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...

This is just a terrible translation and I can't even determine which one is being used. Logos' Bible site's top 5 choices are NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV and KJV, none of which render the verse even close to that.

In fact, this struck me as odd and now looking at the others BathTub ripped out of context - they're all just terrible renditions - so much so that it seems someone deliberately altered them to say what they wanted to say...

Again, this shows the intent of those with these claims that really don't have a leg to stand on. A good, solid translation of the verse in question (I'm using the ESV) is; the italicized portion is the spot in question:

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord,

who created the heavens

(he is God!),

who formed the earth and made it

(he established it;

he did not create it empty,

he formed it to be inhabited!):

“I am the Lord, and there is no other.

Anyone who's studied the gap theory at any length will be very familiar with this verse :)

This is why I don't even bother with half the sites that guys like Reynold point to. It ends up being total nonsense. Christians really need to familiarize themselves with readily available tools. Even the academic books are worth the money. They take only a little know how to use well. Items like this can and should be completely disregarded as nothing but fabrication.; June 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Job 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

First things first - God isn't asking this. Job's friend Elihu is. God takes care of Job and his friends in the next chapter.

Since it's a person speaking we can tell he's describing it from his point of view. The text doesn't say the skies are a mirror of cast bronze and gives no indication of a flat Earth or an Earth that doesn't move. From anyone's perspective, the skies look like they've been stretched and the speaker is comparing it to 'molten looking glass'. Further, the word bronze isn't in this passage at all but for some reason the NIV and the NLT have translated it as such.

A more accurate translation (remember the speaker is comparing - the word 'as' is operative) is from the NKJV:

Job 37:18 With Him, have you spread out the skies,

Strong as a cast metal mirror?; June 8, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Reynold said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Reynold said...: Have a look at the next "chapter", Job 38 where it's "God" speaking:

8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?

Care to explain why he doesn't seem to know about tidal erosion? You know, where houses built too close to the sea get their foundations eventually worn away? Or even storms and hurricanes refute that statement about "here is where your proud waves halt".; June 8, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold's wrap:

It's "brazenhussEy" not "hussy," but I've been both so whatev'. I like Reynold's Wrap. What do you think? It helps cook things nicely, and if you ball it up, can clean your bbq grill in a pinch. Seriously: love having you around the house.

Juvenile shenanigans aside, though they are fun for a while, onto the conversation:

That kind of knowledge can be, and in many cases, is discovered independently of the bible. Therefore, the bible may not be any more "inspired" than those other works just quoted.

You were discussing the fact that other writers in antiquity also made scientific discoveries, so maybe they're inspired, too.

This isn't Trish's argument, nor mine: the Bible is NOT a science textbook, but the fact STILL remains that these scientists discovered ocean currents and other things based on their reading of Scripture. This is irrefutable.

What makes the canon of Scripture a sacred text, more than anything, are three key ideas:

1) It is inspired by God, using the agency of 40 or so human authors. As is shown by the many miracles it contained, all of which were done in front of multiple witnesses. These witnesses were alive when the text was written, and would have easily said "hold yer horses, padnah! That wasn't how it went down..." Instead, you have martyr after martyr of firsthand witnesses that gave their blood, attesting to it's truth. It is also well attested by the numerous prophecies accurately fulfilled over centuries, even predicting Jesus' crucifixion hundreds of years before there were such things as Roman crosses.

2) The new life or new birth as given by the Holy Spirit only attends the Scripture. I'll vouch for one person this has happened to: me, saved from a seriously brazen hussy-ish nature. Night and day, and for me and my marriage, Christ has made all the difference.

3) Um, I mentioned this in #1: fulfilled prophecies. I like the probability studies here, but probability studies or no: no other book is like it. There is not one other book with this amount of attestation on this note.

Re: fossil records--

seriously, here we have a complete disagreement. Which, pray tell, of these fossils are transitional?

And how many hoaxes have their been in the long funny history of Darwin's fairy tale pseudo-science?

There have never been any evidences for transitional fossils, but here's the rub:

ALL evidence must be interpreted. NO FOSSIL comes with a neon sign that says, "Transitional Fossil!" All we have are a record of whole species, fully formed.

But here we must part ways: you say "potato" I say "God made it."

Two glaring facts about macro-evolution: it has never been shown.

Life NEVER comes from non life. "Abiogenesis" has never been observed.

SO: where did it come from in your materialist universe?

From matter? ToE is accepted on faith and false premises, like the false premise of "there is no God." Which, you may or may not know, is a logical fallacy and philosophical impossibility: you can't prove universal negatives.

But you'd rest your eternal soul on one?; June 8, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt:

Here's the Psalm. I can't ignore your multiple requests any longer!

Psalm 14 (King James Version)

Psalm 14

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.

7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.; June 8, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold's Wrap (I get to keep calling you that so long as you call me "brazen hussy" or "hussy", I can play all night, I don't have a bedtime really):

Here's a tip: Armchair quarterbacking from some character who has spent NO TIME in the field is not appreciated by those who actually DO THE WORK and who actually DO find fossils.

If you actually care about learning, which I know you don't at this point...

Sort of like what you've been doing with your armchair hatchet job with the Sacred Text? Just curious.

If you actually care about learning, which I know you don't at this point, then you'll buy "Herman Who?" from Wretched Radio. Todd has a number of good guests on there who can explain proper handling of the text you mock.

Or you can check out the tools at the Ankerburg apologetics site.

There are free tools to use at CCEL which stands for "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" or Monergism dot com.

Oh! I know: you can check out the Evidence Bible online, Living Waters put that one up (thanks, Ray!).

But of course, that's assuming you'd like to learn.; June 8, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Chris:

Thankie, sir, thankie: and I loved your handling of the Truth. Quite nicely done! Are you using Logos, is that what you said?; June 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM
ExPatMatt said...: I tell ya, it's like pulling teeth sometimes!

Does it mean the earth is hanging, but it's hanging on nothing (like a yoyo dangling from the invisible finger of God). Or does it mean that the earth is not hung on anything because there's nothing to hang it from?

And again (again, again, again), what is the context for Psalm 14:1?

Many thanks,; June 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Thanks Chris

I really enjoyed reading your posts.

Thanks for taking the time to look into the verses.; June 8, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt:

I take it to mean that the Earth is hanging on apparently no strings, again phenomenological language. It was written in ancient times, long before the telescope, so you have to take it at that face value.

It's cool to see pics that corroborate it.

As to the context of Psalms 14:1, I gave the whole Psalm. I'm not sure what you're after: the Psalms were the recorded prayers and worship songs of David and others during his time. There are 150 known Psalms in the Bible. This is #14. Does that help?

You can check out the context above if you like.

Hope that helps some?; June 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Reynold said...: brazen hussey quoting me:

If you actually care about learning, which I know you don't at this point...

Sort of like what you've been doing with your armchair hatchet job with the Sacred Text? Just curious.

No, actually. I was a Christian for about 2 decades, and I've been to various religous apologetic sites (listed later here) and to bible studies, and so forth.

How much reading into fossils have you done? From the looks of it, you've read nothing from the sources that I took the time to show you. The reason I call you an "armchair quarterback" is that you keep acting like one. Even when spoonfed information, you refuse to ackowledge it. Well, other than to dodge:

brazen hussey's:
Re: fossil records--

seriously, here we have a complete disagreement. Which, pray tell, of these fossils are transitional?

And how many hoaxes have their been in the long funny history of Darwin's fairy tale pseudo-science?

Compared to the total amount of fossils, very little. You may want to read and see just WHO uncovered those hoaxes. While you're at it, you may want to read up on creationist hoaxes:
again, on the Talk Origins archive site, go to the Fossil Hominid section and go to Creationist Arguments: Anomalous Fossils. On the right hand side is a list of various hoaxes, including creationist hoaxes such as: Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man.

There have never been any evidences for transitional fossils, but here's the rub:

ALL evidence must be interpreted. NO FOSSIL comes with a neon sign that says, "Transitional Fossil!" All we have are a record of whole species, fully formed.

You obviously have done NO reading whatsoever. You keep spouting ignorance that is EASILY dealt with by the sites and sources I've given. Let me give you a further hint: a "transitional fossil" is one that has some features of one species, and some features of another. When they find a series of them, which gradiations from one species to another, that's a fossil trail.

Here, let me help you (again).

Go to the Talk Origins archive, go to their Fossil Hominids section, scroll down to the Creationist Arguments section and click on Comparison of creationist opinions

Guess what you find in the chart they have? Creationsits can't keep straight among themselves just which fossils are "ape" and which are "human". As the article says, that's strong evidence for their being transitional.; June 8, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Reynold said...: brazen hussey's
If you actually care about learning, which I know you don't at this point, then you'll buy "Herman Who?" from Wretched Radio. Todd has a number of good guests on there who can explain proper handling of the text you mock.

Mock no, find fault in, yes. You've yet to actually refute what I've said it looked like.

I don't have to buy anything: Guys like Ankerberg, William Lane Craig, Robert Turkel/James Holding, etc, I've already seen or dealt with in such places as Theology Web, Tektonics, org, Craig's site, Christian Answers net, etc.

Or you can check out the tools at the Ankerburg apologetics site.

Is this the same Ankerburg who's been rebuked by Answers in Genesis for his "compromising" on Genesis?

Responding to the compromise views of John Ankerberg
In the last two years, Ankerberg has been strongly promoting the ideas of “progressive creation” essentially as espoused by Dr. Hugh Ross—a man with whom many AiG supporters are already familiar. (For further information regarding Hugh Ross and his compromise position, see What’s wrong with “progressive creation?”; and see also how Ankerberg has been promoting an old earth for over a decade)

Yes, I do actually keep up with some of those characters, which is more than can be said for you and your "knowledge" of transitional fossils, since you still haven't

There are free tools to use at CCEL which stands for "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" or Monergism dot com.
I've already blown enough money on that kind of stuff from some of the aforementioned people.

Oh! I know: you can check out the Evidence Bible online, Living Waters put that one up (thanks, Ray!).

After reading his blog, no. I'll just use a plain KJV bible, which I already have.

But of course, that's assuming you'd like to learn.

I do; I've been to Theology Web, Christian Answer Net, Rapture Ready, Tektonics.org, William Lane Craig's site, etc.; June 8, 2009 at 10:42 PM
stranger.strange.land said...: ExPatMatt

The context is Psalms 14 & 15. They should be read together, as they contrast two different kinds of people.

The first (in Ps. 14) does not consider God's existence as a matter of human concern. This is the picture of all of fallen humanity. We are all "practical atheists" to some degree. Romans 3, where this psalm is quoted, brings that out more clearly.

The person in Psalm 15 "dwells with God." The Lord is acknowledged in all the affairs of his life. The characteristics describe how God's people ought to be. Notice the similarities in
Ephesians 4:25 and 2 Peter 1:5-10.

All you need to do is ask, Matt.; )

Craig; June 8, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

I'm sorry to hear you "were" a Christian. If you have a KJV, I'd suggest you read what I John says of those who leave the faith: they were never of it.

I take no pleasure in finding this information out, however, all kidding and jesting aside. I'm not sure of your testimony and what lead you away from the faith, but I'd be interested to hear.

As to the fossil record, I've been there, done that. I grew up being "spoon fed" what the humanists are pushing down our kids' throats for almost 2 decades. Fossil records have no universal agreement, and every museum or Discovery/Nova show I've seen pushes the same tired diatribe.

I am aware of the hoaxes on both sides, to be fair to your comment. Again: evidence that the records can't be trusted.

I don't truly disrespect paleontologists, but it's educated conjecture on their part. If there were conclusive "AHA!" evidence, one wouldn't have to search anywhere: it would be all over the news quicker than I could bat an eyelash.

All that to say, I am far more interested in why you left the faith.

Questions arise, which you don't have to answer of course, but I'll ask:

1) What denomination did you attend? I attend the PCA.

2) How did you first become a Christian?

3) Why did you leave?

As to the notion of evidence and what I said earlier: all evidence, Reynold, must be interpreted. There is no such thing as evidence that is objectively labeled and canned for us, there must be investigations made. Who does the investigation will guide the interpretation thereof. I would deny an objective interpretation: it's always subjective to a degree.

Fair enough?; June 8, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold

You said your were a Christian for about 2 decades. I am interested when and how did you come to know God, and when did you stop knowing God.; June 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

That kind of knowledge can be, and in many cases, is discovered independently of the bible. Therefore, the bible may not be any more "inspired" than those other works just quoted.

Or... could be ascertained from the same source?

Much like all the legends of a worldwide flood, these types of things do nothing but validate the Biblical record.; June 9, 2009 at 5:20 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Craig,

All I had to do was ask (and then ask a couple more time!)

Thanks for your response too, Brazen - I'd actually submitted my latest request before your answer popped up so I wasn't trying to be annoying or anything.

Who wrote the Psalms? I'm just wondering about the cultural context of them in this regard - any ideas?

Cheers,; June 9, 2009 at 7:30 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Ooops, scrap that - I see that Brazen already answered that.

So they're recordings of the songs from the time of David. Ok, I need to do some reading on who this David character was....

Oh, and the Earth doesn't hang at all, it falls. So, yeah, face value is probably the best way to take that verse...

Cheers,; June 9, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Have a look at the next "chapter", Job 38 where it's "God" speaking:

Reynold, I understand you put quotes around things that you sarcastically disrespect... I don't understand why they are around the word chapter. It's just childish.

Care to explain why he doesn't seem to know about tidal erosion? You know, where houses built too close to the sea get their foundations eventually worn away? Or even storms and hurricanes refute that statement about "here is where your proud waves halt".

Reynold, as we've discussed in the other post, God certainly has complete and total control over His creation. God seems to take pleasure in performing all sorts of signs and miracles, not to mention bringing about famines in times of judgment. He can use His creation to suit His purpose whenever He likes.

In Hebrews 9:27 it states that it is appointed for man to die once and then the judgment, yet Jesus must have missed the memo when He raised Lazarus after which the pharisees plotted to kill him. I'll assume they did and Lazarus died a second time.

These types of assertions are just immature and only demonstrate the true motives behind them. Jesus must have misunderstood Job 38 when He told the story of the wise man who built his house on a rock.; June 9, 2009 at 8:10 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

Are you using Logos, is that what you said?

I do - great software. Do you use it?; June 9, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

You keep spouting ignorance that is EASILY dealt with by the sites and sources I've given.

And the alleged discrepancies in Scripture you're touting?; June 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Reynold said...: I don't truly disrespect paleontologists, but it's educated conjecture on their part. If there were conclusive "AHA!" evidence, one wouldn't have to search anywhere: it would be all over the news quicker than I could bat an eyelash.

And you'd still deny it. There is no such thing as a silver bullet in science; it's the gradual accumulation of corroborating evidence. Boring, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I notice you said nothing about the problems the creationists have with categorizing hominid fossils.

As to the fossil record, I've been there, done that. I grew up being "spoon fed" what the humanists are pushing down our kids' throats for almost 2 decades. Fossil records have no universal agreement, and every museum or Discovery/Nova show I've seen pushes the same tired diatribe.

What exactly do you mean by "no universal agreement"? There is far more agreement about the fossil record I'd say, than there is among various denominations of Christianity and their interpretations of the bible.

If you want to dismiss, complain about, and ignore evidence, fine. Then I'm done.; June 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Reynold said...: Chris:
And the alleged discrepancies in Scripture you're touting?

Look at the sites I've given; it's why I've given them. For archeology there's The Bible Unearthed, The View from Nebo and Out of the Desert, the last written by some guy named Steibing.; June 9, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Chris said...: BathTub writes:

Daniel 4:10-11., the king saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds

I figured I'd grab the other two while I have some time.

This translation is far better than all the previous quotes but I'm still not sure where it's coming from. It's not the NIV, ESV, NLT, NKJV or KJV.

Really, this is Nebuchadnezzar's dreams/vision which sent him mad for 7 years. Who knows how the vision appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. This is, again, from an earthly perspective. It just doesn't add up the way BathTub wants it too and as I think we're all aware, places like the Skeptics Annotated Bible seem to completely disregard issues like this, as a result, demonstrating their true motive.

Matthew 4:8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

The argument here is that this couldn't have happened unless the Earth was flat.

Of course, anyone in Israel at the time could have gone to any high mountain and realized they couldn't see all the kingdoms of the world. No, I think anyone reading this objectively can note that this is a supernatural event.

That's far from comprehensive. That's just sample of the Domed immovable flat earth verses.

Yes, please, carry on - perhaps a few more searches can produce more? All I've done keep pointing to the same verses in the same order from the same terrible translation.

But feel free to say they are all metaphorical.

Didn't have to. This type of poor research is inexcusable, BathTub. There are ample free online Bible and original language helps that give more information in a few minutes of query than theologians of yesteryear could have done in a day. Anyone wanting to spew this type of bad pseudo-scholarship is deliberately being deceitful. If that's the case with a few, it's probably the case with much more and so they're just a waste of time.; June 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

The Bible Unearthed

A direct quote from the homepage of the site:

Who wrote the Pentateuch? In the 17th century some scholars began to question that all of the Pentateuch was written by Moses. How could Moses write about his own death (Deut. 34)? There were explanations of place names. Evidences were still visible "to this day." By the 19th century scholars doubted that Moses had any thing to do with the Pentateuch. It was seen as the work of later writers. There were two or three versions of the same story. For example, Genesis chapter one and two tell different creation stories. Scholars saw four major sources named J, E, D, and P. This theory was first articulated by Julius Wellhausen.

The documentary hypothesis? Sorry, no, it doesn't jive. Ezra probably compiled the Old Testament in it's current form post-Babylonian exile as indicated in Ezra 7:6; 7:11 and Nehemiah 8:1-8. I'm actually kind of surprised there's much scholarship still touting this as it's been widely discredited.

The View from Nebo

After reading the editorials and reviews on Amazon - I'm really not sure what this book is supposed to be about...

Out of the Desert

This is out of print and my initial search hasn't produced much, except a lot of skeptic sites singing it's praises :); June 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Regarding the book The Bible Unearthed

They take great liberties with their assertions like:

By the 19th century scholars doubted that Moses had any thing to do with the Pentateuch.

This is very much exaggerated. The only scholars that took any of the documentary hypothesis seriously were very liberal ones. How convenient for Julius Wellhausen to come at this some 3000 years removed...

For example, Genesis chapter one and two tell different creation stories.

This is more fabrication. No serious scholars buy into this nonsense. Part of my dismissal of the Skeptics Annotated Bible is the fact that you can't get past Genesis 1:1 without this being thrown at you. They don't tell two different creation stories - one is the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth as noted in 2:4 and the other is the creation of man and his fall as noted in 5:1. If there is any question about the animals in chapter 2, Hebrew verb tense nails it shut.; June 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Re: classifying hominids: I admit it, I'd rather spray the weeds in my "lawn," because the HOA has my number! Seriously, I don't discount evidence as you allege, but when you say things like "there is far much more agreement on the fossil record...than the numbers of Christian denom's about the Bible," this doesn't amount to a hill of lentils!

Why? Because by counting noses, you can elect officials to office, but you can't determine truth. The believers of Christianity have always been in the minority in any given age, so if you mean to say that there are fewer Christian paleontologists than atheist ones: OK, fine. If you mean to argue "more of us, less of you means we win the game of truth," then dear Reynold: no dice.

Counting noses doesn't determine truth. If it did, we'd be comfy with Nazi Germany or terrorist Islam in countries and times where these were/are in favor due to sheer numbers.

And I've said before: I'm not a scientist. I am, as you called me, an armchair paleontologist, I can only go by what I hear the experts in their field say.

On the notion of fossils: I listen to Ken Ham, listen to news articles through NPR or other news sources (you know: NPR? The "UNBIASED" news source on my tax dollar?). I can't get a PhD in every field of inquiry, so like you, I gather the news as best I can and sift through it.

And yes: I gather from both sides, knowing both have their bias.

(BOTH SIDES HAVE BIAS--yes I said that: who doesn't have a bias??)

I'm still interested in your personal story. I promise not to be a jerk about it, though I have been from time to time here.

A'ight: weeds to kill.; June 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

(BOTH SIDES HAVE BIAS--yes I said that: who doesn't have a bias??)

I have a bias for the truth ;)

I also have a disdain for lies...

Psalm 119:128 Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way.

Good luck with the weeds...; June 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Chris:

"I have a bias for the truth."

Me, too, and that's what I meant by "both sides have a bias." In the case for the witch-hunt for a fossil trail proving evolution, both sides have bias in interpreting the evidence.

What Reynold and others would like to believe is that the evidence trail is unfettered by the bias of the paleontologist.

No matter which team he/she bats for, the scientist in question is human and is either a believer in Christ (biased for the Truth) or not (biased against God).

That's all I meant, but you and I are agreed: all truth is God's truth and points directly to Him.; June 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

BH: I don't truly disrespect paleontologists, but it's educated conjecture on their part. If there were conclusive "AHA!" evidence, one wouldn't have to search anywhere: it would be all over the news quicker than I could bat an eyelash.

R: And you'd still deny it.

Ouch. No, Reynold, I wouldn't deny a fossil's existence, but yes, I would deny it was rightly interpreted.

Why? On the basis of my worldview.

The empiricist thinks we see with the eyes.

This is untrue when it comes to epistemology (arriving at truth).

We don't see "with the eyes."

We see "THROUGH" the eyes, but "WITH" our worldview, at least when it comes to interpreting data.

Case in point:

Two guys working at a construction site. Joe sees a very immodestly-dressed female, and turns his head, thinking of his wife and trying to forget what he just saw. Perhaps he prays if he's tempted to lust for her.

Bob, on the other hand, sees the female and catcalls, nudging Joe...except Joe's walking away??

The difference wasn't the "evidence," the difference was the worldview, or convictions.

In the case of a fossil record, since the time of Darwin, atheists have been clamoring for a gander at the lost missing link record. Darwin said there'd be so many fossils in the geological strata "we'd practically be tripping on them." That hasn't described the case, but scientists still search.

The point of the story is that the Darwinist has yet to prove his case from the record, and truly isn't looking for mere "evidence," he's looking for an "excuse" in the shape of a skeleton.

It boils down to trust. You choose to trust the atheist "experts" in the field of fossils. I choose to trust the One who made the creatures who fossilized in the first place. I trust His proven record: the Bible.

You've turned away from it, despite reams of cumulative evidence.

I've written a post about this subject at hcenthusiasts.blogspot.com-and the title should give it away. Check it out and tell me your thoughts if you'd like. It will be a two-parter, I think you may like the second part better.

(Sorry Trish! That was a shameless plug for AJ's "The Holy Club" site. Hope you don't mind!); June 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt:

So they're recordings of the songs from the time of David. Ok, I need to do some reading on who this David character was....

Biblically, David wrote the first 72 or so Psalms. He was the second (actually, the third: counting God as the first) king over Israel in history. He was the first that God chose independently of Israel's election: they chose Saul.

You first read of him in 1 Samuel 16 in the OT, continuing with other information in 1 Chronicles. He became a pre-figure of Christ, and the Jewish Messiah (Greek: Christ) was prophesied to come as a King ruling over God's people seated on David's throne.

God promised in 2 Samuel 7:16 that David's throne would be "established forever."

He's an important fella in the Bible's meta-narrative. Of interesting note, the placard above Jesus' cross (mockingly from Pontius Pilate's viewpoint and prophetically from God's viewpoint) read, "Jesus, the King of the Jews."; June 9, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Reynold said...: My last comment on this: Someone said that the theory of evolution was predicated on the idea that "God" does not exist.

Wrong. Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. Or the Talk Origins's God and Evolution FAQ.

To talk about "bias"? The first paleontologists were creationists, until the mounting evidence forced them to change their minds. Again, read the above book.

As for the books I've mentioned, it's obvious no one is really interested in reading them, as I've seen nothing but a personal opinion or two on whether they were right. (the two stories of Genesis thing) Doesn't bother me either way since even according to science which apologists like William Lane Craig accepts (ie. the big bang theory), the order of events in genesis 1 is all wrong anyway.

One apologetic site Evidence for God, Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?
by Rich Deem which tries to explain away the problem by saying, among other things:

In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.

In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. by saying that Genesis 2 refers to the garden of eden.

Winds up making more problems for themselves which should be obvious to see ("global flood" etc)

By the way, my putting quotes around such words as "God" and such is an indicator that I don't believe, not of disrespect.; June 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Brazen,

Thanks!

So, David was the (Earthly) King of the Jews, appointed by God to his position so he could establish and maintain a throne that would eventually be re-taken by Christ?

Important indeed!

Is that pretty much the synopsis of David?

Thanks again,; June 10, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

That's all I meant, but you and I are agreed

I never presumed otherwise, just thought Psalm 119:128 (and 104) made great commentary. :)

Blessings!; June 10, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

As for the books I've mentioned, it's obvious no one is really interested in reading them, as I've seen nothing but a personal opinion or two on whether they were right. (the two stories of Genesis thing)

Yes, those would be mine, however they really aren't personal opinion. Anyone can look up what I've stated. It is what it is.

Reynold, as I've said, I'm not going to waste my time reading books (or websites) that from the very outset can't get the first sentence (or first annotation of Scripture, for that matter) correct - ESPECIALLY when those allegations have been discussed ad nauseum and consistently proven false. I've got stacks upon stacks of books written by worthwhile Scholars, students, and just plain Bible aficionado's (believer's and non-believer's alike) that I not only thoroughly enjoy but utilize on a consistent basis. So when I say I don't want to waste my time with things that can't get the first statements right, it's for good reason.

The documentary hypothesis is nothing but a deliberate attack, not on just the first 5 books of the Bible, but the Bible as a whole as it's implications go much farther than the authorship of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, regardless of what they claim.

No, nonsense like this gets discredited from the outset by the Bible itself and for good reason. It's arguments just don't hold any weight and do nothing but discombobulate what was already plain and clear.

Doesn't bother me either way since even according to science which apologists like William Lane Craig accepts (ie. the big bang theory), the order of events in genesis 1 is all wrong anyway.

William Lane Craig can accept whatever he wants. What, because he accepted it any Christian should follow suit? Are Christians supposed to accept him as infallible? Unfortunately, once a Christian starts dismissing Genesis 1:1-2:3 you've now greatly undermined the Sabbath; one of the first idioms put forth in Scripture and utilized throughout. You've also started to chip away at God's power and applied His control and attributes to something else (usually nature, just like Romans 1 describes). Further yet, you've probably introduced death into the world before the Bible does which does 2 things: 1, it calls God a liar {Romans 3:4; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18} and 2, it removes the necessity of Genesis 3 as a whole but most importantly Genesis 3:15 which is the protoevangellion or the first Gospel. It is the first straight forward prediction of Jesus the Messiah and since Adam sinned it also predicts, through a play on words, the need for a virgin birth.; June 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Chris said...: -cont-

Reynold -

One apologetic site Evidence for God, Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?
by Rich Deem which tries to explain away the problem by saying, among other things:

In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.

In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. by saying that Genesis 2 refers to the garden of eden.

Really, the problem isn't even with 'erets' which I've already discussed in these comments while taking care of BathTub's ignorant and lifted remarks. The problem only exists in earlier English translations that didn't quite get Hebrew verb tense correct. Genesis 2:5-25 isn't focusing on the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth, it's on the creation of man. The beef with the mix up only stems from 2:19. It should be a question of 'Did God form the animals right then and there, or are these the animals He already formed? And if He formed the animals right then and there, certainly He's capable of doing so in addition to what had already been done...' It's NOT an issue of whether we're talking global or local - it just doesn't matter since the focus is on Adam.

Bring me one ancient rabbinic source who ever had questions regarding the order of events between Genesis 1 and 2. You won't find them because they aren't there.

Winds up making more problems for themselves which should be obvious to see ("global flood" etc)

Solution: Global flood. If there were any question about how 'eretz (H0776) should be translated, the answer lies simply in the context.

By the way, my putting quotes around such words as "God" and such is an indicator that I don't believe, not of disrespect.

So you don't believe in the chapter divisions either? Let me tell you, it's disrespectful.; June 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Question:

If you were a king and your claim to the throne was, at least, backed up by divine mandate, would it be to your benefit or detriment to marginalize the people who did not believe in the said giver of divine mandate?

Thanks,; June 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Chris said...: ExPatMatt -

If you were a king and your claim to the throne was, at least, backed up by divine mandate, would it be to your benefit or detriment to marginalize the people who did not believe in the said giver of divine mandate?

Nice try. David marginalizes the entire human race in the same Psalm, including himself, first off by identifying everyone as being just as corrupt as those who deny the Creator.

Psalm 14:1-3
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,

there is none who does good.

The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,

to see if there are any who understand,

who seek after God.

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;

there is none who does good,

not even one.; June 10, 2009 at 4:19 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Chris,

So everyone is a fool then? It seems like he singles out those who don't believe for that one in particular.

I understand the 'everyone's a sinner/wicked' bit, that's fairly common Christian theology, but the whole 'fool has said in his heart...' line is, as far as I've seen, one of the most quoted lines of Scripture on these kinds of blogs and it just doesn't seem to carry the weight that it pretends to when seen in this light.

I hadn't ever know the context for it before.

If it's just the recorded prayer/worship song of David's day, like many of the Psalms, then I fail to see how Christians can fling the term around so comfortably, as if it was from the mouth God Himself.

I'm not out to try anything, and I hope you can see where my confusion is stemming from.

If you could enlighten me further on this issue, I'd appreciate it as I still think that specifying that unbelievers are 'fools' is useful way to maintain the status quo in a theocracy.

Regards,; June 10, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt:

The Proverbs and Prophets bring up this line as well, and in the NT a reference is made to another similar Scripture "There is no fear of God in their eyes."

The Bible's use of the word "fool" isn't "stupid person," it's in contrast rather to one without "wisdom" vs. lack of IQ.

One of the facets of reading the Bible is to know that God uses pretty hard language when compared to our politically correct manner of speaking in modernity. Long before there were such things as gentlemen, the prophets came and bombasted God's people, mincing no words. Almost to a man they lost their lives for it (see Hebrews 11).

If it makes you wince, it is the point: to offend your pride, for elsewhere in numerous passages we are told that "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble."

During OT times, especially under the prophets and here under the Psalmist, the language was meant to sting the conscience a little.

I'd ask that you see the end goal: not to drive you away, but rather to get your attention and hopefully humble you, for your ultimate benefit. The goal is repentance and trusting that you don't want to be a fool. The goal is NOT insulting you for insult's sake.

As to the Psalms and all the Bible, really:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16, in the NT, near the back.

The Psalms are good for doctrine, but even if they weren't, the idea of rejecting God is a result of lacking the wisdom He provides.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. James 1:5-8, NT, near the back, just before Peter's Epistles.; June 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Chris said...: ExPatMatt -

I understand the 'everyone's a sinner/wicked' bit, that's fairly common Christian theology

Christian Doctrine. Theology is the study of the attributes of God. I know I tend to nitpick, but there really is a difference. :)

but the whole 'fool has said in his heart...' line is, as far as I've seen, one of the most quoted lines of Scripture on these kinds of blogs and it just doesn't seem to carry the weight that it pretends to when seen in this light.

Actually, ExPatMatt, it does. Remember our discussion regarding Romans 1? Through natural revelation, God has shown Himself to you. If you have rejected that, you have done so deliberately.

If it's just the recorded prayer/worship song of David's day, like many of the Psalms, then I fail to see how Christians can fling the term around so comfortably, as if it was from the mouth God Himself.

If that were the case, then you'd be correct, but ALL Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) and written for our learning (2 Peter 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 15:4-5)

If you could enlighten me further on this issue, I'd appreciate it as I still think that specifying that unbelievers are 'fools' is useful way to maintain the status quo in a theocracy.

If that's what it was (a useful way to maintain the status quo), it failed miserably.

The Old Testament is a dismal tale of Israel constantly rejecting her God whom had personally founded them as a nation, took care of them as a nation, amidst nations who (not unlike today, mind you) sought nothing more than their demise.

You can, in a sense, parallel the history of Israel as told in Scripture with the life of man. The cycle of sin and chasing after their own lusts of the flesh is not unlike the world at large today. In the end, however, the remnant of Israel will indeed be the nation of nations she was intended to be; she has an ultimate destiny. The question is, how will you finish?

God will not hide Himself from those who seek Him. If you too would soften your heart, He will help you soften it further.; June 11, 2009 at 6:06 AM
Javier said...: That's far from comprehensive. That's just sample of the Domed immovable flat earth verses. But feel free to say they are all metaphorical.

Right...so are we to suppose as well that you are a literal bath tub? Or, perhaps your using language devices which can be detected in your writing that readers would understand? Of course you'd extend that courtesy to 21st century bloggers because we'd understand what you are saying, can you do the same to the Biblical writers and allow them to speak to their primary audience, one that wouldn't necessarily use the same language devices we do? Unless of course you want to be consistent my Tubby friend. Are you a soaking bath tub? Roman? Greek? Maybe just a freestanding tub?; June 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Javier said...: If you could enlighten me further on this issue, I'd appreciate it as I still think that specifying that unbelievers are 'fools' is useful way to maintain the status quo in a theocracy.

How is that relevant to the Psalm? Also, consider the usage its used in more places than one in the Psalms, and Paul quotes it in regards to unbelievers (when Israel was not a theocracy). This is in regards to unbelievers.; June 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Thanks guys, I'm always learning and I appreciate your patience with my lack of Biblical knowledge.

Brazen,

Being called a 'fool' by the Bible (or by Christians wielding the Bible) doesn't make me 'wince' in the least, certainly no more than the Koran telling Muslims to kill the infidel makes me wince! That's what your book tells you about me, that's fair enough and in the terms that the Bible lays out (fool = ignorant of God; wisdom = knowledge of God) I most certainly am a fool.

But then, I don't credit the Scripture with the Authority that you do, so it's just words to me.

Of greater concern was some Christians flinging that quote around like a wet towel and me not knowing what the context was... now I do!

Chris,

Theology does not = doctrine. Gotcha!

"Through natural revelation, God has shown Himself to you. If you have rejected that, you have done so deliberately".

I honestly don't look at the universe and see the God of the Bible. I really don't. If I am 'deliberately rejecting' that knowledge then it is very sub-conscious. I just don't see it the way you do, apparently.

God-breathed Scripture. Yeah, I thought that might come up. What I meant was; there are parts of the Bible where God spaketh to folk and dictated commandments, covenants and the like. This particular quote is a song lyric and while I understand that ALL of the Bible has to be considered as God's Word, this just seems a bit second tier, if you know what I mean.

It's strange how much the early Hebrews rejected God, eh? And many of them must have been privy to some pretty spectacular miracles too. If I saw the seas part or sun stand still or the rivers turn to blood int he name of God, I'd find that pretty convincing.

Javier,

How do you determine what is a rhetorical device and what is literal within Scripture?

Thanks again guys!; June 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ ExPatMatt:

It's strange how much the early Hebrews rejected God, eh? And many of them must have been privy to some pretty spectacular miracles too. If I saw the seas part or sun stand still or the rivers turn to blood int he name of God, I'd find that pretty convincing

Alack! In this pithy statement, friend, you beat me to my punchline in my "Evidence isn't the Problem"--this is essentially the point I keep running across in family Bible reading. It's all over: the Jews and people of the various nations saw God act in real time, and yet many still rejected Him, even the Jews.

Also, regarding the "fool" issue: it's a universal indictment, against God's own people as much as against the unbelievers.

For, when we Christians or Jews sin against Him, we are living like fools who say there is no God.

It's used that way in certain contexts.

For further reflection, the prophets and apostles also launched various indictments against God's people, using pretty severe language and judgments.

The point being that we have *all gone astray*, not just "you" vs. "us."

Just a thought.; June 11, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Javier said...: Javier,

How do you determine what is a rhetorical device and what is literal within Scripture?

One way would be internal evidence, if I'm writing Psalms of worship in praise and adoration and singing of God riding the clouds of a storm, or having the strength of an ox and then I read passages in Deuteronomy where God is said not to be anything like his creation. As a Jew, I'd believe these two accounts and understand them in *different* senses, I find it interesting that atheists become Biblical fundamentalists when it comes to interpretation, but historically this interpretive style is not the Biblical model. We interpret books the way they are to be interpreted.; June 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Javier said...: ExPattMatt,
I have to say you're one of the more cordial atheists I've met on here. Thanks for that. :); June 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Javier and ExPatMatt:

True, that. ExPatMatt seems to at least have a gentleman's style. And ExPatMatt: when I have a moment's time I will take you up on the offer to peruse your blog, just been busy like an ant at a picnic.; June 12, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: "I trust His proven record: the Bible."

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry.; June 13, 2009 at 7:49 AM
Reynold said...: Ok, so that wasn't my last post, but when people keep going on after I said I'm done...anyway.

Chris:

Reynold, as I've said, I'm not going to waste my time reading books (or websites) that from the very outset can't get the first sentence (or first annotation of Scripture, for that matter) correct - ESPECIALLY when those allegations have been discussed ad nauseum and consistently proven false.

Guess what? That's why I don't go for the bible. It doesn't even get the first details of the formation of the universe right, and has been discussed ad nauseum and consistently been proven false.

So you don't believe in the chapter divisions either? Let me tell you, it's disrespectful.

Let me tell you, unless you're a telepath, you have no right to even guess what I'm thinking. I put quotes around genesis because it's supposed to be a seperate "book" in the bible. That's true from what I know, but for the purposes of critiquing, I regard it as just a chapter in one book.

Unfortunately, once a Christian starts dismissing Genesis 1:1-2:3 you've now greatly undermined the Sabbath; one of the first idioms put forth in Scripture and utilized throughout. You've also started to chip away at God's power and applied His control and attributes to something else (usually nature, just like Romans 1 describes)

Yes, I know: that's why you people hold on to it so strongly and fight like crazy against any potential evidence that may upset that view. (ex. you and fossil evidence for one thing).

Isn't the kind of arguments that geocentrists used to make?

Chris:
The documentary hypothesis is nothing but a deliberate attack, not on just the first 5 books of the Bible, but the Bible as a whole as it's implications go much farther than the authorship of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, regardless of what they claim.

Evidence for that conspiracy claim of yours? It seems that if one googles "bible" "documentary hypothesis" that it seems to be dismissed by only Christian theists, as opposed to only being embraced by only the very "liberal" people.

I don't care much for Wikipedia but it does have something interesting to say (as well as providing more sources for reference):
Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Theological Responses section for Judaism:
The claim that the Torah—"the Five Books of Moses"—were not written by Moses, but by many authors long after Moses was said to have lived, directly challenged Jewish orthodoxy. For most, this claim implies that the Torah itself—especially its account of God's revelation at Mt. Sinai—is not historically reliable. Although many Orthodox scholars have rejected this "Higher Criticism", most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it. Consequently, there has been considerable debate among Jewish scholars as to the nature of revelation and the divine nature of the Torah. Conservative Jewish philosopher Elliot Dorff has categorized five distinct major Jewish positions in these debates within Conservative Judaism in the 20th century:[26]; June 13, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ oneinsixbillion:

I'd suggest reading, a tertium quid. I know, you said, "I don't know whether to laugh or cry," but I think it's a false dichotomy: you should read it (the Bible).

Or ignore it and face the God you've been mocking, and I can see your face now as He returns. Don't worry, though, I won't laugh at you then. But it will be a "told you so" moment nonetheless.

Before you discount the Scriptures because you've read the mocking atheists, read it yourself.

@ Reynold:

Thanks for your dialogue. In responding to Chris's assertion he wouldn't look at non-Christian source material, you said:

That's why I don't go for the bible. It doesn't even get the first details of the formation of the universe right...

Oh? The first details of the formation of the universe are now scientific ipso-facto "knowledge"? How odd, I thought it was mere hypothesis? Is there a difference between a "creed" and a "hypothesis" these days?

If not, then you stake your soul on a creed. If so, then your religion of atheism is admitted. If so, what is the goal of your religion: Is it to "rescue" Christians and other theists, so they too can believe they'll become nothing but nihilistic worm-food and soil nutrients? You can keep such religion to yourself: I already know about decomposition. I want nothing of your nihilism.

You hang your future on one set of theories:

1) No God
2) No Meta-narrative
3) No ultimate purpose

Mind you, I'm guessing at #2 and #3, but if your meta-narrative is simply "I survive/contribute to society", that's paltry stuff. #3 is based on extrapolating from your materialism: coming from accidents, living the life, becoming fertilizer. Hence: whoa, no purpose.

Re: the "document" theory: showing that orthodox Jews, who aren't Messianic, and have denied thereby the whole POINT of their religion, believe the false claims of the JDEP etc. theory, is like saying:

I am an atheist. The Bible was made by man. There is no God.

It doesn't prove your case one whit. It boils down to a counting of noses for you, which is no sure way to arrive at truth.

If you count a billion wrong noses, and only a million right ones, the objective truth that is denied by the billion doesn't disprove the truth of the million.

Throughout history, there have been a faithful "remnant." It's sad that you have chosen not to be amongst them. I pray you come to Christ in repentance and faith.; June 13, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Chris said...: Reynold:

Ok, so that wasn't my last post, but when people keep going on after I said I'm done...anyway.

Reynold, I’ll stop responding when you stop contributing false information.

Guess what? That's why I don't go for the bible. It doesn't even get the first details of the formation of the universe right, and has been discussed ad nauseum and consistently been proven false.

Really? Do tell. Were you there at the formation of the universe? So far, everything you’ve given me to demonstrate its fallibility has been found wanting.

Let me tell you, unless you're a telepath, you have no right to even guess what I'm thinking. I put quotes around genesis because it's supposed to be a seperate "book" in the bible. That's true from what I know, but for the purposes of critiquing, I regard it as just a chapter in one book.

Reynold, Genesis is also the name of the book which you seem to refuse to capitalize the first letter of. I don’t believe you’re that ignorant of grammatical basics. But maybe you aren’t intentionally being disrespectful, if that is so, I apologize. I’m telling you it is disrespectful. It’s the least you can do out of respect of those participating here on a Christian blog. Basic mannerisms, don’t you think?

Yes, I know: that's why you people hold on to it so strongly and fight like crazy against any potential evidence that may upset that view. (ex. you and fossil evidence for one thing).

It demonstrates that the Bible is an integrated, packaged, whole. And why do you people insist on attacking it so fervently? Some ‘book’... I will continue to ‘fight like crazy’ against those who deliberately pass off lies against it as truth. Something you seem so keen on doing.; June 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Chris said...: -cont-

Evidence for that conspiracy claim of yours?

Let's see, why would anyone care otherwise if it wasn't such a big deal? Again, easy to attack 3500 year old documents, being 3500 years removed from the time/culture/language, etc. But as for:

It seems that if one googles "bible" "documentary hypothesis" that it seems to be dismissed by only Christian theists, as opposed to only being embraced by only the very "liberal" people.

Or, in other words, those schooled in Biblical studies? I rest my case.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia serves it's purpose well enough. I don't knock it.

I asked for any ancient rabbinic sources prior to Wellhausen. Anything that gives any indication that Wellhausen and his ilk weren't just making things up. You won't find them because they aren't there.

My point is that tradition has stood firm in it's assertion of Mosaic authorship and for good reason. Aside from the fact that no one ever had a problem with this until the 1700s (give or take a bit), the idea fails miserably once you start doing any basic Biblical studies - meaning really digging into the text - what it says, what it means and why it would be the way that it is. This is why it's so widely discarded among conservative scholars (those who actually read and study the text, with more than just some cursory superficial glance).

It gets more ridiculous to presume that those trying to assert this view as correct have some incredible ability to figure out when and where certain authors stop and begin. The numerous authors would have had to be able to maintain incredible accuracy, progressive revelation techniques, development of shadows, types, models and idioms laid forth by other authors even though they had no idea what prior authors were thinking when those foundations were laid and so many of those idioms wouldn't be fully revealed until 1500 years later when Jesus Christ came and explained them. The study of literary devices or figures of speech alongside Scripture bring the documentary hypothesis on it's knees as well as any of those who insist on passing it off as fact. It just doesn't work.

One of the most ridiculous points of the documentary hypothesis is based on the issue throughout the Torah that items are noted as existing here 'to this day' and names are clarified with new names, and so forth. All this does is ignore facts that 1 - the Bible discusses it's own compilation, 2 - old names (proving old writings) are having to be clarified later on for those removed hundreds of years after it's authorship. It demonstrates that the documents remain unchanged while the audience hasn't.; June 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Chris said...: -cont-

But if the hypothesis were correct, apparently Joshua didn't get the memo.

Joshua 1:7-8 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

Neither did the author of 1 Kings 2:3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn, And the writer of 2 Kings 14:6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the Lord commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.” or the Chonicler in 2 Chronicles 25:4. Ezra missed it in Ezra 7:6 and Nehemiah 13:1. Numerous Psalmists missed the memo, as did Isaiah, Daniel and Malachi.

What's worse, Jesus missed the memo as he constantly quoted from the Torah and attributed all the quotes from various portions to 1 man, namely, Moses. Paul, Luke, the author of Hebrews and John all seemed to miss it as well.

Gee, if the hypothesis were correct, which writing came first? Again, it's dismissed by Christian scholars cause they study it. The documentary hypothesis doesn't work. Anyone trying to pass it off hasn't done their homework or has an agenda to attack the Scriptures and are therefore untrustworthy.; June 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Can you, pretty please with a sundae on top, tell us what lead you from the faith?

What was the "clincher" moment?

What denomination, if you don't mind?

How did you first become a Christian?

Curious, friend: it's killing me not to know...I really am interested. Care to share?

If not: fine, we can still chat. Your dialectic is interesting.; June 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Reynold said...: Oh? The first details of the formation of the universe are now scientific ipso-facto "knowledge"? How odd, I thought it was mere hypothesis? Is there a difference between a "creed" and a "hypothesis" these days?

One has observable corroborative evidence backing it up, one does not. If you want more info, you can go to the Bad Astronomer site and look up Big Bang there.

You could also read pretty much any geology text and find out the basic age of the earth, or the Talk Origins website.

One thing about the science behind this: the conclusions are corroborated by observations of the actual physical world around us, and over 150 years has only strengthened that position.

Re: the "document" theory: showing that orthodox Jews, who aren't Messianic, and have denied thereby the whole POINT of their religion, believe the false claims of the JDEP etc. theory, is like saying:

I am an atheist. The Bible was made by man. There is no God.

It doesn't prove your case one whit. It boils down to a counting of noses for you, which is no sure way to arrive at truth.

No, it amounts to the actual scholars of the Jewish faith looking at it and analyzing it based on what the knowledge of their own religion is.; June 14, 2009 at 7:20 AM
Reynold said...: Reynold, I’ll stop responding when you stop contributing false information.

Well now you know why atheists are always hanging around Christian blogs then, don't you?

Guess what? That's why I don't go for the bible. It doesn't even get the first details of the formation of the universe right, and has been discussed ad nauseum and consistently been proven false.

Really? Do tell. Were you there at the formation of the universe? So far, everything you’ve given me to demonstrate its fallibility has been found wanting.

Oh please, give us the proof that you have against the "big bang" theory, the geological consensus of the age of the earth, etc.

Do you have any idea how stupid that "were you there" idea of Ken Ham's is?

Imagine this: a forensics expert is done testifying, having gone through DNA, blood samples, bullet impact points, and all that stuff. The defense attorney stands up and asks him: "how do YOU know, where you there"? and then he sits down, expecting the jury to just disregard all the evidence the guy gave.

Get the point?

It demonstrates that the Bible is an integrated, packaged, whole. And why do you people insist on attacking it so fervently? Some ‘book’... I will continue to ‘fight like crazy’ against those who deliberately pass off lies against it as truth. Something you seem so keen on doing.

Back up your charge now. I may be mistaken, but you've just gone and said that I am doing so on purpose. prove your charge or shut up and apologize.

Evidence for that conspiracy claim of yours?

Let's see, why would anyone care otherwise if it wasn't such a big deal?

You DO realize that the bible is not the only "holy book" that atheists argue against, right? It's just that your religion is the prevalent one here.; June 14, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Reynold said...: Again, easy to attack 3500 year old documents, being 3500 years removed from the time/culture/language, etc.

That's why I try to rely on Jewish sites and books dealing with archeology.

But as for:
It seems that if one googles "bible" "documentary hypothesis" that it seems to be dismissed by only Christian theists, as opposed to only being embraced by only the very "liberal" people.

Or, in other words, those schooled in Biblical studies? I rest my case.

Uh, Hello? Did you read this? The Theological Responses section for Judaism:
The claim that the Torah—"the Five Books of Moses"—were not written by Moses, but by many authors long after Moses was said to have lived, directly challenged Jewish orthodoxy. For most, this claim implies that the Torah itself—especially its account of God's revelation at Mt. Sinai—is not historically reliable. Although many Orthodox scholars have rejected this "Higher Criticism", most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it.

Get that? "most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it".

I asked for any ancient rabbinic sources prior to Wellhausen. Anything that gives any indication that Wellhausen and his ilk weren't just making things up. You won't find them because they aren't there.

So? It seems that many Jewish scholars now do accept it. Could it be that they've decided to examine their writings more instead of just blindly taking them at face value?

As to all those verse that you've bolded, so what? All that shows is that they believed that the authours were who they claimed to be. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were right about the authours.

***

This whole "documentary problem" is just a distraction that you threw up in the first place...you used ONE idea that you figure is wrong to dismiss an entire book. Unless that book claims that it's "inerrant" (all or nothing), that doesn't really help your case.

If you have a problem with a book, the onus is on YOU to do a more thorough examination of it than just saying: I've found one thing wrong, therefore this entire book is wrong.; June 14, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Reynold said...: Again, easy to attack 3500 year old documents, being 3500 years removed from the time/culture/language, etc.

That's why I try to rely on Jewish sites and books dealing with archeology.

But as for:
It seems that if one googles "bible" "documentary hypothesis" that it seems to be dismissed by only Christian theists, as opposed to only being embraced by only the very "liberal" people.

Or, in other words, those schooled in Biblical studies? I rest my case.

Uh, Hello? Did you read this? The Theological Responses section for Judaism:
The claim that the Torah—"the Five Books of Moses"—were not written by Moses, but by many authors long after Moses was said to have lived, directly challenged Jewish orthodoxy. For most, this claim implies that the Torah itself—especially its account of God's revelation at Mt. Sinai—is not historically reliable. Although many Orthodox scholars have rejected this "Higher Criticism", most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it.

Get that? "most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it".

I asked for any ancient rabbinic sources prior to Wellhausen. Anything that gives any indication that Wellhausen and his ilk weren't just making things up. You won't find them because they aren't there.

So? It seems that many Jewish scholars now do accept it. Could it be that they've decided to examine their writings more instead of just blindly taking them at face value?

As to all those verse that you've bolded, so what? All that shows is that they believed that the authours were who they claimed to be. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were right about the authours.

***

This whole "documentary problem" is just a distraction that you threw up in the first place...you used ONE idea that you figure is wrong to dismiss an entire book. Unless that book claims that it's "inerrant" (all or nothing), that doesn't really help your case.

If you have a problem with a book, the onus is on YOU to do a more thorough examination of it than just saying: I've found one thing wrong, therefore this entire book is wrong.; June 14, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Do you have any idea how stupid that "were you there" idea of Ken Ham's is?

I don't believe the idea is Ken Ham's, but perhaps he's borrowing from God? It's Job 38-41, to which Job responds in Job 42:

2 “I know that you can do all things,

and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’

Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,

things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;

I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,

but now my eye sees you;

6 therefore I despise myself,

and repent in dust and ashes.”

Back up your charge now. I may be mistaken, but you've just gone and said that I am doing so on purpose. prove your charge or shut up and apologize.

Reynold, if I'm mistaken (as I certainly can be!) then I do indeed apologize. What conclusions do you want me to come to when you continue to offer sources for the documentary hypothesis that come up showing a very poor grasp of Scripture as a whole. If someone is going to critique Scripture, perhaps they should become decently versed in it first?

But those who do assert this type of nonsense demonstrate their ignorance in the subject at hand. The flow of logic shows there's a deliberate intention behind it.

Uh, Hello? Did you read this? ... Get that? "most Conservative and virtually all Reform Jewish scholars have accepted it".

Yes I did and it's a case of a blanket statement being made. In fact, I'd argue 'conservative' scholars are no longer conservative when they start buying into this. As I've said, they now have to question just about everything else in Scripture and the only way around that is to start allegorizing everything. Does this make sense?

This whole "documentary problem" is just a distraction that you threw up in the first place...you used ONE idea that you figure is wrong to dismiss an entire book. Unless that book claims that it's "inerrant" (all or nothing), that doesn't really help your case.

Reynold, It's not a distraction. As I've stated repeatedly, I won't waste my time on items purporting allegations that I've already researched enough to come to a final conclusion on. YOU pointed me there, to which I looked and was able to make a conclusion on based on what I already know. Further, I'll stress to anyone else reading these comments, it's a waste of time. I've gone through a great deal here in this very thread to demonstrate WHY that is.

Reynold, if the documentary hypothesis weren't so childish and silly then I could look further. But it is - anyone who studies the text of the Bible with any seriousness will realize it just doesn't work. It requires quite a bit of rationalizing to buy into because the work of the Torah (and all of Scripture for that matter) is too well an integrated whole. I don't expect someone who doesn't study the Bible to understand that, but those who do know precisely what I'm talking about.; June 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: The Big Bang
(From the University of Michigan web site)

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

This does not hold much water in explaining how the universe was created. I mean come on a big explosion, scientists don't no where it came from or what caused it. But it most definitely created everything.
It takes more faith to believe that than there is a creator who made everything including time and space itself.; June 14, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Chris:

Amen...and amen...and amen again. Your RBI is 1.000...I think that's what I mean....in any event, I'm not good at sports, I'm just trying to say your argumentation is pretty astonishingly well-supported. Well done!

@ Heath:

Ditto, and amen. The Big Bang, or any speculation on our universe's origins, are merely that: speculation.

The "evidence" that Reynold and others keep alluding to re: age of the earth is supported by conjecture, or at least hypotheses, that are founded on naturalistic premises which simply can't account for the myriad of transcendentals in our universe.

Real things, like the love of parents for their children, the thoughts and logic with which we are endued, the physical laws of this universe.

The fact that these laws even exist in the first place should be reason enough to realize: this is no result of tremendous explosions.

That, as you've said Heath, takes great faith.; June 14, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Fish With Trish said...: James, Heath and Chris, thanks for defending the faith on here. You guys are a blessing.; June 14, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Reynold said...: Chris:

Do you have any idea how stupid that "were you there" idea of Ken Ham's is?

I don't believe the idea is Ken Ham's, but perhaps he's borrowing from God? It's Job 38-41, to which Job responds in Job 42:

I notice that you don't even try to justify it's usage: Remember the forensics expert analogy I mentioned earlier?

Reynold, if the documentary hypothesis weren't so childish and silly then I could look further. But it is - anyone who studies the text of the Bible with any seriousness will realize it just doesn't work. It requires quite a bit of rationalizing to buy into because the work of the Torah (and all of Scripture for that matter) is too well an integrated whole. I don't expect someone who doesn't study the Bible to understand that, but those who do know precisely what I'm talking about.

If you're going to dismiss all three books because one book that I gave used an idea that you disagree with, so be it.

So the fact that the end of Deuteronomy contains an account of Moses's own death doesn't faze you? It's obvious that at the very least someone else had to write that part; yet according to fundamentalists, it's supposed to be "Moses" that wrote the Pentatauch. By the way, Moses was not himself an "eyewitness" to creation, so why take his word for it? He wasn't there, was he?

When it comes to childish and silly arguments that's why creationists are looked down on by the scientific community. Only the works of creationists are far more thoroughly examined instead of being just summarily dismissed after one supposed error is found.; June 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Trish:

I'll accept the tract handbag as thanks...:) Actually, your blog is a huge blessing: you inspire my daughters and sons, and their parents. As my oldest daughter says, "Daddy's obsessed!" So, thanks for the great blog!

@ Reynold:

So the fact that the end of Deuteronomy contains an account of Moses's own death doesn't faze you? It's obvious that at the very least someone else had to write that part; yet according to fundamentalists, it's supposed to be "Moses" that wrote the Pentatauch. By the way, Moses was not himself an "eyewitness" to creation, so why take his word for it? He wasn't there, was he?

Re: Moses' death, Chris has already posited that perhaps Ezra wrote that in, or others have said it was Joshua. Of course he didn't write those few verses.

As to the creation account: he was with God, face to face as elsewhere testified, so there's every reason to believe him. God did, after all, bury the man! It would seem that this type of Christ received the lion's share of fame in the OT, second only to Christ one could argue.

There is also that pesky oral tradition from Adam and Noah on. Not unlike the aboriginal or native American traditions, but inspired by God's Spirit and binding upon men's souls.

When it comes to childish and silly arguments that's why creationists are looked down on by the scientific community. Only the works of creationists are far more thoroughly examined instead of being just summarily dismissed after one supposed error is found.

Childish and silly arguments can be found in the empiricists' camp: I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist. Or: I can't reproduce these facts or test them in a lab, thus they aren't necessarily true. I'm oversimplifying, but it doesn't get much better in the empiricists' world.

As to the notion that creationists' accounts are more honestly or perchance more thoroughly scrutinized: this is because we're your biggest competition. There has been a paradigm shift in thinking since the Enlightenment and the rise of logical positivism/empiricism. Of course the prosecution is examining the defense!

It doesn't mean that atheistic scientists are more honest scholars: they are working tooth and nail to erradicate God from every sphere of life and scientific inquiry, as can be seen by the myriad dismissive statements by atheists on this and other blogs. It is out of vogue to hold to God's existence, even ridiculed. But this is supposed to lead us to believe that somehow science is honest in their inquiry?

God's Word on this is simply:

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." From Romans 1; June 14, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Reynold said...: Re: Moses' death, Chris has already posited that perhaps Ezra wrote that in, or others have said it was Joshua. Of course he didn't write those few verses.

The point is that the authours aren't always who is claimed to be. How does he know who wrote it? He doesn't. Neither does anyone else, really. The people of the NT age had regarded the Pentatauch as their holy writings so of course they woudn't question them.

As to the creation account: he was with God, face to face as elsewhere testified, so there's every reason to believe him. God did, after all, bury the man! It would seem that this type of Christ received the lion's share of fame in the OT, second only to Christ one could argue.

How do you people know that he was with "God"? That's the point. We have only this guy's testimony.

Were you there when "God" told him all this when this was written down?

See how useless that "were you there" argument is?

There is also that pesky oral tradition from Adam and Noah on. Not unlike the aboriginal or native American traditions, but inspired by God's Spirit and binding upon men's souls.

And I'm sure that they would make the same kind of claim about their oral traditions.

Childish and silly arguments can be found in the empiricists' camp: I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist. Or: I can't reproduce these facts or test them in a lab, thus they aren't necessarily true. I'm oversimplifying, but it doesn't get much better in the empiricists' world.

Oh yeah, those lousy "empiricists". They never contributed anything to the understanding of the world around us: They never came up with vaccines, synthetic fibers, telecommunications, never landed people on the moon, etc. It's obvious that their way of doing things has no merit whatsoever.

You don't you tell me what you would consider as evidence of something then, if you scorn the "empiricists" methods so much?

It doesn't mean that atheistic scientists are more honest scholars: they are working tooth and nail to erradicate God from every sphere of life and scientific inquiry, as can be seen by the myriad dismissive statements by atheists on this and other blogs. It is out of vogue to hold to God's existence, even ridiculed. But this is supposed to lead us to believe that somehow science is honest in their inquiry?

It's never occurred to you that the very first people who went and debunked stuff like the young earth and the global flood were Christian theists originally, did it? Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers for a history lesson.

Bottom line: They did not start out "trying to eradicate" anything. They were lead by observations and tests to the conclusion that the bible is wrong in many places where it speaks out about the physical nature of the world.; June 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Reynold said...: BTW:
About science and the bible:

That kind of knowledge can be, and in many cases, is discovered independently of the bible. Therefore, the bible may not be any more "inspired" than those other works just quoted.

You were discussing the fact that other writers in antiquity also made scientific discoveries, so maybe they're inspired, too.

By what? It can't be your deity since by "inspiring" people of other cultures and religions, he's made his "word" the bible, seem to be not so incredible after all.

This isn't Trish's argument, nor mine: the Bible is NOT a science textbook, but the fact STILL remains that these scientists discovered ocean currents and other things based on their reading of Scripture. This is irrefutable.

What't irrefutable is the fact that people have in the past without the bible, and in some cases, before it, have independently discovered those things that you claim only "God" could have known. So what if some scientists "discovered" or (re-discovered) something from reading the bible? It doesn't take away from the fact that others, as that Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies have shown that other people, independently of the bible have learned the same thing.

If the scientists were reading the writings of those other people instead, then one could say that it's that cultures's "God" that "inspired" them.

About BathTub's discussion about the flat earth and geocentrism, or whatever...one can always say that the bible is using metaphor. Fine.

Please list the verses that show that the biblical authours knew that the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around. If there is such a verse, then that "it's a metaphor argument" and the "culture" arguments will hold.

If no such verse exists, then you have to ask yourself how you know that they only intended it as metaphor or "descriptive language"?

After all, we know the truth, but that's our time and our culture, and as has been pointed out we have to judge them by their own time and their own culture.; June 14, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

I notice that you don't even try to justify it's usage: Remember the forensics expert analogy I mentioned earlier?

Why should I? Can you answer the charges in Job 38-41?

If you're going to dismiss all three books because one book that I gave used an idea that you disagree with, so be it.

Reynold, did you not read my comments on each? If I recall, one of them was out of print and the only information I could find on it was a bunch of skeptic/atheist sites giving it high marks and telling everyone to read it... In fact, I believe while I was searching for it, this here blog showed up on Google because you or someone else in another post were telling Christians they need to read this book. So contrary to what you're claiming, I didn't dismiss all 3 because of 1 and my comments buried in here are there for all to see.

So the fact that the end of Deuteronomy contains an account of Moses's own death doesn't faze you? It's obvious that at the very least someone else had to write that part; yet according to fundamentalists, it's supposed to be "Moses" that wrote the Pentatauch.

I think Brazen Hussey's took care of this quite well.

Reynold writes:
By the way, Moses was not himself an "eyewitness" to creation, so why take his word for it? He wasn't there, was he?

Brazen Hussey's writes:
There is also that pesky oral tradition from Adam and Noah on. Not unlike the aboriginal or native American traditions, but inspired by God's Spirit and binding upon men's souls.

Some scholarship holds to authorship by Adam and Noah themselves as a matter of fact, and that prior to Genesis 12, Moses would have just compiled what had already been passed down. I believe Henry Morris held this view and discusses it a bit in The Genesis Record. It's conjecture, really, but not outlandish. Fun stuff.; June 15, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Chris said...: Reynold - How do you people know that he was with "God"? That's the point. We have only this guy's testimony.

Often people will say this is a leap of faith. There are many out there that say you can't prove the Bible... I disagree.

I've stated several times here, how the Bible is an integrated whole. It's a marvel of communications engineering. Can you find me the specific chapter on baptism? Can you find me the specific chapter on the Messiah to come from the Old Testament? Can you find me the specific chapter on who the Holy Spirit is? Can you find the specific Chapter on Salvation? Grace? Faith? Even God???

You can't because it's written throughout, as God says, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little... It's designed in a way that prevents what is called hostile jamming. You can mess up or remove portions here or there, but the message remains in tact. It's like an intricate puzzle, the message as a whole is quite plain and literal, yet each piece elaborates more here and there.

I go through all of that to say the Bible is incredibly designed. It's precision is unmatched, it's detail is too thorough, it tells the future with incredible clarity and accuracy that makes your daily weatherman look like the village idiot. From the numeric structures, linguistic structures, figures of speech, types, shadows, wordplays, puns, acrostics, encryption techniques... the list goes on and on, and when you really get into this stuff you eventually have to throw your hands up and admit, this book is no mere book. It's origin could only have come from outside our limited reality.

Once you do, everything else pales in comparison, so when you have to take God at His Word, you have no problem doing so.

About BathTub's discussion about the flat earth and geocentrism, or whatever...one can always say that the bible is using metaphor. Fine.

Have you missed the other 80 some comments here? I went through each of BathTub's quoted verses and I think I threw down the metaphor card once. Not to mention found out where he was getting his material from, noted his translation was a bizarre one, so much so that it was translated in a sense to make the verses say precisely what he wanted it to say. That doesn't jive. It's inexcusable. The tools are readily available today for even the layman to get at the original languages with relative ease, so I smell something rotten from the flat earth claims.

Please list the verses that show that the biblical authours knew that the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around. If there is such a verse, then that "it's a metaphor argument" and the "culture" arguments will hold.

Good grief this seems quite out of place. Aside from Job 26:7 as this very post is about... Oh, I'm sorry, you want specifics about the orbit... other items just aren't good enough, huh? Luke 16:22-31 comes to mind.

Job 26:10 might interest you, same chapter even.

Proverbs 8 has some remarkable items, particularly 'Wisdom' personified is speaking. Do you know who Wisdom seems to be? I'd suggest you read the whole chapter, Reynold. Verse 27 speaks of the circle upon the 'face' of the deep.

Isaiah 40:22 specifically speaks of the circle of the earth.

Jesus himself describes his second coming as happening both 'In that Day' and 'In that Night'. He describes people sleeping and doing daily chores at the same time. You'll never convince me He didn't know how it worked.

Let's see, thus far we've gone through 8 stupid claims by BathTub, the circumference 'problem', the mustard seed parable, the documentary hypothesis, the inability to understand the basics of Genesis 1-2... and in all of these I see one thing in common - the inability to dig deep enough. What's next, the bat/bird problem? I'm game :); June 15, 2009 at 7:23 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Atheists:

Yes, as a whole, I swing a big bat. :)

As a group, from scholar-skeptic to armchair dissenter, your problem is three-fold at least.

1) Basic hermeneutics. As a group, you want the Bible to not say what it does (repentance of sin, authority of God, Resurrection of Christ), and try to make it say what it doesn't ("flat earth," geocentricity). The Bible is inerrant, infallible, Inspired. It is not a science textbook, but not once has its truth claims been contradicted (when properly understood, viewed on its own terms). To find a scientific text book would have been so utterly boring, no Gospel would have been spread! (said with a smile) Honestly, it was meant to lead us to salvation, and show us what God expects and deserves of us. It was not written to tell us how many planets are in orbit around our sun, nor the speed of light. That's the fun of being a creature made in God's image: we get to find all this other cool stuff out.

2) You all lack an inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Case in point: the German Higher/Lower Critics who sought to debunk and deconstruct the Bible: they wouldn't have thought to do so had they the Holy Spirit teaching them. It doesn't take a seminary degree to understand its message truthfully, but it apparently does take such education to seek to undermine its authenticity. It stands to reason that those without the Spirit's witness (i.e.: the Redeemed) would stand together opposed to its message.

3) You don't trust God. Truly, all these issues of "Hath God really said...?" finds its genesis in Genesis: with the hiss of the serpent. He, our Foe and your father, lies as his native tongue. That is, according to the words of Christ. The point being, not to give offense, but rather to point out that if you actually trusted God in His ability to preserve His message and in His intentions for preserving it for His people, you as a whole wouldn't first jump off the cliff with the other lemmings and devote your time to trying to disprove a message that has made the dead live again, and will continue to do so long after we're all pushing daisies.

"Heaven and Earth may pass away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever."

Quoting the Borg on my fave atheist show Star Trek: The Next Generation:

Resistance is FUTILE.

:P; June 15, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Reynold said...: Chris quoting me:
I notice that you don't even try to justify it's usage: Remember the forensics expert analogy I mentioned earlier?

Why should I? Can you answer the charges in Job 38-41?

Why should I? Does the forensics expert have to answer questions like that before his testimony about the physical evidence left behind can be accepted? You must know, I guess that the forensics analogy shoots down that idiotic "where you there" argument, so now you're reduced to picking blustering verses from the bible.

If I recall, one of them was out of print and the only information I could find on it was a bunch of skeptic/atheist sites giving it high marks and telling everyone to read it...

Yes, I did read it. Still, you used one "mistake to dismiss an entire book, while you let your laziness excuse away the others. It's simple: Go to Amazon and search from there:

View From Nebo, The How Archeology Is Rewriting The Bible And Reshaping The Middle East ..... by Amy Dockser Marcus

Out of the Desert (Paperback)
by William H. Stiebing (Author)

Was that so hard?

I go through all of that to say the Bible is incredibly designed. It's precision is unmatched, it's detail is too thorough, it tells the future with incredible clarity and accuracy that makes your daily weatherman look like the village idiot.

I can't believe that you're saying that it's "precision is unmatched". Why? Because then you stick yourself with the "pi" problem (or, as you call it, the "circumference problem") that I brought up earlier. Pi is 3.14 etc., not 3 as the bible describes. If you didn't brag about the bible's "unmatched precision" you'd have had no problem here, but you opened your mouth. If the bible has "unmatched precision" then it should be, you know, PRECISE.

As for telling the future, at least with regards to messianic prophecies, Messiah Truth and Jews for Judaism should be able to set you straight for that.; June 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Reynold said...: In regards to

Chris:
Isaiah 40:22 specifically speaks of the circle of the earth.

(referring to Jesus apparently knowing that the earth was round).

Bathtub may have been arguing that the bible said the earth was flat; I never did. I'm talking about the bible's geocentric claims.

Jesus himself describes his second coming as happening both 'In that Day' and 'In that Night'. He describes people sleeping and doing daily chores at the same time. You'll never convince me He didn't know how it worked.

Why should I? From the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies:

According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome (Meyers 1989, 63-9).

The Babylonian Map of the world clearly shows a circular earth surrounded by a circular sea (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 1960, part xxii, pl.48; for a translation see Horowitz 1988, 147-65; 1998, 20-42). The äamaö Hymn which is written to the Sun-god says, "You climb to the mountains surveying the earth, you suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands." The phrase "the four corners of the earth" which in Akkadian is kip-pát tu-bu-qa-at eerbitti, can be literally translated "the circle of the four corners" (Grayson 1972, 105).

And more afterwards. As I said before: many of the "scientific" descriptions in the bible have been independently discovered by other cultures. So what?

For earth's orbit: Oh, I'm sorry, you want specifics about the orbit... other items just aren't good enough, huh? Luke 16:22-31 comes to mind.

Yeah, because the story of Lazarus and the rich man really precisely describes the orbit of the earth around the sun!

You really need to do more digging besides just the bible.; June 15, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Reynold said...: If one truly wants to show how the bible is scientifically ahead of it's time and accurate, then instead of descriptions of things that other ancient cultures have discovered independently, (like Job 26:7 - "(He) hangeth the earth upon nothing"
In Enuma Elish (tablet IV:145, Heidel 1942, 43) it says, "The great structure Eaharra (earth) which he made as a canopy (over the deep)." The earth is seen here as a canopy that is stretched out over the ocean. The äamaö Hymn says, "You (äamaö, the sun god) climb to the mountains surveying the earth. You suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands" (Lambert 1960, lines 21-22). These are just common phrases that were used in the ancient world. One should not read modern science back into them.

From that Bible and Science site I mentioned earlier)

The bible should talk about stuff that no ancient people could have possibly known about. Moons around the other planets in our solar system, etc. Stuff like that.; June 15, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Doktor Benway said...: BH. What a combo you are. You write like a church-lady and act like a 7th grader with the little :p's at the end of what you think is a zinger.

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're the girl...; June 16, 2009 at 4:44 AM
Chris said...: Reynold:

Why should I? Does the forensics expert have to answer questions like that before his testimony about the physical evidence left behind can be accepted? You must know, I guess that the forensics analogy shoots down that idiotic "where you there" argument, so now you're reduced to picking blustering verses from the bible.

Yes I've been reduced to it... Reynold, sir, YOU claimed it was Ken Ham's argument, I clarified it for you - it's God's.

Is the forensics expert always correct? No, he's limited to only what he can find, only what he can see. If you think the evolutionists have tried and true methods that are 100% accurate, I weep for you.

Reynold, please search for Gerald Shroeder's website and click on Article's - Age of the Universe. Gerald Schroeder is an MIT graduate in earth sciences and physics (among others I believe, which I hope is enough of an expert for you). He's not a Christian, he's actually Jewish. This article is my main beef with evolution... I've actually got a few, but this illustrates the primary problem that seems to go largely ignored.

Yes, I did read it. Still, you used one "mistake to dismiss an entire book, while you let your laziness excuse away the others.

Hardly, Reynold. I'm not sure you did, because just in your last comment you asserted that I dismissed all 3 based on 1 problem I found in the first one. I searched Amazon, read a slew of Reviews for the View From Nebo. Again, I'm not quite sure what the point of the book is and according to the reviews, I'm not alone. As for Out of the Desert, the author, according to 3 reviews, is of the opinion there was no Exodus, and according to 1 review ignores some of his own findings to remain at that conclusion. Reynold, if you could see my office, you'd understand why I have a great disdain for more books I don't need.

I can't believe that you're saying that it's "precision is unmatched". Why? Because then you stick yourself with the "pi" problem (or, as you call it, the "circumference problem") that I brought up earlier. Pi is 3.14 etc., not 3 as the bible describes. If you didn't brag about the bible's "unmatched precision" you'd have had no problem here, but you opened your mouth. If the bible has "unmatched precision" then it should be, you know, PRECISE.

See, you aren't reading my comments. I took care of this in the "God, if you're real, show me a sign" post. I'm not going to resubmit all that here. Since I have to spell it all out for you, the value of Pi in this verse is actually 3.14150943 with a margin of error on the basin being described of less than 1/15,000th of an inch. I wouldn't expect you to figure it out because the Skeptics Annotated Bible won't help you with puns and wordplays.

As for telling the future, at least with regards to messianic prophecies, Messiah Truth and Jews for Judaism should be able to set you straight for that.

Yeah, those who deliberately twist Scripture to hide what it really says. You know, Judaic Scholars, they took out every messianic passage in Isaiah for some 900 years. Of most prominent note is Isaiah 53 - they said it was never there, the stupid Christians just added it in! Until the Great Isaiah Scroll was found amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls - guess what, Isaiah 53 was there, in tact, along with all the other items they worked so hard to twist around. Now sites like this Spiritualize those items - but it doesn't work.

Reynold, your sources are getting worse and worse...; June 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Chris said...: -cont-

Reynold:

According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome (Meyers 1989, 63-9).

Yes Reynold, now your expertise is truly showing. You're ranking right up there with BathTub and his absurd ripped claims. This has got to be the most ignorant of items yet. I guess we need to spell out the verse, huh? Pay attention, this is rough stuff...

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle {that is H02329} of the earth {that is H0776 - 'eretz, as has already been discussed here in these comments}, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

I guess context doesn't mean squat to Meyer's, huh? Do your homework before spouting off nonsense, Reynold.

The Babylonian Map of the world clearly shows a circular earth surrounded by a circular sea (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 1960, part xxii, pl.48; for a translation see Horowitz 1988, 147-65; 1998, 20-42). The äamaö Hymn which is written to the Sun-god says, "You climb to the mountains surveying the earth, you suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands." The phrase "the four corners of the earth" which in Akkadian is kip-pát tu-bu-qa-at eerbitti, can be literally translated "the circle of the four corners" (Grayson 1972, 105).

Nice, of course, we aren't talking about Babylonian texts here. The Four Corners typically refers to North, South, East and West. This makes perfect sense from man's point of view.

Reynold, how about you grab a concordance and search for Earth, Land, Seas, World in the Scriptures and make a note of what's being described from man's point of view, and then contrast that with what's being described from God's point of view. You may be surprised.

Yeah, because the story of Lazarus and the rich man really precisely describes the orbit of the earth around the sun!

That was actually meant to be to you, but I can see where I should have clarified. Can you figure out what I was saying in pointing you to the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus?

The bible should talk about stuff that no ancient people could have possibly known about. Moons around the other planets in our solar system, etc. Stuff like that.

Yes, then you'll believe, right? Oh, but maybe some other ancient texts would have it as well, so I guess you wouldn't. I have a feeling the ancients knew a bit more than we give them credit for. Between the solar and lunar calendars, the sudden change with just about all the ancient cultures around the 7th/8th century BC... It seems the world then was quite a bit different than the world that is now.

I meant to say in the last comment since the book Out of the Desert is a book doubting the Exodus. You will find a video (try Google video or YouTube; it'll be free) called "Mountain of Fire - the Search for Mt. Sinai". It's about 50 minutes long. If we were short on archeological evidence for the Biblical Exodus when Out of the Desert was first published, we aren't now.; June 16, 2009 at 6:46 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold
With regard to your Pi problem, Dr Chuck Missler has an interesting article on it.
Just Google "Chuck Missler The Value of Pi"; June 16, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Javier said...: BH. What a combo you are. You write like a church-lady and act like a 7th grader with the little :p's at the end of what you think is a zinger.

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're the girl...

What a combo you are, you write like new atheist and whine like a new atheist that's also a girl.

Now I know why new atheism is just a fad.; June 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ False Convert:

Wow! Here I thought we was all growed up.

Have a great day!

:P; June 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

The bible should talk about stuff that no ancient people could have possibly known about. Moons around the other planets in our solar system, etc. Stuff like that.

Stuff like God's judgement on the king of Tyre?

Stuff like the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

Stuff like the Messiah being crucified, reigning eternally, saving His people, that sort of stuff?

Alright. You win.

Oops! I mean God did: the Bible's full of prophecies fulfilled, and alone can change men from dead God-haters and God-deniers to living souls possessed of eternal life.

That will do for me, Reynold.

A billion years from now, as the saints enjoy the presence of Christ, I doubt your calumnies and false scholarship will amount to much but kindling.

Why don't you simply join the party?

:P

(just because the ":P" bugs "False Convert."); June 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Reynold said...: Stuff like God's judgement on the king of Tyre?

Stuff like the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

Stuff like the Messiah being crucified, reigning eternally, saving His people, that sort of stuff?

Go to the Messiah Truth and Jews for Judaism web site for those "prophecies". While you're at it, Go to the Secular Web and read The Tyre Prophecy Again by Farrell Till or just type "Tyre" in their search engine.

I notice that you say nothing about the astronomical observations I listed that would have shown the bible's "authenticity".; June 17, 2009 at 4:47 AM
Reynold said...: Heath The Blogless said...

Reynold
With regard to your Pi problem, Dr Chuck Missler has an interesting article on it.
Just Google "Chuck Missler The Value of Pi"

Read this, from Science Blogs's Good Math, Bad Math: Innumerate Fundamentalists and π
Comment #60 by Mark C. Chu-Carroll, the blog auther on August 14, 2006 5:53 PM:

Matt:

The only problem with your argument is that the original hebrew text does no such thing. It's a post-facto rationalization superimposed on the flexibility of the hebrew language. The nature of hebrew as a language makes it particularly easy to play numeric games with, which is why there's more gematria done in hebrew than in other languages. But the linguistic reasoning for why that passage wasn't getting pi wrong is just plain nonsense: there's an alleged misspelling in the text, and if you take the ratio of the gematria value of the corrected spelling compared to the gematria value of the incorrect spelling, you get something close to pi; except of course, that the "correct" spelling makes no linguistic sense; it just happens to be the *right letters* to produce a good approximation of pi. In other words, it's a retrofit.

Nice try though.

Ironically, the guy right after him ignores that and just quotes Missler's article word-for-word.; June 17, 2009 at 4:58 AM
Reynold said...: Chris

Yes I've been reduced to it... Reynold, sir, YOU claimed it was Ken Ham's argument, I clarified it for you - it's God's.

Actually it's the argument of whoever wrote that part of the bible. How do you know it was God's? Where you there when it was written?

Is the forensics expert always correct? No, he's limited to only what he can find, only what he can see.

As opposed to going by what we can't find or see? Gee, given that kind of latitude, any crazy idea can have credence.

What you list as a weakness is actually a strength of science.

If you think the evolutionists have tried and true methods that are 100% accurate, I weep for you.

When did I ever say that the forensics experts or evolutionists are infallible, please? They are reliable enough that our court system relies on them, and the scientific method they rely on is good enough to bring us medicines, computers, etc. That's more understanding of our phsysical world than the bible has given us. I asked once before: Where does the bible talk about moons around the other planets in our solar system? It doesn't, science does.

Bottom line, naturalistic science has a proven track record...the evidences found by actual scientists back each other up. Do some reading.

About Gerald Shroeder, there's a Talk Reason article about some of his books and articles that seems relevent:

Not a Very Big Bang About Genesis
By Mark Perakh

as for what I've read of that article, especially the sections What is a "day?" and The Creation of Time seem to be just rationalizations and gobbledygook to me. He has to twist and make complicated the bible so much it's unbelievable.

Reynold, if you could see my office, you'd understand why I have a great disdain for more books I don't need.

If you don't want to do the reseach, I can't help then.

As for the value of "pi", that's dealt with in a post where I replied to BH. I submitted that before I submitted this one.

Yeah, those who deliberately twist Scripture to hide what it really says. You know, Judaic Scholars, they took out every messianic passage in Isaiah for some 900 years. Of most prominent note is Isaiah 53 - they said it was never there, the stupid Christians just added it in! Until the Great Isaiah Scroll was found amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls - guess what, Isaiah 53 was there, in tact, along with all the other items they worked so hard to twist around. Now sites like this Spiritualize those items - but it doesn't work.
I don't know about the others, but where do the "Messiah Truth" people say that verse was never there?

They argue about it's interpretation, and they back it up:

From the Messiah Truth article Isaiah 53: A Summary of Christian Deception, the third part of their The Suffering Servant In Isaiah 53:

This is a rather well-worn argument is that the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 had always been about the Messiah in particular, but Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, the greatest Medieval Torah and Talmud commentator), who was completely opposed to Christian interpretations of the Bible, created a new interpretation of Isaiah 53. This is believed to have been fabricated by an apologist of the nineteenth century. Jews had never interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about a suffering Messiah. If it was, then Christians must think Peter was a foolish fellow, since he obviously must have not been learned the Tanach when he displayed astonishment after Jesus foretold that he would die.

Can you back up your conspriacy theory at all?; June 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM
Reynold said...: I guess context doesn't mean squat to Meyer's, huh? Do your homework before spouting off nonsense, Reynold.

When it comes to evolution and actual physical science, I'd throw that advice right back at you, buddy.

The whole point of those sources I brought up was to show that: the "foreknowledge" in the bible was stuff that other people had discovered independently, and that the metaphors they used were also sometimes used in the bible.

The bible should talk about stuff that no ancient people could have possibly known about. Moons around the other planets in our solar system, etc. Stuff like that.

Yes, then you'll believe, right? Oh, but maybe some other ancient texts would have it as well, so I guess you wouldn't.

Care to show me those texts?

I have a feeling the ancients knew a bit more than we give them credit for.

That was pretty much the whole point of me showing you the stuff from the Bible and Science site in the first place!

Ironically, you give the credit to "God". I asked for something that the anciensts couldn't possibly find out without our modern equipment, that would have helped the case for the bible's "foreknowledge" and science.

As for "lazarus and the rich man", I don't care. You never backed up your case about the bible having foreknowledge about heliocentrism.

If we were short on archeological evidence for the Biblical Exodus when Out of the Desert was first published, we aren't now.

If you haven't read the book, how do you know that all of it's claims have been shown to be out of date by "newer" archeological disoveries?; June 17, 2009 at 5:39 AM
Reynold said...: Reynold, how about you grab a concordance and search for Earth, Land, Seas, World in the Scriptures and make a note of what's being described from man's point of view, and then contrast that with what's being described from God's point of view. You may be surprised.

Not really. When I typed in "North" and "earth" for instance in the Biblos.com Concordance site Multi-Version Concordance

North (164 Occurrences) ... (WEB NIV). Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the
earth on nothing. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV). ...
refbible.com/n/north.htm - 43k

Uttermost (48 Occurrences) ... Jeremiah 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them
from the uttermost parts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame ...
refbible.com/u/uttermost.htm - 23k

Farthest (33 Occurrences) ... Jeremiah 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them
from the uttermost parts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame ...
refbible.com/f/farthest.htm - 17k

Northern (18 Occurrences) ... (See RSV NIV). Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty space,
and hangeth the earth over nothing. (See NIV). Jeremiah ...
refbible.com/n/northern.htm - 12k

Remote (17 Occurrences) ... Jeremiah 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them
from the uttermost parts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame ...
refbible.com/r/remote.htm - 12k

Inmost (49 Occurrences) ... Jeremiah 31:8 See, I will take them from the north country, and get them from the
inmost parts of the earth, and with them the blind and the feeble-footed, the ...
refbible.com/i/inmost.htm - 20k

Remotest (13 Occurrences) ... 27 Then He will send forth the angels and gather together His chosen People from
north, south, east and west, from the remotest parts of the earth and the sky. ...
refbible.com/r/remotest.htm - 10k

Gog (12 Occurrences) ... are represented as a vast mixed horde from the far-off parts of the North, the limits ...
7 Satan is let loose and goes to the four corners of the earth, Gog and ...

Why don't you realize that your own bible makes many such observations and metaphors about the world around us that make sense from man's point of view?; June 17, 2009 at 5:44 AM
Reynold said...: If we were short on archeological evidence for the Biblical Exodus when Out of the Desert was first published, we aren't now.

If you haven't read the book, how do you know that all of it's claims have been shown to be out of date by "newer" archeological disoveries?

I know, that's not what you actually said but to some extent, the point is the same: if you didn't read the book, how do you know if it's out of date by newer discoveries or not? That's also why I mentioned that The Bible Unearthed book.

It's more recent.; June 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Chris said...: Reynold:

quoted from the comment:
The only problem with your argument is that the original hebrew text does no such thing. It's a post-facto rationalization superimposed on the flexibility of the hebrew language. The nature of hebrew as a language makes it particularly easy to play numeric games with, which is why there's more gematria done in hebrew than in other languages.

The thing is, Mark is correct - ancient Hebrew is unique in this. But that's the point, as we continue...

further:
But the linguistic reasoning for why that passage wasn't getting pi wrong is just plain nonsense: there's an alleged misspelling in the text, and if you take the ratio of the gematria value of the corrected spelling compared to the gematria value of the incorrect spelling, you get something close to pi; except of course, that the "correct" spelling makes no linguistic sense; it just happens to be the *right letters* to produce a good approximation of pi. In other words, it's a retrofit.

It would be retrofit if this sort of thing (wordplay, gematria, puns, literary devices) weren't so common in the Old Testament. The fact that Hebrew seemingly works so well for this sort of thing while other ancient languages don't, is part of the point. It's far from uncommon for these games to be played in the Scriptures.

It's further telling that while the Old Testament which is murky, shadowy and idiomatic is written in Hebrew, a language that works so well with that, the New Testament is very forthright, straight-forward and explains the murky, shadowy idioms for you. It being written in ancient Greek makes perfect sense because it is a language that can't be played with in this way. It's very specific and precise, you can't mess with it - which is another reason why the LXX is such a great tool.

So while Mark (the author of the comment) is correct, he's chalking it up to sheer coincidence. Fine, I'll concede that - to the extent of recognizing that these 'coincidences' are not uncommon in the Scriptures, that this sort of thing is all over the place (Genesis 49 is nothing but cryptic riddles) and that it just happens to be precisely what it's supposed to be.

Bottom line, naturalistic science has a proven track record...the evidences found by actual scientists back each other up. Do some reading.

Thanks, I have, and we've clearly come to different conclusions. So Reynold, are you sure yours are correct?

as for what I've read of that article, especially the sections What is a "day?" and The Creation of Time seem to be just rationalizations and gobbledygook to me. He has to twist and make complicated the bible so much it's unbelievable.

No, he doesn't, and he comes to his findings using ancient commentaries on the texts. The findings fit what we know today, so... wasn't that what you wanted? Hebrews 1:3 speaks of the time-worlds being created. Bah, that's just gobbledygook.; June 17, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Chris said...: -cont-
Reynold -

I don't know about the others, but where do the "Messiah Truth" people say that verse was never there?

I was speaking in general, you know, for some 900 years... Messiah Truth hasn't been around that long.

Can you back up your conspriacy theory at all?

It's not conspiracy theory, Reynold, it is what it is. Even today there are a couple passages in the New Testament that are questioned and have brackets put around them with footnotes in any decent Bible translation.

The thing is, Reynold, we've got opposing worldviews and anyone can find just about anything to counter anything. If you're going to Jewish counter-missionary sites to prove your point, instead of going to the Bible, finding out what it really says, and figuring it out for yourself, then the discussion is pointless. Systematically going through Isaiah 52:14 - 53 will easily put to rest the issues Messiah Truth comes up with. I've said time and again here, the tools are readily available for the layman and with a little bit of know how, the academic books are also easy to use and readily available (digitally even!) If you want to discuss them, I'm game...

Not really. When I typed in "North" and "earth" for instance in the Biblos.com Concordance site Multi-Version Concordance

Yes, you put forth quite the effort.

I know, that's not what you actually said but to some extent, the point is the same: if you didn't read the book, how do you know if it's out of date by newer discoveries or not? That's also why I mentioned that The Bible Unearthed book.

Fine, Reynold, can I ask the same of you?; June 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold

In Your comment
The only problem with your argument is that the original hebrew text does no such thing. It's a post-facto rationalization superimposed on the flexibility of the hebrew language. The nature of hebrew as a language makes it particularly easy to play numeric games with, which is why there's more gematria done in hebrew than in other languages.

I think Chris has answered this well, thanks Chris.; June 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Where does the bible talk about moons around the other planets in our solar system? It doesn't, science does.

You seem stuck on your straw man Bible, with your straw man hermeneutic.

That the Bible speaks in phenomenological language, you and I agree. That is to say, the phenomenon of the sunrise and sunset, etc.

For you, this disproves the Bible. As if to say, "The Bible spoke of Pi as being a value of 3, thus it's irrelevant."

Or:

"The Bible doesn't describe heliocentricity, planetary orbits, or nuclear particle physics, thus it is not inspired."

Reynold, you come fully equipped with every excuse under the sun to dodge the most glaring fact:

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Son of God, and Lord over all: including you and the multiple anti-Christ sites you enjoin (thinking of John's first epistle re: anti-Christ definition), lived a sinless, holy life: one that nobody else could do. He died in our stead, if we believe Him. He was raised from the dead for our justification. He returned to His father's side, and is now seated at the right hand of God. From whence, He rules even now, and is separating the wheat from the chaff. From whence, at His appointed hour, He will return and judge the living and the dead.

Does it matter that the Bible isn't some "Nova" PBS special? Does it matter that the Bible doesn't describe nuclear physics?

No. That's not why it was written. I understand your many objections, but they all boil down to this:

You left Christianity, by your own admission. Now you're on a quest to vindicate your decision.

Your guilt remains.

Repent and trust in Christ, or face him with your many websites in hand. Your choice.; June 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Reynold said...: Thanks, I have, and we've clearly come to different conclusions. So Reynold, are you sure yours are correct?

From what little of the natural sciences I've seen you talk here, you've done less reading on them then what you accuse me of for your bible commentaries.

I go by the actual scientists who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other.

Mind you, evolution all by itself does not necessarily mean that your god does not exist; If you had read the Talk Origins's article God and Evolution FAQ, you'd have known that.

But the linguistic reasoning for why that passage wasn't getting pi wrong is just plain nonsense: there's an alleged misspelling in the text, and if you take the ratio of the gematria value of the corrected spelling compared to the gematria value of the incorrect spelling, you get something close to pi; except of course, that the "correct" spelling makes no linguistic sense; it just happens to be the *right letters* to produce a good approximation of pi. In other words, it's a retrofit.

Just read on in that Good Math, Bad Math post I gave earlier. Like Comment #80 by the blog authour for instance:
Guys:

I've seen the "khouse" argument before. It's *not* convincing to me. It *does not* make linguistic sense. Basically, it claims that there's a mis-spelling in the hebrew of the bible, and that the ratio of the numeric value "corrected" spelling to the numeric value of the "incorrect" spelling is something close to the actual value of pi.

The problem is, the original word *isn't* misspelled; and the "correction" isn't correct. The "correction" is not what's linguistically correct; it's just something that was *selected* to make the ratio work.

They just rounded off, no big deal. Problem is is when someone talks about the incredible "precision" the bible has. That shoots that down. If that claim was never made, there'd be no problem.

You seem to have ignored the Talk Reason article I mentioned by Mark Perakh.

As for Hebrews 1:3, if you just look at the bible like you tell me to, it just says: ""

I was speaking in general, you know, for some 900 years... Messiah Truth hasn't been around that long.

Fine, but how does that help your case. Also, how many examples can you give of the denial from those other sources then?

If you're going to Jewish counter-missionary sites to prove your point, instead of going to the Bible, finding out what it really says, and figuring it out for yourself, then the discussion is pointless

Hello...they WROTE the bible! They therefore provide the cultural context for when and where it was written. On the Messiah Truth site they even have charts showing linguistic comparisons of the bible and (as close as they can get) to the original texts.

I know, that's not what you actually said but to some extent, the point is the same: if you didn't read the book, how do you know if it's out of date by newer discoveries or not? That's also why I mentioned that The Bible Unearthed book.

Fine, Reynold, can I ask the same of you?

I've already read them, though it's been a while. How's about you showing that you've actually read up on the physical sciences like you claim? For instance, youre reply shows that you did not read the God and Evolution FAQ from the Talk Origins people, given that you seem to think that evolution and your religion are totally incompatible.; June 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Reynold said...: Where does the bible talk about moons around the other planets in our solar system? It doesn't, science does.

You seem stuck on your straw man Bible, with your straw man hermeneutic.

That the Bible speaks in phenomenological language, you and I agree. That is to say, the phenomenon of the sunrise and sunset, etc.

For you, this disproves the Bible. As if to say, "The Bible spoke of Pi as being a value of 3, thus it's irrelevant."

For me, it shows that the bible authours didn't have access to "inspired" knowledge that apologists claim they did. (ex. Henry Morris in his book "The Biblcial Basis for Modern Science").

There is the problem though, of people claiming that the bible is "inerrent" when it comes to describing the world around us. That makes things harder for them. Like the mustard seed and tree problem, or phenomenological language. How do we know that the authours actually knew how things really worked? Now, we can just ask someone, or read a book on it. Back then for instance, there was no way to tell if the bible authours knew that the earth orbited the sun as opposed to the other way around.

Phenomenological language is used to save words, basically. Thing is, there is one verse in the bible were a lot of words are used to describe the sun doing the rising and setting. If you're going to use a lot of words anyway, why not accurately describe it so we'd know that they knew the truth?

Remember, the bible is also supposed to be a prophetic book. One would think that it's ultimate authour would take things like that into account.

As for Christ having lived a "sinless" life, no. Remember he once had his followers take some guys' donkey without asking permission first. He also beaked off to his mother once, saying something to her like "Woman, what have I to do with you"? (I think it was at that wedding party).

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.

You left Christianity, by your own admission. Now you're on a quest to vindicate your decision.

Your guilt remains.

You left athiesm, now you're on a quest to vindicate your decision.; June 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

From what little of the natural sciences I've seen you talk here, you've done less reading on them then what you accuse me of for your bible commentaries.

Reynold, at what point will you understand, from what little you've seen from me on the subject, I'm not interested in 'natural sciences'. It's not my field and I approach it on a case by case basis, when it comes up in my other studies. I just don't care about it.

I go by the actual scientists who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other.

Right Reynold, and I go by actual Bible Scholars who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other. Now that's something that interests me. I don't expect you to as well, but I do expect a bit of homework to be done if you are going to continue in your charges against it. Something you seem intent on avoiding.

Mind you, evolution all by itself does not necessarily mean that your god does not exist; If you had read the Talk Origins's article God and Evolution FAQ, you'd have known that.

Evolution is incompatible with the ultimate plan of Salvation as laid out in Scripture. But it's not about evolution, it's not about the age of the earth, it's about the foundations laid out from Genesis 1:1 and the ultimate design and integrity of the whole. I will hang my arguments on the design and integrity of the Scriptures over the groping for evidence and missing links your scientists do any day, period. I can say, Reynold, that you were created by the Creator of the Universe whom you can know personally and have an ultimate destiny with - a reason for being and mission in life. You can tell me I'm nothing but biochemical reaction on mineral surfaces - and that's it.

But if, Reynold, as you say, evolution is fine with my God, then why are you, not only here debating me, but so vehemently opposed to Him?

from your comment quote:
I've seen the "khouse" argument before. It's *not* convincing to me. It *does not* make linguistic sense. Basically, it claims that there's a mis-spelling in the hebrew of the bible, and that the ratio of the numeric value "corrected" spelling to the numeric value of the "incorrect" spelling is something close to the actual value of pi.

First of all - did you read my previous comments? Did you grasp from the original how ancient Rabbinic hermeneutic's work? This author clearly doesn't, and your posting of his comment only demonstrates that you didn't bother looking into it either.

Second - his math is wrong when trying to dethrone it. You can get the actual paper on the subject for free, just Google "Boaz Tsaban mathematics in Jewish sources" where you'll find a paper titled "On the Rabbinical Approximation of Pi".

Again, you can continue to chalk it up to mere coincidence; but you've got a lot of coincidences to write off (not to mention the whole of the Hebrew language and how it works...); June 18, 2009 at 6:40 AM
Chris said...: -cont-

Reynold:

As for Hebrews 1:3, if you just look at the bible like you tell me to, it just says: ""

Well, it does NOT say "" but, regardless, I should have written Hebrews 1:2. You claim Gerald Schroeder has to twist and make complicated the Bible, but I say, no he doesn't. He's used only ancient rabbinic commentaries on Genesis 1:1 (you know, those ones Messiah Truth uses) and is able to demonstrate that this understanding was gleaned purely from the text. My point with Hebrews 1:1-2 is that this understanding wasn't foreign to the the New Testament writers. But Gerald Schroeder's just twisting and making complicated the text...

Fine, but how does that help your case. Also, how many examples can you give of the denial from those other sources then?

Isn't the whole site a denial of what we claim the passages really say? Do you want to go through them? Pick some out, I'd love to!

Hello...they WROTE the bible! They therefore provide the cultural context for when and where it was written. On the Messiah Truth site they even have charts showing linguistic comparisons of the bible and (as close as they can get) to the original texts.

Hmm, with the fact that the first Christians were Jewish believers, this seems irrelevant. They utilize and have the same access to the materials I do, as do all the other Messianic teachers and scholars. Ariel Ministries, El Shaddai Ministries, First Fruits of Zion... The list goes on.

Oh but wait! They have charts showing linguistic comparisons of the Bible to the original texts! No way!! Are you serious? So you'll believe them then? Cause I've got charts showing a lot more than just linguistic comparisons sitting on my desk along with Hebrew dictionaries, lexicons and commentaries. I've also got digital original language tools and academic text books for Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic! Does this mean you'll believe me now, Reynold?

For instance, youre reply shows that you did not read the God and Evolution FAQ from the Talk Origins people, given that you seem to think that evolution and your religion are totally incompatible.

Yes they are. From the site:

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

The question is why is this such a point of conflict? And to that I will point to my original response, 1 comment prior.; June 18, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

There is the problem though, of people claiming that the bible is "inerrent" when it comes to describing the world around us. That makes things harder for them. Like the mustard seed and tree problem, or phenomenological language. How do we know that the authours actually knew how things really worked? Now, we can just ask someone, or read a book on it. Back then for instance, there was no way to tell if the bible authours knew that the earth orbited the sun as opposed to the other way around.

Re: your dismissal of the Bible, the mustard seed analogy, the planetary orbits:

Not sure why you're using the "SEE! The Bible didn't talk about planetary orbits, and thus is NOT inspired!" argument, other than it soothes your conscience.

Reynold, you miss the point. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science textbook--it doesn't even appear in the science section in most bookstores!

The fact is, it's message to you and me is the same: read it to find everlasting life, not to discover DNA molecular structures or astrophysics.

It's asinine and pointless to create this hermeneutic of "It doesn't describe aerospace dynamics, thus it's not inspired," this is idiotic.

Using your faulted "logic," of which strawmen everywhere are composed, I can accurately say, "SEE! Your physics text does NOT mention Jesus is the Messiah, and thus its truth cannot be accurate!"

Your allegations are dodges of the issue: the Bible speaks authoritatively on the eternal matters of your soul's ultimate destiny. It speaks of the creator of planets and all that dwell thereon. It speaks of the ruler of the ages, the Ancient of Days, to Whom you will feably reply:

"BUT SIR! I didn't know about Jesus because your Bible didn't talk about planetary orbits!"

This is a ridiculous line of argumentation, Reynold. You won't circumnavigate the omnipotent wrath of God because your Pharisee friends deny their own Messiah, and took you along with them on the road to perdition.

Repent. Trust in Christ.

If you want to learn about planetary orbits, suit yourself. If you want to study to be a better chef, fine. If you want to be an auto mechanic, by all means. I don't recommend the Bible for any of these pursuits: it is neither astronomy, a cookbook, or an auto shop manual.

If, however, you want to learn about the God who made you and what He requires of you, then pick up the Bible.

Get the point?; June 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

You left athiesm, now you're on a quest to vindicate your decision.

Dead wrong. First: you admitted you were "formerly" a Christian. You were never a Christian, or you wouldn't have left (according to God's Word in John's first epistle, I'll take that testimony over your opinion).

I, on the other hand, have never been so full of faith that I could have been an atheist. I've never not believed in God.

Romans 1:18 and following make that point as well as many other passages in Scripture: God doesn't make atheists, people rather deny He exists to live their amoral lives.; June 18, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Chris said...: -cont-

Reynold -

I'll let Brazen Hussey's handle his own discussion with you as I don't want to interrupt it, but when you bring up the parable of the mustard seed:

Like the mustard seed and tree problem, or phenomenological language. How do we know that the authours actually knew how things really worked?

Is that your problem now? Whether we can know if the authors actually knew how these things worked? To presume a bunch of Jewish farmers didn't know a mustard seed doesn't grow into a tree? Do you understand what parables are? Do you understand what idioms are? Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search a matter out.

Remember I asked you to grab a concordance and do your own homework in comparing who said what in relation what you're demanding; you really didn't.

And to impose upon it what you want it to say is absurd. Do you go around demanding the books you read say what you want to hear? Should the authors check with you before they write them?

Do you call the weatherman out every time he says the sun is going to rise and set at such and such a time tomorrow even though he knows the sun isn't going to actually rise and set?

Utter nonsense.; June 18, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

As for Christ having lived a "sinless" life, no. Remember he once had his followers take some guys' donkey without asking permission first. He also beaked off to his mother once, saying something to her like "Woman, what have I to do with you"? (I think it was at that wedding party).

1) Re: Donkey--your conjecture that God's Son stole a donkey falls flat on two grounds. First, they weren't told to steal a donkey, the guy let Him borrow it. What did you think, they ate it afterwards??

Secondly, God owns all there is. How could He steal anything??

2) Re: Jesus didn't live a sinless life, He mouthed off to Mary...

This is so stupid I'm not sure if I should respond. The term "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" wasn't breaking the commandment to honor your parents. First note that He did what she asked. Secondly, read commentaries by people who know before you malign the nature of Christ. You plainly don't know a whit about what you're speaking of here.

Accusing Jesus of sin, Reynold, is blasphemy. That's a capitol offense.

2 Cor. 5:21

For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

There are plenty of other verses to testify to this fact. You blaspheme the Son of God to your shame, Reynold. He became sin on behalf of His people.

Repent. Trust in Christ.; June 18, 2009 at 7:22 AM
Javier said...: Reynold,
For me, it shows that the bible authours didn't have access to "inspired" knowledge that apologists claim they did. (ex. Henry Morris in his book "The Biblcial Basis for Modern Science").

Firstly, inspired knowlege is not scientific knowledge. In fact, inspired knowledge is true knowlege by virtue of its inspiration, yet scientific knowledge is contantly changing. So that science cannot approrpriately be called knowledge. Since knowledge itself requires justification and certainty.

Secondly, you are being arbitrary. What frame of referance can one use to indict inspired revelation as uninspired beause it doesn't contain bilogical information? You are displaying your ignorance of the Christian doctrine of inspiration.

There is the problem though, of people claiming that the bible is "inerrent" when it comes to describing the world around us. That makes things harder for them. Like the mustard seed and tree problem, or phenomenological language.

Again, you're assuming that the authors were attempting to use the scientific method. When in fact, they were making points in relation to spiritual issues and salvation. These are basic distinctions. Its quite the tragedy you fail to see these things. I wouldn't expect a biology textbook to offer advice on how to improve my relationship with Christ. If one asserts that the Bible is primarily a science book then one is in clear error.

How do we know that the authours actually knew how things really worked? Now, we can just ask someone, or read a book on it. Back then for instance, there was no way to tell if the bible authours knew that the earth orbited the sun as opposed to the other way around.

So?

Phenomenological language is used to save words, basically. Thing is, there is one verse in the bible were a lot of words are used to describe the sun doing the rising and setting. If you're going to use a lot of words anyway, why not accurately describe it so we'd know that they knew the truth?

Again, you're assuming that the Bible was made to explain scientific theories or fact. But that ins't the purpose of the scripture. We are given all that is necessary for salvation in the text all other revealed things are secondary. So, its not a primary focus for God to reveal scientific truth, its a byproduct of God's revelatory purpose.

Remember, the bible is also supposed to be a prophetic book. One would think that it's ultimate authour would take things like that into account.

And as I said before, the concern of the scripture is not to fulfill scientific expectations to some 20 something twit on a blog. The purpose of scripture was to provide sufficient information for the salvation of men. One would expect God to reveal natural scientific theories had he purposed to reveal scientific knowledge. But that isn't the purpose. Furthermore you're becoming much more philosophical, afterall you're making epistemological claims.

What exactly is knowledge? If inspired revelation is knowledge and by virtue of its inpriation is true, then God would never reveal scientific knowledge because scientific knowledge is constantly in flux. Therefore, anything inspired can be believed, scientific theories cannot be believed with certainty and God would not reveal uncertainty.; June 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Reynold said...: Reynold, you miss the point. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science textbook--it doesn't even appear in the science section in most bookstores!

The point is this? Is the bible "inerrent" when it talks about the physical world or not? If that claim was never made for your holy book, that would not be a problem. But you people are always going on about how "divinely inspired" and "infallible" it is, then when someone actually tries to test it out, you people have a hissy fit.

Tough.

Brazen Hussy's:
1) Re: Donkey--your conjecture that God's Son stole a donkey falls flat on two grounds. First, they weren't told to steal a donkey, the guy let Him borrow it. What did you think, they ate it afterwards??

Wrong. They were in the process of taking it when the owner's servant asked them what they were doing. They didn't ask after they were thus confronted, they just told the guy that their master (Jesus) needed the donkey.

They did NOT ask permission beforehand. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a fundy.

Secondly, God owns all there is. How could He steal anything??
&nbps;
Real easy to be "sinless" eh, when it's actually physically impossible to sin with loopholes like that. Think about it. That, and for anyone who is NOT a member of YOUR religion, that statement holds no meaning.

This is so stupid I'm not sure if I should respond. The term "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" wasn't breaking the commandment to honor your parents. First note that He did what she asked. Secondly, read commentaries by people who know before you malign the nature of Christ. You plainly don't know a whit about what you're speaking of here

Guess what? Try saying that to your mother when she asks you something. Case closed. Even read some Jewish commentaries on it. It is their culture, after all.

javier:
And as I said before, the concern of the scripture is not to fulfill scientific expectations to some 20 something twit on a blog. The purpose of scripture was to provide sufficient information for the salvation of men.

And just how is scripture supposed to fulfill that purpose? By authenticating itself so that we know that it's providing the real deal on salvation! Besides, it is you people who are always bragging about how scientifically accurate and ahead of it's time the bible is a evidence of it's divine inspiration, then when someone comes along and shoots that down, you act like this. I'm sick of these dodges you people have.; June 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Reynold said...: Oh but wait! They have charts showing linguistic comparisons of the Bible to the original texts! No way!! Are you serious? So you'll believe them then? Cause I've got charts showing a lot more than just linguistic comparisons sitting on my desk along with Hebrew dictionaries, lexicons and commentaries. I've also got digital original language tools and academic text books for Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic! Does this mean you'll believe me now, Reynold?

And I'm sure those Hebrew scholars who have lived their entire lives in their culture have nothing but that one chart.

Would you care to read over the literature of even one field of the physical sciences that deals with evolution? If not, then you have LOST your right to get all snitty because (you don't think) that I do any of the "research" you want me to.

You constantly get mad because I (in your mind) don't do any research into your holy book, but you outright dismiss and ignore the decades of work of thousands of scientists just because your holy book says something that doesn't agree with science.

Here's another piece of irony for you, jack.

Right Reynold, and I go by actual Bible Scholars who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other. Now that's something that interests me. I don't expect you to as well, but I do expect a bit of homework to be done if you are going to continue in your charges against it. Something you seem intent on avoiding.

Right Chris, and I go by actual scientific scholars who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other. Now that's something that interests me. I don't expect you to as well, but I do expect a bit of homework to be done if you are going to continue in your charges against it. Something you seem intent on avoiding. By your own words, even if you have no interest in the field, you have no excuse for your willfull ignorance.

In case you don't remember Chris, let's look at your charge:
I will hang my arguments on the design and integrity of the Scriptures over the groping for evidence and missing links your scientists do any day, period.

Guess what? Anyone with a brain knows that if they're going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, they should at least bother to study it first. You freely admit that you don't. As I said, you lose the right to claim that scientists have found no missing links, because you have deliberately chosen to be ignorant about it.; June 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM
Reynold said...: First of all - did you read my previous comments? Did you grasp from the original how ancient Rabbinic hermeneutic's work? This author clearly doesn't, and your posting of his comment only demonstrates that you didn't bother looking into it either.

Second - his math is wrong when trying to dethrone it. You can get the actual paper on the subject for free, just Google "Boaz Tsaban mathematics in Jewish sources" where you'll find a paper titled "On the Rabbinical Approximation of Pi".

Again, you can continue to chalk it up to mere coincidence; but you've got a lot of coincidences to write off (not to mention the whole of the Hebrew language and how it works...)

Then there's the fact that he noted that the word that makes the "correct" pi value when put in there, makes no linguistic sense. Yeah, some coincidence.

Odd isn't it, how when you people find something you think can be used to show this divine inspiration of the bible, you push it like crazy, but when a hole is found somewhere, then it's cries of "it's not a science book", etc.; June 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

And I'm sure those Hebrew scholars who have lived their entire lives in their culture have nothing but that one chart.

What? What culture are you referring to? Israel today is still 2,000 years removed and mostly atheist (unfortunately). They've maintained distinction of race and religion for the most part and their culture is indeed returning, but to suggest that Messiah Truth have lived their entire lives in the Biblical culture we're talking about is pretty far-fetched. Even ultra-orthodox Judaism today is extremely far-removed from the Judaism of Christ's day. Now, there is a big Hebrew Roots movement going on, but oddly enough, a lot of that push seems to be coming from Messianic and ultra-orthodox circles even though they oppose each other quite a bit.

Would you care to read over the literature of even one field of the physical sciences that deals with evolution? If not, then you have LOST your right to get all snitty because (you don't think) that I do any of the "research" you want me to.

Reynold, as I've said, I have, but it's probably NOT what you want me to. In which case, look, I'll be willing to read something you want to point me to if it's something that can be quickly done in say 1-2 hrs...

The caveat? That you are willing to do the same. We can discuss said items (specifically said items) and maybe enlighten each other. What say you?

You constantly get mad...

I don't, really - but there's room for textual criticism (pun). And as for snitty... yeah alright, I'll concede that.

...because I (in your mind) don't do any research into your holy book, but you outright dismiss and ignore the decades of work of thousands of scientists just because your holy book says something that doesn't agree with science.

That's not entirely correct. On the one hand, yes I will hold to the rule of Scripture - they're either compatible or they aren't - but OTOH there is much I just have a hard time buying into. Like the leap from micro to macro evolution. Let's make one thing clear, I think evolution is a farce. But I don't dismiss science because of evolution. If I did, I couldn't throw down the quantum physics, string theory, and physical properties of time arguments. And THAT stuff interests me. Now, as for the thousands of scholars who've been studying ancient Hebrew and Semitic texts for the last 2,000 years?

Right Chris, and I go by actual scientific scholars who have worked and published in the field, and whose results corroborate each other. Now that's something that interests me. I don't expect you to as well, but I do expect a bit of homework to be done if you are going to continue in your charges against it. Something you seem intent on avoiding. By your own words, even if you have no interest in the field, you have no excuse for your willfull ignorance.

Great, you just had to go and one up me. Listen, I'm not being willfully ignorant. Just because it doesn't interest me much doesn't mean I never attack the topic. I do when I need to.

Guess what? Anyone with a brain knows that if they're going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, they should at least bother to study it first. You freely admit that you don't.

I didn't say that - my quote is:
Reynold, at what point will you understand, from what little you've seen from me on the subject, I'm not interested in 'natural sciences'. It's not my field and I approach it on a case by case basis, when it comes up in my other studies. I just don't care about it.

Emphasis added here. That's a far cry from deliberately choosing to be ignorant about it.; June 19, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Then there's the fact that he noted that the word that makes the "correct" pi value when put in there, makes no linguistic sense. Yeah, some coincidence.

No, I saw that, and I just don't know what he's talking about. The MT shows two words being used translated side by side. Your English translation will drop one because it looks like it's just repeating itself (and a line and a line):

1. קוה qaveh
2. קו qav

To say that one is a mistake isn't quite true. The same word (accused of being a mistaken spelling) shows up in Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 1:16 and Jeremiah 31:39.

Hebrew was originally a pictograph language and each letter carried meaning behind it. If you know the meaning behind the letters, you can, very well, put together the meaning of the words.

One of the easiest ways to see how this works is with the name Abram/Abraham.

Abram = אברם
Abraham = אברהם

The 1st letter is Aleph which is the 1st letter of the aleph-bet and carries the meaning of 'father/strength/leader'. The 2nd letter is Bet and means 'house' or 'dwelling'. The 3rd letter is Resh which means 'head' or 'beginning'. The 4th letter is Mem and means waters (mayim) and gets associated with the stream or wisdom of the Torah. Anyone can go to Psalm 119 and see how David ascribes each stanza to a letter of the aleph-bet (it's an acrostic) and start to get at the meaning of each.

Abram's name basically means the leader/father of the house and the beginning of a multitude.

Now Heh represents the divine breath or Spirit. So when God changed Abram to Abraham (and Sarai to Sarah) He is, in effect, putting His Spirit into their names. But Heh can also be used to say 'behold!' or 'look here!'

My point in all of that is that a Heh (ה) is added to the word קו (qav) and in this verse it should be calling your attention. It doesn't have to be 'put in there' as you say, it is there, but it looks like a mistake. When in reality, it's playing with the words and letters, creating a puzzle, saying 'dig here', if you will - and this is not a unique occurrence of this sort of thing in the Scriptures. In fact, now that you know the meaning behind Abram and Abraham you can see even in the English translations where Hebrew word play is being involved when you read from Genesis 12 through Genesis 25 and beyond as he's referenced back.

So...

Odd isn't it, how when you people find something you think can be used to show this divine inspiration of the bible, you push it like crazy, but when a hole is found somewhere, then it's cries of "it's not a science book", etc.

There's no hole, and it's not a science book :) And as far as demonstrating divine inspiration... this is hardly an introduction.; June 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Reynold said...: Emphasis added here. That's a far cry from deliberately choosing to be ignorant about it.

Baloney. That is exactly what you have done, in this case with the "missing links" that you claim scientists can't find.; June 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Reynold said...: What? What culture are you referring to? Israel today is still 2,000 years removed and mostly atheist (unfortunately).

They have the history and the knowledge and study of their own past.

Reynold, as I've said, I have, but it's probably NOT what you want me to.

Huh? Why would I say it then?

In which case, look, I'll be willing to read something you want to point me to if it's something that can be quickly done in say 1-2 hrs...

That shows committment.

Ok, well, when it comes to the fossil record, you can read over the Talk Origins archive for it, I believe I mentioned it once before. There are many articles, some shorter than others that you may or may not find of use: fossil hominids, or transitional vertebrates...just do a search around.

Let's make one thing clear, I think evolution is a farce. But I don't dismiss science because of evolution.

No, you just dismiss all the sciences when they're talking about evolution without regard to the fact that the scientific method is the same.

There's no hole, and it's not a science book :) And as far as demonstrating divine inspiration... this is hardly an introduction.

If there is "no hole" then the fact that it is not a science book is irrelevent. If it talks about the physical world and there is "no hole" then it should still be completely accurate, regardless of whether it's a science book or not.

To say that one is a mistake isn't quite true. The same word (accused of being a mistaken spelling) shows up in Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 1:16 and Jeremiah 31:39.
%nbsp;
So? Maybe in those verses it's not a "mistake". The guy is referring to one particular instance and the context around it. He's done more research on it than I have, so I'll go with him.; June 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Reynold said...: It just hit me, Chris: You don't seem to like Hebraic scholarship too much when they say something that you don't like (ex. debunking Messianic prophecies), but you eagerly accept it for your "pi" claims.; June 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

You come off sounding like you may know a thing or two, but I've discovered that you do nothing but gather around you teachers that are as dis-believing as you are, and then pawn off their teaching as valid and ignore anything the Bible is really teaching.

Case in point:

21:1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” From Matthew 21. Notice that Jesus says to the disciples to untie the donkey, and if anyone says anything, to inform the that the Lord....

....you know, "SOVEREIGN GOD"?....

....needs them, and he will send them at once.

Your allegation, Reynold, that Jesus stole a donkey is blasphemous and mis-interprets the Scripture.

Please point out the verse where we read of this angry donkey owner, saying, "Tell God's Son to give it back! Who does He think He is, God?...Oh, wait..."

Seriously. You bend and twist Scripture, even to the point where you deny your own sin and blame Jesus of thievery.

When Jesus said, "tell them the LORD needs it," the meaning was obvious: it wasn't "a Lord," but articulated as "THE" Lord in Greek.

But by all means, accuse Jesus when He returns, we'll be waiting for the trial when you, the judge of the Judge of the universe, hold court. Meanwhile, Reynold, that pain in your eye is a PLANK.

Take it out first, so you can see clearly.

Secondly, God owns all there is. How could He steal anything??

Real easy to be "sinless" eh, when it's actually physically impossible to sin with loopholes like that. Think about it.

Loopholes? Being God is a loophole, now?

If you insist to hold such illogical fallacies as this, I'm going to warn you up front: your fig leaf is showing.

When you face your Maker, as it stands, you've heaped blasphemy upon blasphemy atop your head.

Ignore the warning and mock away, Reynold. Fig leaves don't cover sin very well. I thought we learned that in Eden.

Guess what? Try saying that to your mother when she asks you something. Case closed. Even read some Jewish commentaries on it. It is their culture, after all.

Here you're trying to build a case, like a pro Pharisee, against Christ telling Mary "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" which is a KJV translation. The ESV has it this way:

and Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

Here's the same verse, John 2:4, in NIV:

4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."

The point is clear, and it's threefold:

1) You don't understand KJV English. Get another translation.

2) You don't care what the truth is, you just want to turn the sinless Lamb of God into someone not so holy, possibly to pacify your guilty conscience.

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.

Blaming Christ for sins He didn't and couldn't commit can't make your sins go away, but trusting in Him can.

Lay down your illogical eisegetical approach to misinterpreting Scripture. God will hold you blameless when you stop blaming Him for your shortcomings.; June 19, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Re: your "missing links" comment to Chris, sorry to interrupt:

Do you understand why, to this day, SCIENTISTS CALL THEM MISSING LINKS?!

You don't even need to be a scientist to get that: it's English, plainly, that you're having problems with here.

Sorry again to interject.

Reynold, why on earth are you so hell-bent on denying, trying to disprove, and flat-out blaspheming Jesus Christ?

Why do you hate Him?

Did He wrong you, somehow?

And please email me at brazenhusseys@gmail.com when you dig up that missing link...; June 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Reynold said...: Re: your "missing links" comment to Chris, sorry to interrupt:

Do you understand why, to this day, SCIENTISTS CALL THEM MISSING LINKS?!

You don't even need to be a scientist to get that: it's English, plainly, that you're having problems with here.

Sorry again to interject.

I would not talk if I were you...go to the talk origins archive please, and do a bit of reading. You'd be surprised at how many "missing links" have actually been found.

Becauase of the information they have, none of what you have just said rings true about "missing links". Try Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ which includes such sections as:

Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds

I suspect that if you do read them, I know which parts you'll quote...

1) You don't understand KJV English. Get another translation.
For that "dear woman" thing, you may be right, but I'll have to look that up further.

2) You don't care what the truth is, you just want to turn the sinless Lamb of God into someone not so holy, possibly to pacify your guilty conscience.

The truth is, you know nothing about me as that statement of yours just shows. I could twist your statement around back against you by saying that you don't care what the truth is, you just want to believe so bad that you'll take anyone who says what you want to hear and will believe them, possibly to have a faith that will help you deal with your fear of your inevitable death.

It's no more off base than what you just 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.

It's their culture, so they above all people should be able to tell whether their "Messiah" actually fit the bill. Try and come up with something better than the same kind of remarks (Jesus hating Jew) that anti-semites like Martin Luther have used throughout history.

As for the real reason why the Jewish people don't accept him as the messiah, see aish dot com article Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus.

I'll note that, contrary to what Chris earlier alleged, they deal with Isiah 53 instead of pretending that it's a later insertion (his accusation against the Jews in general)

Also, the virtualyeshiva site also deals with that:

"Isaiah 53" - Who Is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53? [Part I]
"Isaiah 53" - Who Is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53? [Part II]

If you want some real in-depth stuff, read the forums at the kosherjudaism boards

As for the "sinlessness" of Christ, if he owns everything as you say he does, can you explain his "render unto Ceasar what it ceasar's" comment when he was asked if they should pay taxes?

Bottom line, he was supposed to lead the perfect life for him to be a sacrifice. Going by a double standard of morality doesn't cut it. Even the bible once said that the appearance of sin (in reference to eating meat that was offerred to idols, I believe) is to be avoided.

As to your remark about my surrounding myself with like-minded teachers, I'd just say the same to you.; June 20, 2009 at 3:07 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

Do you understand why, to this day, SCIENTISTS CALL THEM MISSING LINKS?!

You don't even need to be a scientist to get that: it's English, plainly, that you're having problems with here.

Sorry again to interject.

Thank you! I really should've known it needed to be spelled out in this manner :); June 20, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

They have the history and the knowledge and study of their own past.

As do those at Ariel Ministries, El Shaddai Ministries, First Fruits of Zion, among others. Again, irrelevant. The first Christians were Jewish and The New Testament, save for 2 books, was written by Jewish believers.

But if you're relying on books like Out of the Desert? or The Bible Unearthed, what culture and past are you referring to? These books claim it's all a lie...

It just hit me, Chris: You don't seem to like Hebraic scholarship too much when they say something that you don't like (ex. debunking Messianic prophecies), but you eagerly accept it for your "pi" claims.

Actually, I eagerly accept those who are telling the truth. Those who are flat out twisting things around to keep their beloved false understandings need to be exposed for what they are: liars.

You seem to love Hebraic scholarship when it's blaspheming Jesus Christ yet eagerly reject it when it gets into demonstrating the fingerprints of God on the text.

The fact that Messiah Truth (among others) even exists today isn't anything to wink at. It was predicted in the Old Testament the Messiah would be rejected by His own. Jesus Christ explained that they've been blinded because they did not recognize Him. The Old Testament predicted the very day the Messiah would present Himself to them. They knew what was going on and had they received Him he'd of set up His throne right then and there and this conversation wouldn't even be happening. But in the divine providence of God, He knew what would take place and by His mercy chose to take the Gentiles as His own as well. And Paul explains that while they are blinded for now, it will not be permanent, their eyes will be opened again and we are seeing it happening right now in Israel and throughout the world as the Jewish people are recognizing Yeshua more and more daily - all praise be to God.

The question is, who's right? I've gone through great lengths to demonstrate where your sources are wrong, while you've cut and pasted comments from anything that counters the claim and then state:

So? Maybe in those verses it's not a "mistake". The guy is referring to one particular instance and the context around it. He's done more research on it than I have, so I'll go with him.

Why don't you, instead of taking his word for it, check it out for yourself? Seems a more noble approach, don't you think? As I've said, the tools are readily available to anyone who wants to dig in.

If it talks about the physical world and there is "no hole" then it should still be completely accurate, regardless of whether it's a science book or not.

It is, you've just chosen to ignore it. And as for your pointing me to Talk Origins... that's it? Where's the research you've done? You've said you've studied this - well show me. You're just going to lead me to a site and help navigate to find some articles? Point me to one, what's a good one? What's the one that's going to make me think long and hard on the matter?

No, you just dismiss all the sciences when they're talking about evolution without regard to the fact that the scientific method is the same.

And for good reason - they clash on the issue of time. But you just breezed through the Gerald Schroeder article so I don't expect you to understand that.; June 20, 2009 at 7:20 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

When Jesus said, "tell them the LORD needs it," the meaning was obvious: it wasn't "a Lord," but articulated as "THE" Lord in Greek.

Excellent find there! I'd never had any reason to look at this before... In the Greek it is κύριος (kyrios) G2962. It's used some 748 times in the NT. Very interesting word usage here:

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master

c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

It was item 1 that really caught my eye. In Genesis 49 we have the cryptic riddles and prophesies that Jacob gives over the 12 (soon to be) tribes. In verses 10-11 we have the prophecy over Judah, whom will produce The Messiah:

vs 10: The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs {some versions will keep the title of 'Shiloh'}; the nations will obey him.

Shiloh is a Messianic title which, when defined states literally 'The One to Whom It Belongs'.

Blessings!; June 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

I'll note that, contrary to what Chris earlier alleged, they deal with Isiah 53 instead of pretending that it's a later insertion (his accusation against the Jews in general)

Boy you really don't pay attention, do you Reynold? They *have* to admit it's ancient existence since the Great Isaiah Scroll was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in it's entirety. What part of that wasn't made clear?

I'm on Aish.com almost daily. When you want to start picking apart their stuff, Reynold, let me know. I'll tell you exactly who they claim the suffering servant is in Isaiah 53 - Israel. They've had to completely spiritualize the text to do so. It doesn't work. They've denied their own history of Jewish thought. Ancient rabbinic literature held out for 2 messiah's - Meshiach ben Yoseph and Meshiach ben David. They knew there was to be a suffering servant, they didn't realize it was to be 1 Messiah, 2 comings - their eyes have been closed. Again, we can take this on verse by verse, word by word - I'll be happy to.

As for anti-semitism in the church, it's not unique to the church. But the church is indeed guilty. Replacement theology needs to be abolished, but that's another topic. This was all predicted in the Old Testament as well.

Reynold, the world hates the Jewish people. They are God's chosen people, so it's no wonder. Turn on the news and what do you see?

And as for my comments being accusations against the Jews in general - you are a liar. my comments are here for all to see and you're vomit is really starting to come through now. I will never disregard those chosen by God. Every single one of us are indebted to them for bringing about the Messiah and are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. When you start doing work in Israel for their restoration and salvation, let me know.; June 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Reynold said...: Actually, I eagerly accept those who are telling the truth. Those who are flat out twisting things around to keep their beloved false understandings need to be exposed for what they are: liars.

You do realize that they'd say the same about you, right? I'd like to see how the people who've been studying that stuff and living the culture all their lives are the ones who are the "liars".

You seem to love Hebraic scholarship when it's blaspheming Jesus Christ yet eagerly reject it when it gets into demonstrating the fingerprints of God on the text.

None of it "blasphemes" Christ...they analyze him. That's it. You're making it sound like Hebraic scholarship is deliberately trying to go after Christ.

The question is, who's right? I've gone through great lengths to demonstrate where your sources are wrong, while you've cut and pasted comments from anything that counters the claim and then state:

Really, that's been my impression of what you gave. We each post information from the people whose positions we agree with. I'll leave it up to others to make up their mind, since it's not going to be possible with you.

It is, you've just chosen to ignore it. And as for your pointing me to Talk Origins... that's it? Where's the research you've done? You've said you've studied this - well show me. You're just going to lead me to a site and help navigate to find some articles? Point me to one, what's a good one? What's the one that's going to make me think long and hard on the matter?

I've said that I've read up on this stuff. This stuff, as well as some of their source articles is where I found a lot of it. This is the best single place to do research on evolution.

Do I have to spoonfeed you? Go in, find something that youd be "interested in" and look around.

How many excuses will you make for your academic laziness?

You can read the Fossil Hominid FAQ, or the Transitional Fossils FAQ, or the age of the earth or anything that catches your fancy. I don't know what interests you (and only takes "1 or 2 hours" to read!); you do.

If you read what I said to Chris, I gave a specific place where one could look.; June 21, 2009 at 7:37 AM
Reynold said...: And as for my comments being accusations against the Jews in general - you are a liar.
Please read my comment again: Try and come up with something better than the same kind of remarks (Jesus hating Jew) that anti-semites like Martin Luther have used throughout history.

Where did I say that you "accused" or attacked Jews in general?? I just said that you used the same kind of phrase that those characters used, and history shows that they have used them.

my comments are here for all to see and you're vomit is really starting to come through now.

As I point out above, something is definately coming through.

I will never disregard those chosen by God. Every single one of us are indebted to them for bringing about the Messiah and are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Hopefully not in the same way that John Hagee's group is...

When you start doing work in Israel for their restoration and salvation, let me know.

I'm not the one who's using phrases like "Jesus-hating Jew" in the first place now, am I?

Maybe you should start thinking a little bit before you use those kinds of phrases, eh?

I'll tell you exactly who they claim the suffering servant is in Isaiah 53 - Israel. They've had to completely spiritualize the text to do so. It doesn't work.

Take it up with them. They're the ones who have that interpretation, you're the one who disagrees. I'll note that they did not claim that Isaiah 53 was a later addition, per your charge in an earlier post.

And for good reason - they clash on the issue of time.

The YECs and the real scientists do, but as for the real scientists themselves, not really. Boy, talk about "breezing through something", you've bothered to do NO research on this at all.

But you just breezed through the Gerald Schroeder article so I don't expect you to understand that.

Keep telling yourself both of those things. It'll make you feel better about your lack of will to actually study what you're complaining about.; June 21, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Reynold said...: Back to Chris: About the "sinlessness of Christ", you say that he didn't steal that donkey because as "God", it already belonged to him, correct?

Problem is, when "God" kills people in the OT such as kids, that's also one of the excuses dished out.

So, by your reasoning, if Jesus kidnapped kids, would he then be stealing them any more than he did that donkey, since "all belong" to him in the first place?

He more or less has carte blanche to do all sorts of stuff and still, by your reasoning be called "sinless".

Not looking like a very good example there, eh?; June 21, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Reynold said...: Nuts. Sorry. That last post about "sinlessness" was for Brazen Hussey's; June 21, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Chris said...: Interestingly enough my pastor spoke this morning about the very issue of Isaiah 53 being considered an 'added text' to the Bible by both liberal Christian and Orthodox Jewish Scholarship until 1948 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and the Great Isaiah Scroll was there, in tact, Isaiah 53 and all.

I posted the audio at my site. I clipped it - it's 3 and a half minutes.

It's "The Isaiah 53 Conspiracy" post on my site.

Happy fathers day to all.; June 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Chris:

I really, really enjoy your understanding of the languages. It's that Logos software, isn't it?! Gotta get me some of that. I sold mine to missionaries in Charlotte a couple of years ago. Ah, well!

@ Reynold:

Thanks for remembering me, it wasn't Chris who said that stuff about the donkey, 'twas me.

You bring up a funny "what if" scenario here:

So, by your reasoning, if Jesus kidnapped kids, would he then be stealing them any more than he did that donkey, since "all belong" to him in the first place?

He more or less has carte blanche to do all sorts of stuff and still, by your reasoning be called "sinless".

Not looking like a very good example there, eh?

Are you familiar with Leviticus 25? The fact that the Law of God forbade man-stealing? If this is God's law, and He forbade it for His people, does it stand to reason that He would, as the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, go kidnap people?

Secondly, this is a fictional what-if. The good news is this: it's all HISTORY. Recorded for our convenience. So, in stead of dabble along in these wild scenarios, why don't you simply read the Bible? DID JESUS KIDNAP?

No? Case closed. Next question?

If you want a good treatment of your main contention here, which properly is called "theodicy," or "the problem of evil," I'd suggest you read a short book by Jay Adams called "The Grand Demonstration," subtitled "The So-Called Problem of Evil" or something to that effect. It's a really short read and may be available in libraries near you. I don't have a problem with the so-called problem of evil. God is holy, sovereign, and as Lord, we owe HIM, not the other way around.

That donkey, its human master, all of Judea, Rome, America, and every single molecule or spirit in existence is His. We exist at His behest. We exist because He wanted us to. We live at His convenience, on His timetable, at His whim. If He slay me, yet will I praise Him.

Can He do wrong? Only if you could live a perfect life, Reynold. Can you? Me neither. Thank God for His Son!

And here's another issue, sorry to interject with your conversation with Chris:

Chris:Actually, I eagerly accept those who are telling the truth. Those who are flat out twisting things around to keep their beloved false understandings need to be exposed for what they are: liars.

Reynold: You do realize that they'd say the same about you, right? I'd like to see how the people who've been studying that stuff and living the culture all their lives are the ones who are the "liars".

Here's how these Messiah-denying Jews ((praying they come to repent and trust in Him)), though they've "been studying that stuff and living the culture all their lives" are the liars here:

They killed their own Savior. I'm not anti-semitic, but merely being a Jew by birth isn't a guarantee you know what you're talking about with the Scriptures, Ryk. They were the culture Christ came back to save, and by and large they came to Him. The majority, it would seem, did not do so, but that's an inference. Point being: it was the Pharisees and Sanhedrin that brought the false charges against their Messiah, and clamored for His execution. It's all there in Romans, beginning in chapter 2, but especially in ch's 9-11, and in Galatians. Ancient history, in other words. These 'friends' of yours are to Scripture what a baker is to pretzel dough: twisters of it.; June 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: I don't know why there is such an issue about Christ stealing a donkey when it is clear in Mat 21:3 that it would be free given to the disciples.

Matt 21:3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”; June 21, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Heath:

Amen, and we've discussed the issue ad nauseum.

It boils down to Reynold being uncomfortable

[[as all were, mind you]]

with Jesus being holy and sinless. It's what Sproul calls "the trauma of holiness."

Reynold doesn't want to admit Jesus is sinless, one can only surmise it can be likened to Isaiah's response to his vision of God's throneroom:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

Reynold, it seems, is a bit undone at the thought of Christ being holy and sinless.

But, Reynold, that is our hope! He is sinless because first off, He is God, and secondly because we couldn't be. If Jesus wasn't sinless, we'd have no spotless lamb to be our sacrifice.

He lived and died, and rose again, accept that gift, Reynold. Because you aren't sinless, friend.; June 21, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

You do realize that they'd say the same about you, right? I'd like to see how the people who've been studying that stuff and living the culture all their lives are the ones who are the "liars".

Irrelevant. The first Christians were Jews. they wrote the New Testament. There have been messianic believers throughout the past 2,000 years. The messianic movement is in full swing in Israel as we speak. Messianic Jews are Jews who've come to Christ. The sites you have pointed to have been specifically put up to counter that movement. This whole 'it's their culture' thing is bogus. Messianic and Hebraic roots believer's are Jews, in their culture, studying the same texts, with the same commentaries who believe in Yeshua the Messiah. What part of that do you not understand?

None of it "blasphemes" Christ...they analyze him. That's it. You're making it sound like Hebraic scholarship is deliberately trying to go after Christ.

Yes, of course, that's all... what was I thinking?

Really, that's been my impression of what you gave. We each post information from the people whose positions we agree with. I'll leave it up to others to make up their mind, since it's not going to be possible with you.

Where have you given any indication you actually know what you're talking about? You haven't. You demonstrate a lack of understanding and comprehension. Posting links to this or that, cutting and pasting comments, saying go here and read this does nothing but show the capability of quick witted searches to find opposing views. The fact is, you haven't articulated at any point, that you have the slightest working knowledge of what's even being discussed.

Further, continuing to mix up what discussion you're in with whom, while it's all pretty plain on the very page you're typing in, only shows that you're not even paying much attention - let alone actually reading the comments you're responding to. When you say things like:

Take it up with them. They're the ones who have that interpretation, you're the one who disagrees. I'll note that they did not claim that Isaiah 53 was a later addition, per your charge in an earlier post.

It can't be any clearer. You didn't read what I wrote. You show that as well when you write:

Please read my comment again: Try and come up with something better than the same kind of remarks (Jesus hating Jew) that anti-semites like Martin Luther have used throughout history.

Because that wasn't even what I was responding to, and a quick find on the page for 'Jesus hating Jew' will show those are not my words. In fact, the whole previous comment where you were quoting me, I think you were under the impression you were responding to someone else.

You wrote, and I'm quoting here, bold emphasis mine:
I'll note that, contrary to what Chris earlier alleged, they deal with Isiah 53 instead of pretending that it's a later insertion (his accusation against the Jews in general)

My accusation against the Jews in general? Really?; June 22, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Reynold said...: Are you familiar with Leviticus 25? The fact that the Law of God forbade man-stealing? If this is God's law, and He forbade it for His people, does it stand to reason that He would, as the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, go kidnap people?

Uh, if your "God" owns everything in the first place, as was said in the case with the donkey, then how would he be "breaking his law" by "man-stealing"?

That's the point...He took someone's donkey without first asking permission.

Besides, one of the commandments themselves is 'thou shalt not kill'. "God" kills all the time, doesn't he?; June 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Reynold said...: Well, having accidentally closed the page after composing my last reply, I'm borked. I have to try to remember what I was saying in that, my last comment.

I see now that Chris's charge about Hebraic scholars saying that Isaiah 53 was true, apparently. Though it doesn't help his case in the end, since it wasn't referring to Jesus.

That, and phrases where it's said that Jews hated Christ are common in anti-semitic literature. Just in varied forms.

Chris's charge about the Hebrew scholars being liars and "dough-twisters" falls flat when one realizes who wrote the OT scriputures first. THEM, not the people who started up the offshoot religon after them.

That's all I can remember to comment on for now. Once I see what posts of mine get up, I'll maybe reconstruct.

For Chris statement that the first Christians were Jews, etc. etc, so what? The first atheists would have been originally theists, born and raised in whatever culture they came from.

(hopefully I didn't already say that)

As for brazen hussey's sin and Jesus problem, if what you say is true, it's impossible for your deity to sin, isn't it? He can do whatever he wants, and even if we do the same kind of thing, it's sinning. (ie. killing).

Think. What kind of example is one setting where one can do anything, but the other cannot? That's not being "sinless", that's just living to a double-standard.

Which is kind of shot down by some bible verse where "God" commands people to "be ye perfect even as I am perfect", which implies that in the end, the standards and resulting actions are supposed to be the same for both.

Let me try again: If you "own" everything, how easy is it for you to resist the urge to steal, as compared to one who has little?; June 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Besides, one of the commandments themselves is 'thou shalt not kill'. "God" kills all the time, doesn't he?

Actually, it's 'You shall not murder.'

More atheist drivel.; June 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

I see now that Chris's charge about Hebraic scholars saying that Isaiah 53 was true, apparently. Though it doesn't help his case in the end, since it wasn't referring to Jesus.

Reynold, can you (that is, you specifically) please explain why Isaiah 53 is not referring to Jesus, and to whom it is referring to?

Chris's charge about the Hebrew scholars being liars and "dough-twisters" falls flat when one realizes who wrote the OT scriputures first. THEM, not the people who started up the offshoot religon after them.

I didn't call them 'dough-twisters.' Please check again. Your comments only demonstrate an ignorance of ancient Judaic thought and the phases it has gone through. Pharisaical Judaism was not an original either; it stemmed from rulership by the priesthood. In fact, Judaic rulership has gone through the prophets (Judges/Seers), the kings (Monarchy) and the priesthood (Saducees/Pharisaical). Since Christ is Prophet, Priest and King, you can start to put the picture together on what each was lacking, and why they failed. Modern Jewish thought stems largely from the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. It's mixed into Kabbalah and other 'mysticism' and virtually spiritualized everything in the Old Testament. It has little at all these days to do with ancient Judaism. So to presume, as that's all you can do, that because it's from the Jewish people, they automatically know better, is pointless. So when you dodge the point in:

For Chris statement that the first Christians were Jews, etc. etc, so what? The first atheists would have been originally theists, born and raised in whatever culture they came from.

It ends up being just plain stupid. Are atheists now going to claim a history? A culture? A race? A land? Is that what Richard Dawkins 'Coming Out' campaign is about? What are the goals? To make a name for yourselves? The history of atheistic thought and philosophy? Who's the leader? Where does it stem from? Under what authority can you make any of these claims? Please enlighten us.

Again, that the first Christians were Jewish believers, the early church fathers were predominantly Jewish believers, they observed The Feasts, Shabbat, went to Synagogue and ministered entirely out of the Old Testament demonstrating that Christ was the Messiah prophesied from Genesis 3:15 on. Can you please explain to me how that works?

As for brazen hussey's sin and Jesus problem, if what you say is true, it's impossible for your deity to sin, isn't it? He can do whatever he wants, and even if we do the same kind of thing, it's sinning. (ie. killing).

That you cannot even get the commands right before pressing submit helps prove what's really going on. It'll be interesting to see if you ever articulate for yourself, the issues at hand. In order to do so, you'll have to do the homework for yourself and come to some conclusions based on your study, rather than just spouting the typical talking points.

Let me try again: If you "own" everything, how easy is it for you to resist the urge to steal, as compared to one who has little?

Let's try this instead: Perhaps the conversation will be worth getting into once you can demonstrate a clear understanding of the attributes of God {that is theology proper}.

Or for that matter, anything else you wish to discuss, such as a verse by verse, word by word exposition of Isaiah 52:14-53 and why Aish.com is wrong. Since you insist on taking their word for it, isn't it worthwhile to know what word it is that you're taking?

Or perhaps you can already explain it to us, Reynold? I'd love to hear your synopsis of the matter.; June 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Wow, this thread has derailed so far I can't even see the tracks anymore...; June 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Reynold said...: Reynold -

Besides, one of the commandments themselves is 'thou shalt not kill'. "God" kills all the time, doesn't he?

Actually, it's 'You shall not murder.'

More atheist drivel.

Gee, how did I know you'd do that? And here we go; the fundy word redefinition game...You can kill if "God" wants you to. It's NOT murder then, see?

More supersitious dodging, and bigotry from the looks of it.

Huh? I figure the aish people are right. Since they know more about it then me, I just let them speak for themselves.

By the way, how's your research into evolution coming along? You seem to think that all the actual experts in the field are wrong, care to explain why? At least in Hebrew studies I defer to the experts. With evolution, you just beak off against the relevent experts.

What research did you do that shows the experts wrong?; June 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Gee, how did I know you'd do that? And here we go; the fundy word redefinition game...You can kill if "God" wants you to. It's NOT murder then, see?

More supersitious dodging, and bigotry from the looks of it.

Yeah, those pesky word definitions always get in the way don't they? That the Bible would draw a distinction between murder and manslaughter is so archaic - and even modern laws seem to be modeled after this stupid ancient tribal practice. How absurd!

Huh? I figure the aish people are right. Since they know more about it then me, I just let them speak for themselves.

Doesn't matter if they're wrong then, huh? You'll just believe them because they should know more? Way to go thinking for yourself! Modern enlightenment at it's finest. Why bother doing your own research in the matter - no one would be wanting to persuade anyone to false information, anyhow. Not these days, anyway.

By the way, how's your research into evolution coming along? You seem to think that all the actual experts in the field are wrong, care to explain why? At least in Hebrew studies I defer to the experts. With evolution, you just beak off against the relevent experts.

When did I say all the experts in the field are wrong? Haven't figured out why I don't believe the claims of macro-evolution and the billions of years theories yet, huh? I know you missed the point when I said they seem to clash on the issue of 'time' a few comments back. That pesky quantum physics gets in the way just about as much as those pesky word definitions.... but I digress.

How 'bout that study on Isaiah 53, you game? I can prove Aish.com wrong and I won't even have to do individual original language studies either, even though it'll sting more if we do. Hint: They throw down the metaphorical card... a lot, you know that thing those stupid Christians use too often when you don't like it? For some reason it's ok for Aish.com to use it though, isn't it?; June 22, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Repent, trust in Christ, be saved from your sin.

Or don't.

Lastly: Regarding your charges against God's Son breaking the very law He wrote, it boils down to your faulty understanding of who is "under" the law, and quite matter-of-factly, Heath The Blogless already dealt with this issue: the donkey was given.

Secondly, you can't make yourself righteous, especially by blaming your Judge with faulty charges. It doesn't surprise me, though: that's what His enemies have done from the start, beginning with Satan. You're in terrible company, Reynold.

Repent while there's breath in you.

Whatever it is you left the faith for, it isn't showing much fruit by your logic here. If anything, you display utter need for what Jesus alone can bring you: forgiveness, righteousness, eternal life.

Left on your own, you'll try to re-crucify Him again when He returns, but we all know those battle lines end in our ultimate salvation, and your ultimate doom, so why don't you read up on it in Revelation and see yourself there.

When you're done, repent. Call out to Christ.

I John 1:9

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.; June 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Reynold said...: Yeah, those pesky word definitions always get in the way don't they?

Yeah, as people found out in the Christian-ruled dark ages of europe...the definiton of "murder" was really relaxed during that time.

That the Bible would draw a distinction between murder and manslaughter is so archaic

When did I say that this fundy word redifinition game was a MODERN game? It's obvious that the people who first came up with religious beliefs would not be very 'liberal'.

- and even modern laws seem to be modeled after this stupid ancient tribal practice. How absurd!

Except our modern laws don't allow for such things as the killing of the pregnant wives and children of criminals, whereas in the OT is was commanded to kill the pregnant wives and children of supposedly criminal states like the Amelekites.

When did I say all the experts in the field are wrong?

Well let's see: When you say that you don't believe evolution happened, and all the experts (anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc) all figure that it DID happen, and they have done the research that found evidence for it, what would you say that you just claimed?

Haven't figured out why I don't believe the claims of macro-evolution and the billions of years theories yet, huh? I know you missed the point when I said they seem to clash on the issue of 'time' a few comments back. That pesky quantum physics gets in the way just about as much as those pesky word definitions.... but I digress.

Why don't you give some examples of their having problems with "time" then instead of having your readers guess it. And how in blazes does "pesky quantum physics" get in the way?

This should be really good.

How 'bout that study on Isaiah 53, you game? I can prove Aish.com wrong and I won't even have to do individual original language studies either, even though it'll sting more if we do. Hint: They throw down the metaphorical card... a lot, you know that thing those stupid Christians use too often when you don't like it?

It's more like you people resort to metaphor to dodge an obvious biblical error. The geocentrism problem for instance. Or, as some people have done, for Genesis itself.

For some reason it's ok for Aish.com to use it though, isn't it?

It depends on who's got the correct context. After all, with geocentrism, what evidence do apologists have that shows that any of the bible writers knew that heliocentrism was actually accurate, and that they were just using descriptive language? You don't; not until science showed the truth of the matter.

Some would say it's the same with genesis.

As to your challenge:

Sure, as soon as you can prove evolution wrong. Good luck. You can let the AISH people know of your research, and you can hash it out with them.

Let their readers and those reading here be the judge.; June 23, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Reynold said...: Chris:

If you're going to use quantum physics to shoot down evolution, I can only hope that you're not one of those people who believes that the Observer effect refers to a conscious observer.

Chances are, you're just referring to the supposed "problems" with radiometric dating methods, correct?

If so, then you should realize that those methods, when used properly (ie, not used on instrusive rock layers, etc) do give results that correspond to other dating methods (ice core dating, tree ring dating, etc)

A good example is with the dating of snails. For a description of this "problem", called the "reservoir effect", read the Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CD011.3

As for brazen hussey's
Lastly: Regarding your charges against God's Son breaking the very law He wrote, it boils down to your faulty understanding of who is "under" the law, and quite matter-of-factly, Heath The Blogless already dealt with this issue: the donkey was given.

Before or after the disciples had already started taking it? Also was permission asked beforehand or not?

As to being "under" the law, guess what? If he doesn't operate by his own laws, how can one judge him to be moral or immoral? If he doesn't have to follow any rules, then there is no more reason to call "God" just then there is to call him "unjust". Calling someone just implies that there is some sort of rules that the person adheres to. If it's not the same rules that he sets down for us, then what are they?

Secondly, you can't make yourself righteous, especially by blaming your Judge with faulty charges.

This isn't about me. It never was. You're trying to change the subject here.

It doesn't surprise me, though: that's what His enemies have done from the start, beginning with Satan. You're in terrible company, Reynold.

See above.; June 23, 2009 at 7:41 AM
Reynold said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

If you're going to use quantum physics to shoot down evolution, I can only hope that you're not one of those people who believes that the Observer effect refers to a conscious observer.

Chances are, you're just referring to the supposed "problems" with radiometric dating methods, correct?

No for either. What I'm getting at is the issue of time as a physical property. The question becomes:

Who's clock are we on?

Gerald Schroeder's article 'Age of the Universe' and his book 'The Science of God' deals heavily with the properties of time.

PBS also has a video documentary available for free on their website called 'The Elegant Universe' which is hosted by Brian Greene and based off of his book 'The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory'.; June 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Yeah, as people found out in the Christian-ruled dark ages of europe...the definiton of "murder" was really relaxed during that time.

Jesus made an interesting remark in Matthew 7:16:

You will recognize them by their fruits.

I'm a bit more interested in what people do than what they say, so...

Do you think the Midieval period was a product of Christianity, or a product of political power? If a product of Christianity, can you demonstrate why? We should remember the papacy didn't discriminate in terms of who they chose to slaughter... that is, Christians most definitely were not immune. This same rulership outlawed the Bible and made it's translation punishable by death.

When did I say that this fundy word redifinition game was a MODERN game? It's obvious that the people who first came up with religious beliefs would not be very 'liberal'.

Reynold, is there a difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter? Maybe we should ask you when you're facing criminal murder charges after having accidentally killed someone in self-defense?

It depends on who's got the correct context. After all, with geocentrism, what evidence do apologists have that shows that any of the bible writers knew that heliocentrism was actually accurate, and that they were just using descriptive language? You don't; not until science showed the truth of the matter.

I don't know, Reynold. It just seems irrelevant. Are you going to base your judgment of the Bible as a whole on what you can or can't determine the authors themselves actually knew? Daniel wrote about his visions and the fact that he didn't understand them, as did John. So I wouldn't think it strange that the writers would write of things they couldn't comprehend.

On the other hand, what do we have to determine the ancients as a whole didn't have at the very least a small grasp of these things? Personally, I think the ancients knew a lot more than we tend to give them credit for, for a number of reasons.

None of this has to do with whether or not the Bible is true. Scripture interprets Scripture.; June 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

You wrote:
It depends on who's got the correct context. After all, with geocentrism, what evidence do apologists have that shows that any of the bible writers knew that heliocentrism was actually accurate, and that they were just using descriptive language? You don't; not until science showed the truth of the matter.

I wrote:
I don't know, Reynold. It just seems irrelevant. Are you going to base your judgment of the Bible as a whole on what you can or can't determine the authors themselves actually knew? Daniel wrote about his visions and the fact that he didn't understand them, as did John. So I wouldn't think it strange that the writers would write of things they couldn't comprehend.

To further that point, most of the Prophets (I'm speaking about the group of books known collectively as 'The Prophets') either wrote of, or acted things out (and subsequently wrote of them) without knowing what they were doing. They just did what God told them to do (often not without questioning God at the same time!) Many of whom would not see the outcome of their theatrical productions from this side of Eternity.

So again, my point is, it doesn't matter. Did they really know what they were talking about? Or were they just making pretty poetry? Perhaps neither.

Since half of the verses used to argue the Bible wrote of an immovable Earth are speaking entirely of God's Kingdom and had nothing to do with the Earth at all.; June 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold-

This hang up you have with did they ask permission to get the donkey, is getting tiring. It may be a cultural problem, for example in Australian aboriginal culture, it is quiet alright to use something that belongs to another without asking, it is assumed that everything is for everyone's use. Do you know what the customs of the day were back when Jesus sent for the donkey.

Had the donkey been prearranged for collection, and this just not mentioned in the text. Just because something is not recorded does not mean it did not happen. Could you even consider this as a possibility.

Does the language used in the original Greek translate well into a modern equivalent. The Apostle Paul didn't seem to have a problem with this text, and he lived much closer to the event, and I am sure he new Greek much better that some one 2000 years later.

But I don't have a problem with it at all because the text says it would be given to them freely, and in Paul's letters it says that Jesus was sinless.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

And John didn't have a problem either and he was there.
1 John 3
See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

And Peter 1 Peter 2:21-24

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Just some possibilities for you to consider, you can continue in your delusion that you know better than people that were there or you can listen to what they have to say.; June 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:
I said: Lastly: Regarding your charges against God's Son breaking the very law He wrote, it boils down to your faulty understanding of who is "under" the law, and quite matter-of-factly, Heath The Blogless already dealt with this issue: the donkey was given.

You said: Before or after the disciples had already started taking it? Also was permission asked beforehand or not?

Re: the problem of Jesus stealing a donkey: please, re-read the text Reynold. Secondly, as I've said quite plainly, how can God steal?

Thirdly, who do you think Jesus is? Because the donkey owner surely didn't complain. Or do you have some special revelation you've kept since the first century, hidden from all eyes? In other words, according to the Gospel accounts, this guy gave God's Son i.e. The Lord Jesus his donkey. What would you do? Complain? This is a plainly foolish conversation, Reynold. God is God. He made the donkey and its owner!

If you have problems with it, I'd suggest you get yourself a commentary written by Calvin, Matthew Henry, or some other Christian. From what I've seen so far, you'll grab some PETA commentary and file a law suit in favor of the dead donkey...(really, give me a break already about this "beat a dead donkey" argument, you're standing on quicksand to begin with.)

You continue: As to being "under" the law, guess what? If he doesn't operate by his own laws, how can one judge him to be moral or immoral? If he doesn't have to follow any rules, then there is no more reason to call "God" just then there is to call him "unjust". Calling someone just implies that there is some sort of rules that the person adheres to. If it's not the same rules that he sets down for us, then what are they?

1) Who do you think you are: God's judge?

2) Do you understand that He is not under the law, Reynold? Is that new information for you? Guess what: the LAW was written for SINNERS, not for GOD. It was a covenant written for the people to keep, not for God to obey. I am shocked to see that you don't understand that.

Or do you think, during a wedding ceremony, that the vows are for the minster to keep (to have and to hold the new bride? to be with the husband and obey him??), or are the vows for the congregation of witnesses to keep...OR: are the vows/covenant binding only upon the husband and wife?

This is basic logic, Reynold, and a very simple reading of the following will show you:

5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel. Taken from Exodus 19, God speaking to Moses.

If you want to be God's judge, I ask: you and whose army? Who will enforce your "justice"?

AND: by what standard do YOU judge GOD?

Here's something popular in many biblical seminaries that you need to learn:

There is a God. You're NOT Him.

See my following post. It may help you understand (as if you are seeking understanding??).; June 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Who are you, that you would be God's judge, Reynold? Here's how God put it to Job. Repent, or discover that it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9 when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10 and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11 and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?

12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It is changed like clay under the seal,
and its features stand out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
and their uplifted arm is broken.

16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this.

19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light,
and where is the place of darkness,
20 that you may take it to its territory
and that you may discern the paths to its home?
21 You know, for you were born then,
and the number of your days is great!

22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
for the day of battle and war?
24 What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

25 “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain
and a way for the thunderbolt,
26 to bring rain on a land where no man is,
on the desert in which there is no man,
27 to satisfy the waste and desolate land,
and to make the ground sprout with grass?

28 “Has the rain a father,
or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb did the ice come forth,
and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
30 The waters become hard like stone,
and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades
or loose the cords of Orion?
32 Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
or can you guide the Bear with its children?
33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you establish their rule on the earth?

34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
that a flood of waters may cover you?
35 Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go
and say to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who has put wisdom in the inward parts
or given understanding to the mind? [4]
37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
38 when the dust runs into a mass
and the clods stick fast together?

39 “Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in their thicket?
41 Who provides for the raven its prey,
when its young ones cry to God for help,
and wander about for lack of food?

The diatribe continues in the following chapters. When you stand before the Judge of all and face Justice of God's unveiled glory, try to remember these questions. I'm sure He'd love to answer you about "stealing" something that He made for His own purposes!; June 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Reynold said...: If you want to be God's judge, I ask: you and whose army? Who will enforce your "justice"?

AND: by what standard do YOU judge GOD?

Here's something popular in many biblical seminaries that you need to learn:

There is a God. You're NOT Him.

See my following post. It may help you understand (as if you are seeking understanding??).

Guess what? You people also judge God! The singular difference is, that you look at anything he does that people consider "good" and call him "good" while arguing away or dismissing anything "bad" he does.

Think! If we are NOT supposed to judge "God" at all, then it's equally wrong to say that he's "good", as it is to say that he's "bad". If he operates by a different set of rules than is set for us and we don't know what they are, the most we could say is that his alignment is unknown.

Re: the problem of Jesus stealing a donkey: please, re-read the text Reynold. Secondly, as I've said quite plainly, how can God steal?

I have. The words did not magically change.

The problem right there: How hard is it to be "sinless" when your every action is excused?

Did Jesus run around and take anything and everything he saw? Did he grab the money from the temple after he knocked over the displays and keep the money for himself?

According to your logic, he could've and it'd not be stealing. If he "owned" everything, then it'd be impossible for him to steal (no matter that someone else worked for and bought the thing he could take).

He is supposed to have lived a "sinless" life, yet it seems the deck is stacked in his favour; he could take anything he wanted and it just wouldn't count as "stealing".

The diatribe continues in the following chapters. When you stand before the Judge of all and face Justice of God's unveiled glory, try to remember these questions. I'm sure He'd love to answer you about "stealing" something that He made for His own purposes!

Sounds like "might makes right" to me...

It seems your "God" can do anything he wants and no one is able to "judge" him, because he's not under the "Law" meant for us. Problem: When "Jesus" came to earth to lead a "sinless" life, he put himself under that same law temporarily.

Otherwise, why bother coming if the rules for him and man were still different?; June 23, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Reynold said...: For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Just some possibilities for you to consider, you can continue in your delusion that you know better than people that were there or you can listen to what they have to say.

You do realize that modern scholarship notes that the gospels were written decades after the supposed events, right?

As I said before, if Jesus was supposed to be "sinless" then he should not have done any sinning. I point out that he did. You people do the spin-doctoring.

For an example of an act of deception, which is claimed was not in him:

John 7:6-11; June 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Reynold said...: Now, to Schroeder. For the complete discussion of the man's mistakes in his books read Not a Very Big Bang About Genesis on the Talk Reason site.

There is nothing scientific in the notion that God's frame of reference may be vastly different from men's frame of reference. As far as faith is considered, the above assertion is not a new one, and is simply beyond any discussion in rational, scientific terms. Schroeder, though, wants readers to believe that the described explanation is somehow based on the theory of relativity. It is not.

What the special theory of relativity (STR) has established is indeed that time flows at different rate in different "inertial frames of reference." What the STR meant by different inertial frames of reference was quite rigorously defined. The rate of time flow is different in two such frames of reference which mechanically move relative to each other with certain constant speeds. 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.

Of course, to apply this rigorously defined situation to the creation of the universe according to the Bible requires a considerable stretch of imagination. To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body, second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, 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

So there is really nothing in science to actually back up what that guy claims. Given the numerous mistakes that the guy makes in regards to things that can be checked up on, what basis is there really for taking his theory seriously?; June 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Reynold said...: For example, on page 40 of his book [1] Schroeder writes : "The mass (or weight) of the object while at rest is called, in technical terms, its rest mass." I find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. in physics could indeed think that mass and weight are the same. I prefer to interpret the above sentence as a display of sloppiness in style rather than of ignorance.

On the same page Schroeder writes: "It acquires velocity and in so doing acquires kinetic energy proportional to the velocity." Come on, Dr. Schroeder! Don't you know that kinetic energy is proportional to squared velocity? Is it sloppiness again?

Inconsistent dating, with no explanation given...

Despite the change of dates, Schroeder still asserts in his second book that the advent of the Bronze age, according to the archeological data, precisely coincides with the biblical story (as per his calculations). Like in his first book, Schroeder again pretends not to notice the statement in Genesis 4.22 indicating that Tuval-Cain also made tools of iron. Since in the second book the lifetime of Tuval-Cain is shifted back by some 900 years, it makes it even farther in time from the iron age as determined by archeology. This completely undermines Schroeder's chronological exercise.

Now, to light and time:

Schroeder's explanation entails a serious flaw. A frame of reference which can be attached to photons simply does not exist. If it existed, the photons would be at rest in such a system. However, photons cannot be at rest. According to the special theory of relativity, photons always move with the same speed (in vacuum) in every frame of reference. If a frame of reference wherein photons are at rest existed, time would stop in such a frame. Since, though, no such frames of reference are possible, Schroeder's concept is meaningless.

Of course, in accordance with his agenda, Schroeder tries to prove the analogy between the described alleged "paradox" of the theory of relativity and the concept of God being "outside time." The concept of God being "outside time" belongs to the realm of faith and has nothing in common with the non-existing effect of "time stopping" in systems moving with the speed of light

There are more mistakes that are described by Perakh in that article, some of which seem rather elementary. So Schroder's work doesn't carry much weight with physicists.; June 24, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Reynold said...: To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body, second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, 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

Whoops. Forgot to add this: to say that he is "in a localized volume in space" kind of contradicts what the bible says about him being omniprescent, doesn't it? Same thing about him "rushing past" the universe he was supposed to be creating.; June 24, 2009 at 6:11 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Think! If we are NOT supposed to judge "God" at all, then it's equally wrong to say that he's "good", as it is to say that he's "bad". If he operates by a different set of rules than is set for us and we don't know what they are, the most we could say is that his alignment is unknown.

I'm budding in here, but briefly. I find this statement ironic on the one hand, but even more, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the attributes of God and the Bible. Christianity is completely unique in the sense that God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and you can know Him. This is distinct from any and every other form of theism out there. So in order to truthfully say 'we don't know His alignment' we have to either 1. be discussing something that hasn't been disclosed, or 2. throw out the Bible entirely.

This, I'm willing to argue, is at the heart of everything else you choose to bring out regarding whether or not Jesus Christ is sinless.; June 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

You do realize that modern scholarship notes that the gospels were written decades after the supposed events, right?

Sorry, budding in once more here. This, on the one hand is irrelevant, since 1 Peter 2:21-24 is not one of the Gospels. However, since you brought it up, we now have manuscript fragments of the Gospels dating back prior to 53 AD. Well within the lifetimes of those involved. Further, Jesus said the Spirit would bring to their remembrance everything that had taken place, so...

I also want to point out that these verses (1 Peter 2:21-25) are a collective allusion to Isaiah 53.

Scripture interprets Scripture.; June 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Now, to Schroeder. For the complete discussion of the man's mistakes in his books read Not a Very Big Bang About Genesis on the Talk Reason site.

Oy vey...

Reynold, your ability to truly go above and beyond in your research is astounding. The homework you do to come to your own conclusions is absolutely remarkable.

We can find opposing points of view on anything if we want. I guess 2nd Timothy 4:3 isn't limited to believer's, after all. The real concern is when we find opposing views to the opposing views and then we never know who to believe because they can't all be right, now can they? Especially not when one view is saying the other view is wrong. Thankfully, we can count on you to get to the bottom of things.

From the article, emphasis mine:
To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body, second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, 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

This is just flat out embellishment and poppycock, to hold back from the terms I'd really like to use. Especially when in the same article we read:
Of course, in accordance with his agenda, Schroeder tries to prove the analogy between the described alleged "paradox" of the theory of relativity and the concept of God being "outside time." The concept of God being "outside time" belongs to the realm of faith and has nothing in common with the non-existing effect of "time stopping" in systems moving with the speed of light

Well which is it? Is Schroeder saying God is outside time or inside time? Is He inside time when He's creating things or outside when He's creating things? Now I'm not sure whether to believe Perakh, Perakh, or Schroeder... And just what is Mark Perakh's agenda?

Back to you:
Whoops. Forgot to add this: to say that he is "in a localized volume in space" kind of contradicts what the bible says about him being omniprescent, doesn't it? Same thing about him "rushing past" the universe he was supposed to be creating.

Bingo. And there is nothing in the Bible, Schroeder's work, or the ancient rabbinical understandings which Schroeder frequently points to (to make a point) to suggest that God brought Himself into man's frame of reference in order to perform the creation. This is pure fabrication in the article. Of course, in order to know that, you'd actually have to read the material.; June 24, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Reynold said...: Thankfully, we can count on you to get to the bottom of things.

Somebody has to.

Christianity is completely unique in the sense that God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and you can know Him. This is distinct from any and every other form of theism out there

Right...like the Koran never gives any attributes of it's god?
Anyway, the problem is, the way your diety is portrayed in the bible is not always a positive one, which is my point. You people cherry-pick out the good things, and excuse away the bad things instead of looking at the whole picture.

From the article, emphasis mine:
"To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body, second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, 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..."

This is just flat out embellishment and poppycock, to hold back from the terms I'd really like to use.

The only poppycock here is Schroder trying to shove something from the realm of "faith" into scientific terms. Mark is just calling him on it. Have you studied special relativity as much as Perahk has?

I think he'd know more about what he's talking about than you would.

Then there's the matter of all those other mistakes that Perakh caught Schroder making...

Bingo. And there is nothing in the Bible, Schroeder's work, or the ancient rabbinical understandings which Schroeder frequently points to (to make a point) to suggest that God brought Himself into man's frame of reference in order to perform the creation. This is pure fabrication in the article.

Evidence of your charge, please.

Of course, in order to know that, you'd actually have to read the material.

If that's the case, then what's the problem with "time" that you pretend the evolutionists have then? It sounds like it could fit billions of years then, to me. And yes, Mark has read the original articles and books, as I have read the article you pointed out.; June 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold

Sorry no spin doctoring needed the texts I quoted say that Jesus had no sin.

I can see from the text you referred to John 7:6-11 that you have made your mind up about this mater and that you will not be reasonable or even logical, your arguments are getting ridiculous, I don't see what your problem is with he verses, Where did Jesus sin here exactly.
He said his time had not yet come. He waited in Galilee. Then he went up to the feast. He went in secret, thus avoiding the Jews who were looking for him. If you read a couple verses later, the Jews weren't looking to reward him. He actually may have saved his disciples from being taken by the Jews, by not going up there with them. Buy taking some time in Galilee he was not taken by the Jews.

Did you actually read the verse, or did you just read it on some other website like the skeptics annotated bible an just follow them blindly.

John 7:6-13
Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to this feast. I am not yet[a] going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” 9 When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee.
10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. 11 Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, “Where is He?” 12 And there was much complaining among the people concerning Him. Some said, “He is good”; others said, “No, on the contrary, He deceives the people.” 13 However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews.

John 7:25b “Is this not He whom they seek to kill?"

I pray for you Reynold; June 24, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ Reynold:

Howdie, Reynold!

You said:
Did Jesus run around and take anything and everything he saw? Did he grab the money from the temple after he knocked over the displays and keep the money for himself?

According to your logic, he could've and it'd not be stealing. If he "owned" everything, then it'd be impossible for him to steal (no matter that someone else worked for and bought the thing he could take).

According to my logic, Jesus could've shot the disciples with a .44 Magnum and been sinless. Why? They deserved Hell. Anything other than that is pure grace.

But that's irrelevant to the question.

What I want you to see, Reynold, is that here you argue for a hypothetical event that will never happen, because all that we know of Jesus has been recorded in the annals of Sacred History.

In other words, your hypothetical situation is as relevant as Bill Clinton's presidency is relevant to the weeds growing in my backyard. (But of course, it depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?)

I won't argue with you along the lines of your "what if" scenarios, because we have all the input we need. Did Jesus do these things you allege He could've done in your hypothesized universe? No. We have the record of what He did while here.

So what's the point?

The other issue is this:

1) You claim the Bible is untrustworthy.

2) You then use the Bible to disprove the Bible.

Which is it? Is it trustworthy or not? If it's not trustworthy, quit complaining about what you read therein! If it is trustworthy, then I'll say this: read the text.

You needn't be a Pharisee nor a Scribe nor a teacher of the law to read plainly that the type of Jesus you've invented, the straw-man Jesus you so easily knock down, doesn't exist.

Back to my logic, for a minute. You keep telling me to "think!"

I take that rebuke and as you to do the same.

Why do we sin, Reynold?

I'll answer as the Bible does: because we're sinners.

Why doesn't God?

Again: because He is absolutely holy.

The problem here isn't God's nature, Reynold, it's the nature of mankind. We're fallen, and because of our rebellious nature, face Holy Justice.

You were right to say that for a time, the incarnate Son of God put Himself under the Law. You are incorrect, however, in your now 3 allegations that He was sinful.

As Heath pointed out, Scripture tells us He was sinless. Being God's Word, I'd say the fault here lies in your understanding: trust was God testifies about His Son.

The fact remains: Holy Justice must be served. As it stands, you spend your time alleging God to be a liar (because His Word is untrustworthy in your estimation and because of your misunderstanding of John 7), a thief, a petulant and rebellious son, and a hypocrite.

My question to you: how do you measure up on Judgment Day?

That, above all other of your queries, needs your full attention.; June 24, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Right...like the Koran never gives any attributes of it's god?

Not in the sense that you can know, or more importantly, trust Allah. He's presented as capricious. He can do whatever he wants. He doesn't make promises cause it really depends on his mood. Muslim's end up in a never ending quest to do all the things they have to do just so that *maybe* they can go into paradise, and *maybe* get to live with the virgins, etc. But in the end, there's no guarantee. :(

Unlike YHWH whom you can know and trust. He makes promises and swears by His own Name that He will see them through (since there is no one greater to swear by.) No jumping through hoops. No rules you can't keep. Nothing but repentance and trust in Him.

Anyway, the problem is, the way your diety is portrayed in the bible is not always a positive one, which is my point. You people cherry-pick out the good things, and excuse away the bad things instead of looking at the whole picture.

That's idolatry. Scripture interprets Scripture.

The only poppycock here is Schroder trying to shove something from the realm of "faith" into scientific terms. Mark is just calling him on it. Have you studied special relativity as much as Perahk has?

Wrong, which again, only demonstrates you haven't read the material. And further yet, demonstrates your lack of objectivity and neutrality in the matters at hand... Looks like some more cherry-picking.

Evidence of your charge, please.

Uh... What? That is the evidence... The Bible, Schroeder's work, the ancient rabbinical understandings (specifically Rashi, Nahmanides, Maimonides, the Talmud).

The whole point of Schroeder's work is to present the fact that the issue of time as a physical property and hyper-dimensions beyond our 3 + time realm was gleaned centuries before any of this stuff was scientifically proven. The rabbinical sources noted gathered it simply from studying the first few chapters of Genesis.

You don't have to take my word for it, or Schroeder's or Perakh's, or Dawkins or anyone else's, Reynold. In other words, don't believe anything anyone else tells you, figure it out for yourself - truthfully. Not many will give you that freedom. Everyone's got an agenda, a motive. I want nothing more than for you to come to Christ in repentance. It seems that at least a few others on here do as well. And for what? What do I or anyone else here gain by praying for you and pleading with you to come to Christ?; June 24, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Reynold said...: brazen hussey's:
The other issue is this:

1) You claim the Bible is untrustworthy.

2) You then use the Bible to disprove the Bible.

Read up on court proceedings. That's what opposing lawyers do to the other guy's witnesses.

I can see from the text you referred to John 7:6-11 that you have made your mind up about this mater and that you will not be reasonable or even logical, your arguments are getting ridiculous, I don't see what your problem is with he verses, Where did Jesus sin here exactly.
He said his time had not yet come. He waited in Galilee. Then he went up to the feast.

When he said that he wouldn't. I know the reasons why, but still, isn't a lie, a lie?

I read it from the biblegateway site.

Not in the sense that you can know, or more importantly, trust Allah. He's presented as capricious. He can do whatever he wants. He doesn't make promises cause it really depends on his mood. Muslim's end up in a never ending quest to do all the things they have to do just so that *maybe* they can go into paradise, and *maybe* get to live with the virgins, etc. But in the end, there's no guarantee. :(

So? The character of the OT God is also revealed by reading the OT. Not much difference that I can see. Both seem to do whatever they want, and in neither religion are you allowed to question.

In regards to cherry-picking the bible for the good verses and ignoring the bad verses, Chris said: That's idolatry. Scripture interprets Scripture.

That's what you people do. Atheists look at the whole thing, and not just the "good parts".

The only poppycock here is Schroder trying to shove something from the realm of "faith" into scientific terms. Mark is just calling him on it. Have you studied special relativity as much as Perahk has?

Wrong, which again, only demonstrates you haven't read the material. And further yet, demonstrates your lack of objectivity and neutrality in the matters at hand... Looks like some more cherry-picking.

Oh? I'm wrong? Ok, how much studies in special relativity have you done? What books have you read?

As for not reading the material, please! I've quoted a bunch of the material! I've listed the mistakes of Schroder that Perakh has found, (and which you've ignored)...the only one who's "cherry-picking" is you

The whole point of Schroeder's work is to present the fact that the issue of time as a physical property and hyper-dimensions beyond our 3 + time realm was gleaned centuries before any of this stuff was scientifically proven. The rabbinical sources noted gathered it simply from studying the first few chapters of Genesis.

Problem is, Schoder hasn't been able to prove ANY of it! He uses inconstent frames of reference, gives no justification for using the different frames of reference with the problems that arise from using them which Perakh pointed out, and even makes several elementary mistakes which Perakh pointed out and you ignored.

And for what? What do I or anyone else here gain by praying for you and pleading with you to come to Christ?

Doesn't the bible promise rewards?; June 25, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

You're merging discussions now... it's getting childish and immature. Heath spoke well when he said your arguments are ridiculous.

I read it from the biblegateway site.

This is a very typical atheist response. It's also typically a lie. It's a talking point. Often items will be ripped from an atheist 'Bible discrepancy' page with 0 to 0 actual lookup to verify what they're reading. When asked where they got it, they'll say the Bible Gateway site without any explanation of version. You may or may not find the version because it may not really exist (like BathTub's verses up toward the top.) In fact, what BathTub did is a perfect example of this.

Often times they'll spout off some kind of nonsense like 'I got this from the RSV, the most accurate English translation of the Bible there is!' which for anyone who's studied Scripture, this is laughable.

I'm willing to bet, Reynold, you don't even know the passage or read it right out of the SAB (or some other like site). Judging from your handling of the argument, you have little to no working knowledge of the topic at hand.

So? The character of the OT God is also revealed by reading the OT. Not much difference that I can see. Both seem to do whatever they want, and in neither religion are you allowed to question.

This is a perfect example of such working knowledge.

And then you get some statement like this:

That's what you people do. Atheists look at the whole thing, and not just the "good parts".

Yeah, those noble atheists who rip the Scriptures, don't do their own homework and really have no idea what their talking about. From the trustworthy Skeptics Annotated Bible (which, you Reynold, admitted embellishes the claims) to the oh so scholarly evilbible.com site. They really put on the whole of Scripture... This very thread is a testament to just how well they do.

Oh? I'm wrong? Ok, how much studies in special relativity have you done?

Here's the other thing, you're not allowed to have an opinion on a matter unless you hold a PhD in said field. But even if you do, unless you agree with the atheists, you're wrong. So much for nobility.

So you get this:
As for not reading the material, please! I've quoted a bunch of the material! I've listed the mistakes of Schroder that Perakh has found, (and which you've ignored)...the only one who's "cherry-picking" is you

Which is supposed to somehow help give credibility to our friend Reynold. Posting quotes of other material really belongs in the footer or as reference points for your argument. Posting said quotes as your argument only shows a lack of capability for handling the topic yourself. That's basically all we've gotten from you Reynold.

It's about an agenda. Instead of getting to the bottom of the Truth, Reynold is perfectly content with not only believing, but spreading lies. Anything that shows an opposing view to whatever it is he chooses not to believe is what he'll buy. Case in point, aish.com and Isaiah 53. Even though the very people who spent 1500 years lying about the text had to admit to it, he'll still take their position. It's 2nd Timothy 4:3 at it's finest.

Doesn't the bible promise rewards?

Reynold, when you want to get into a study on rewards, let me know. I'll be happy to.; June 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Reynold

I don't know if you actually what I said fully, and thought about it. But I assume from your response that you didn't. You have made it clear from your responses that you don't care what people write, and that you have made your mind up already.

Thanks for talking, I see more and more the truth about what Ray comfort says about appealing to a persons intellect when witnessing. Thanks for the lesson.
I pray that you will repent of you Blasphemy, Pride and Idolatry and Trust Jesus as your savior.; June 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Reynold said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Reynold said...: This is a very typical atheist response. It's also typically a lie. It's a talking point. Often items will be ripped from an atheist 'Bible discrepancy' page with 0 to 0 actual lookup to verify what they're reading.

Actually, I got that from memory. I hunted and pecked around on their biblegateway site, but thanks for that broad brush anyway.

When asked where they got it, they'll say the Bible Gateway site without any explanation of version. You may or may not find the version because it may not really exist (like BathTub's verses up toward the top.) In fact, what BathTub did is a perfect example of this.

I used their KJV version, their English Standard Version which has the intersting note:

John 7:8 Some manuscripts add yet to the phrase where Jesus said that he's not going up to the feast.

I'm willing to bet, Reynold, you don't even know the passage or read it right out of the SAB (or some other like site). Judging from your handling of the argument, you have little to no working knowledge of the topic at hand.

You'd lose.

Which version would you accept, anyway?

Anyhow, all I'm doing is taking the verses in context, and watching you spin them around and around while accusing ME of not knowing what I'm talking about.

Unlike you when you ignorantly dismiss evolution while not even bothering to do any research, even though I've spoonfed you as to where you can look and you just complained that it's not specific enough. The last time, I gave specific places to look. What'll be your excuse this time?

Yeah, those noble atheists who rip the Scriptures, don't do their own homework and really have no idea what their talking about. From the trustworthy Skeptics Annotated Bible (which, you Reynold, admitted embellishes the claims)

Lie on your part. I said that the guy was too eager to go after anything that could be mistake (poems, and dream sequences and such). There is a difference between that and "embellishing" you know...

Or maybe you don't?

to the oh so scholarly evilbible.com site. They really put on the whole of Scripture... This very thread is a testament to just how well they do.

Though you're being childish and snarky about it, there is a grain of accuracy in your statement: Atheists DO look at the whole bible, and NOT just the "good" parts. We don't cherry pick, we look at the whole picture.

Here's the other thing, you're not allowed to have an opinion on a matter unless you hold a PhD in said field. But even if you do, unless you agree with the atheists, you're wrong. So much for nobility.

Your statment is, at best, an exaggeration. What one is supposed to have done is to have at least:

researched the project him/herself which you obviously did not with TSR or evolution

You know, what you keep accusing against me when it comes to "Scripture"? You sure howl when you get treated in that same way, don'tcha?; June 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Reynold said...: Which is supposed to somehow help give credibility to our friend Reynold.

No, it's showing that Schroder has made several elementary mistakes in his articles, indicating that the work that you rely on may not be of such a high quality for accuracy.

Posting quotes of other material really belongs in the footer or as reference points for your argument. Posting said quotes as your argument only shows a lack of capability for handling the topic yourself. That's basically all we've gotten from you Reynold.

Guess what really shows a lack of capability for handling the topic: refusing to even try to deal with the points that the quotes brought up! instead of whinging about where they should be placed?

What you've gotten was information from a more knowledgeable source about the field that's being talked about.

What? Am I supposed to get a "PhD" in physics myself before I'm allowed to argue it? (does the irony of that question sink in yet)?

Besides, I was unware that this was a doctoral thesis or a formal argument. Stupid me.

It's about an agenda. Instead of getting to the bottom of the Truth, Reynold is perfectly content with not only believing, but spreading lies.

As far as I'm concerned, and as far as honest Hebraic scholars are concerned, that's what you're doing.

Anything that shows an opposing view to whatever it is he chooses not to believe is what he'll buy.

Nice brainless generalization. I read this stuff, I have for years.

You just don't like what they have to say, and NOTE: You have not yet shown why the AISH people are "lying". Take it up with them.

Case in point, aish.com and Isaiah 53. Even though the very people who spent 1500 years lying about the text had to admit to it, he'll still take their position. It's 2nd Timothy 4:3 at it's finest.

And here you go; they're lying.

How's about letting the AISH people know about your "brilliant" research that lets them know that you've exposed all their "lies"? You can publish it right here, and you can send it to them also.

I believe I asked that of you once before. Have you sent them your "research" that refutes them yet?; June 25, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

I used their KJV version, their English Standard Version which has the intersting note:

John 7:8 Some manuscripts add yet to the phrase where Jesus said that he's not going up to the feast.

That's a little more like it. That demonstrates some effort. The 'yet' is a possible reading, but the grammar in the Greek is present tense, so even without the 'yet' it should read 'not now going...'

A question should be raised about His 'time not yet coming'. This is an important part to understanding what's going on. What feast they're celebrating (the Feast of Tabernacles) and why will help to unravel it even more. No contradiction, no lie, just need to put it in the context of the culture, time and what's expected of the Messiah.

Which version would you accept, anyway?

Personally I prefer the ESV, though it's not without it's problems. Any decent translation will do. Your most widely used these days are KJV, ESV, NIV, NKJV and probably the NASB. Aside from a decent translation, there are ample good Bible study tools available these days, most for free, online. The layman can easily get at the original languages and it doesn't take too much know how to utilize the academic books either.

Unlike you when you ignorantly dismiss evolution while not even bothering to do any research, even though I've spoonfed you as to where you can look and you just complained that it's not specific enough. The last time, I gave specific places to look. What'll be your excuse this time?

You presume I ignorantly dismiss it. That's not so, you just won't like my sources.

Lie on your part. I said that the guy was too eager to go after anything that could be mistake (poems, and dream sequences and such). There is a difference between that and "embellishing" you know...

Isn't that stretching the truth? To me, that's inexcusable. You can't convince me the individual who put the SAB site together isn't capable of doing enough detective work to make sure his claims are true and accurate. I will repeat, the tools are available that even the layman can get at the original languages, study the texts, familiarize themselves with the culture and so on, often for free. You don't have to be a trained scholar in Hebrew & Semitic languages to do that...

Though you're being childish and snarky about it, there is a grain of accuracy in your statement: Atheists DO look at the whole bible, and NOT just the "good" parts. We don't cherry pick, we look at the whole picture.

Coming at it with an agenda is not looking at the whole picture.

Your statment is, at best, an exaggeration. What one is supposed to have done is to have at least:

researched the project him/herself which you obviously did not with TSR or evolution

Right, Reynold. I believe I've done enough to render an opinion. Quantum physics - fascinating. Accidental information - a lie.; June 25, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Reynold said...: You presume I ignorantly dismiss it. That's not so, you just won't like my sources.

Just like you don't like my sources?

At least I tried.

Anyhow, I had said for you to cruise through and pick anything from there that interested you, and do some reading. This isn't something that's done right away...several days, a few weeks, etc. I don't even care if you post about it or not: Just don't blindly dismiss something without reading something about it first.

That's a little more like it.

That was information I already had. I just didn't know you'd get huffy about my only using one version of it, and go off on some rant about "evilbible" and "skepticsannotatedbible" etc.

Remember that I said that the second site (I've not looked at the first site) is only a good place to start research. (or, if you remember various verses, or if you hunt around for various topics on online bibles or have some bibles lying around that you can thumb through, etc).

That demonstrates some effort. The 'yet' is a possible reading, but the grammar in the Greek is present tense, so even without the 'yet' it should read 'not now going...'

Or it could just read that he's saying something like: 'I am not going' and still be in present tense. The "yet" could have been added in strictly to dodge the fact that the guy went later on. There is still the fact that it goes on to say that 'but he went up later' and all that jazz.

Lie on your part. I said that the guy was too eager to go after anything that could be mistake (poems, and dream sequences and such). There is a difference between that and "embellishing" you know...

Isn't that stretching the truth? To me, that's inexcusable. You can't convince me the individual who put the SAB site together isn't capable of doing enough detective work to make sure his claims are true and accurate.

So you're willing to convict "without a fair trial" as it where. Whatever. Just to note: That's the attitude scientists have toward creationists when they've dealt with their "points" over and over again...

For someone who's always harping about doing one's homework, you sure don't like doing any of your own when it comes to something you don't want to believe in (evolution).

I've just noticed that you claim to have done "enough" reading on "quantum physics" and "accidental information" to know what you're talking about...I supsect not.

To use the phrase "accidental information" shows that you haven't done enough reading. Just go to the Talk Origins archive and look up "informtion theory".

There is mutation and natural selection. It's the natural selection that determines which mutations (that have arisen by "chance" and the laws of biology) actually make it.

You may also want to read CB102: Mutations adding information in the Index to Creationist Claims section.

There is one last thing: You have still not addressed any of the problems that I quoted Mark Perakh as having with Schroder's work.; June 26, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Chris said...: Reynold -

No, it's showing that Schroder has made several elementary mistakes in his articles, indicating that the work that you rely on may not be of such a high quality for accuracy.

First of all, his name is Gerald Schroeder. You've been misspelling it for quite some time.

Second, Mark's work has been reviewed and critiqued as well. Should we bring up David Turrell's review of Unintelligent Design? Mark's response to David? Do we then discuss Scott Uminsky's review? It's never-ending.

Further, Perakh is adamantly atheist. At what point will there genuinely be neutral ground? Not in Unintelligent Design. The very title gives that away, though it claims to be that middle ground. He flat out opposes any and all science done by anyone who believes in God (or design for that matter). He's called them all out, and lists them all in his book. So they're all wrong and should be written off. Do you see how blanket and one-sided it gets? First rule in the art of persuasion, don't insult your target audience.

The very article, 'Not a Very Big Bang' starts off asserting that Schroeder's work is done to reconcile the Biblical story with scientific data. So what do we get? A Schroeder's wrong article.

So when you write:

Guess what really shows a lack of capability for handling the topic: refusing to even try to deal with the points that the quotes brought up! instead of whinging about where they should be placed?

It's been done, and it will continue to be argued, over and over and over again. So what's the point? You can read Schroeder's work, compare it with what we known in quantum physics and take away what you will. He won't insult your intelligence or any of his colleagues in the process. He's enjoyable to read and listen to and it just may bend the way you see the world a little.

What? Am I supposed to get a "PhD" in physics myself before I'm allowed to argue it? (does the irony of that question sink in yet)?

Are you allowed to have an opinion that counters Mark Perakh's?

As far as I'm concerned, and as far as honest Hebraic scholars are concerned, that's what you're doing.

We all are. And at some point, someone's right and someone's wrong.

Or it could just read that he's saying something like: 'I am not going' and still be in present tense. The "yet" could have been added in strictly to dodge the fact that the guy went later on. There is still the fact that it goes on to say that 'but he went up later' and all that jazz.

Not really, since it's not needed. Besides, the context takes care of any question about it. Again, understanding the who what when where and why of it all will make it all very simple.

So you're willing to convict "without a fair trial" as it where. Whatever. Just to note: That's the attitude scientists have toward creationists when they've dealt with their "points" over and over again...

And over and over and over. Well, since most 'science' is debatable, hence all the debates, it only makes sense. The Bible is there in black and white, has been for thousands of years. It is what it is and therefore, no excuses.

You may also want to read CB102: Mutations adding information in the Index to Creationist Claims section.

Yes, well that depends on what the definition of is, is.; June 26, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Reynold said...: First of all, his name is Gerald Schroeder. You've been misspelling it for quite some time.

Nertz, my bad.

It's been done, and it will continue to be argued, over and over and over again. So what's the point? You can read Schroeder's work, compare it with what we known in quantum physics and take away what you will. He won't insult your intelligence or any of his colleagues in the process.

I have gotten hold of his work, all I've found so far is that Perakh's accusations dealing with Schroeder's errors have been confirmed. From what else I've read about quantum physics, which ain't that much, from Perakh's work, I think he's got the stronger case.

Let the readers decide.

Further, Perakh is adamantly atheist.

Is that poisoning the well fallacy or just ad-hom?

I forget.

At what point will there genuinely be neutral ground? Not in Unintelligent Design. The very title gives that away, though it claims to be that middle ground. He flat out opposes any and all science done by anyone who believes in God (or design for that matter).

Or, he "flat out opposes" science that's done by people who are so eager to justify their faith that they make several mistakes in their work that a person of their education should not make?

He's called them all out, and lists them all in his book. So they're all wrong and should be written off. Do you see how blanket and one-sided it gets? First rule in the art of persuasion, don't insult your target audience.

Have you read his book? Is their being religious the only reason that he dismisses them? Or are there other reasons? Remember, again! the several other low-level mistakes that Perakh caught, and that I had quoted earlier, which you ignored.

Second rule of persuasion: Don't ignore the guy's arguments in favour of complaining how "biased" he or she is.

And over and over and over. Well, since most 'science' is debatable, hence all the debates, it only makes sense.

Yes, science is so "debatable" that people still have debates on the "humor" vs the "germ" theory of disease, debates still rage over "geocentricity" vs. "heliocentricity", etc.

Hardly anything ever gets settled in science.

The Bible is there in black and white, has been for thousands of years. It is what it is and therefore, no excuses.

There's a whole field's worth of excuses. It's called apologetics.

It's been done, and it will continue to be argued, over and over and over again. So what's the point?

Not by YOU it hasn't. Odd, how you're refusing to do any acknowledgement of the elementary physics errors that Perakh caught your guy with. Hopefully the person you're talking about after that statement would not make those errors in the first place, so he'd have more credibility.

Are you allowed to have an opinion that counters Mark Perakh's?

If you can back it up, yes.. You haven't. You haven't even addressed the fact that the guy caught Schroeder in several elemantary physics mistakes (elementary for people in that profession, anyway)!

Yes, well that depends on what the definition of is, is.

Ok, you're not going to take this seriously enough to even bother to read it, while you've been growling at me because I don't do enough research?

Have a nice one, then.; June 27, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Reynold said...: First of all, his name is Gerald Schroeder. You've been misspelling it for quite some time.

Nertz, my bad.

It's been done, and it will continue to be argued, over and over and over again. So what's the point? You can read Schroeder's work, compare it with what we known in quantum physics and take away what you will. He won't insult your intelligence or any of his colleagues in the process.

I have gotten hold of his work, all I've found so far is that Perakh's accusations dealing with Schroeder's errors have been confirmed. From what else I've read about quantum physics, which ain't that much, from Perakh's work, I think he's got the stronger case.

Let the readers decide.

Further, Perakh is adamantly atheist.

Is that poisoning the well fallacy or just ad-hom?

I forget.

At what point will there genuinely be neutral ground? Not in Unintelligent Design. The very title gives that away, though it claims to be that middle ground. He flat out opposes any and all science done by anyone who believes in God (or design for that matter).

Or, he "flat out opposes" science that's done by people who are so eager to justify their faith that they make several mistakes in their work that a person of their education should not make?

He's called them all out, and lists them all in his book. So they're all wrong and should be written off. Do you see how blanket and one-sided it gets? First rule in the art of persuasion, don't insult your target audience.

Have you read his book? Is their being religious the only reason that he dismisses them? Or are there other reasons? Remember (again!) the several other low-level physics mistakes that Perakh caught, and that I had quoted earlier, which you ignored.

Second rule of persuasion: Don't ignore the guy's arguments in favour of complaining how "biased" he or she is.

And over and over and over. Well, since most 'science' is debatable, hence all the debates, it only makes sense.

Yes, science is so "debatable" that people still have debates on the "humor" vs the "germ" theory of disease, debates still rage over "geocentricity" vs. "heliocentricity", etc.

Hardly anything ever gets settled in science.

The Bible is there in black and white, has been for thousands of years. It is what it is and therefore, no excuses.

There's a whole field's worth of excuses. It's called apologetics.

It's been done, and it will continue to be argued, over and over and over again. So what's the point?

Not by YOU it hasn't. Odd, how you're refusing to do any acknowledgement of the elementary physics errors that Perakh caught your guy with. Hopefully the person you're talking about after that statement would not make those errors in the first place, so he'd have more credibility.

Are you allowed to have an opinion that counters Mark Perakh's?

If you can back it up, yes.. You haven't. You haven't even addressed the fact that the guy caught Schroeder in several elemantary physics mistakes (elementary for people in that profession, anyway)!

Yes, well that depends on what the definition of is, is.

To paraphrase what you once said to me: Do your homework before spouting off nonsense, Chris.

Have a nice one.; June 27, 2009 at 7:40 AM
Doktor Benway said...: I can only speak for myself, but the reason I left Christianity, aside from my opinion that it is exceedingly silly, is because of people like BH and Chris.; June 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Brazen Hussey's said...: @ FC:

"The reason I left Christianity...is because of people like BH and Chris."

Do me a favor, and elaborate on that. I won't go this-for-that, just curious.; June 28, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Chris said...: Reynold -

Is that poisoning the well fallacy or just ad-hom?

I believe you're thinking of poisoning the well. Yeah, I can concede that. My point is his intentions are clear from what I can tell of his work, and I'm not alone in this. David Turrell brings that point up a bit in his review of Unintelligent design.

Or, he "flat out opposes" science that's done by people who are so eager to justify their faith that they make several mistakes in their work that a person of their education should not make?

That doesn't seem to be the case. You can tell a lot from his writings.

But let's set errors (if some of them are true, Schroeder says Perakh is wrong) aside for the moment. I pointed you to his article and also the Elegant Universe documentary (non-religious; I believe Brian Greene is quite agnostic, maybe atheist leaning) simply to help open up the issue of time and dimensions in greater than 3 + time. It is to this point that Perakh cannot argue with Schroeder, as he notes in his article:

As Schroeder explains, the theory of relativity has established, among other things, that there is no absolute time. Of course, this is true. In different frames of reference, continues Schroeder, the time interval between two events may be quite different. This, of course, is also true. What lasted six days in one frame of reference may very well last 15 billion years in some other frame of reference. This is true as well.

Schroeder proceeds to give an example of "time dilation." This is a well known experimental result regarding the behavior of mu-mesons (muons). As Schroeder tells the readers, while 200 microseconds elapse in the frame of reference attached to the ground, only 4.5 microseconds elapse in the frame of reference of the moving muon itself. Experts would gladly agree with that statement, while laypersons have to rely on Schroeder's scientific background and accept his statements.

So set aside the specifics Schroeder used to come up with the 6 day earth time equal to 15 billion years at the edge of the universe (AiG doesn't like his stuff either!) and just wrap your mind around the concept. As I've asked before, who's clock are we on?; June 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Chris said...: -cont-

Reynold -

There's a whole field's worth of excuses. It's called apologetics.

Hardly excuses. Most of the claims are so ridiculous it's a wonder people take them seriously.

Dr. Heiser on Friday responded to a comment on one of his blogs accusing him of being 'anti-tradition'. I think what he said seems so simple and yet profound in this arena. The vast majority of the church are guilty of this nonsense just like bogus discrepancy guru's. It's pertinent, so I'm posting a snip of it here:

I’m not anti-tradition. I’m indifferent to it. There’s a difference. Tradition should serve the text, not the other way around. My loyalties are to the text only, and to the Lord of the text, not to tradition. Tradition with respect to the church fathers has major problems (like Augustine not knowing Greek or Hebrew - pardon me, but THAT is a problem). The Westminster divines, as capable as they were, did nearly all their work without the decipherment of tens of thousands of lines of ancient Near Eastern texts that contextualize the entire Bible. Sorry, THAT is a problem. But they are still useful - but limited.

I also have no penchant for the innovative. If you haven’t discovered my secret yet, here it is loud and clear: I just affirm the text. I say what it says, contextualized by its ancient culture and by other Scripture texts that comment on the same subjects, and that’s it. I put nothing in it that isn’t there. It’s the Naked Bible. It is what it is; it says what it says; and it doesn’t say what isn’t in it. No secret, and not profound.

For what it's worth, Reynold, this is true for all area's of study. I know we're all guilty of forcing data to say what we want it to say. As Chuck Missler often quips - if you torture the data long enough, it'll confess to anything.

Ok, you're not going to take this seriously enough to even bother to read it, while you've been growling at me because I don't do enough research?

I did read it, Reynold, hence my response... It was a joke - you know, like the fundy redefinition word game I think you called it, only this time it's coming from the other end of the isle.

@ False Convert:

snip...is because of people like BH and Chris.

So you were trusting in other Christians instead of Christ, then. Well done!; June 29, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

Do me a favor, and elaborate on that. I won't go this-for-that, just curious.

I wouldn't expect a serious response. The whole 'I was a Christian' stance, I believe, is mostly an attempt at somehow gaining credibility and then showing how they matured by 'growing' out of it. But supposed Christians become atheist all the time and atheists become Christian all the time. And to say you left Christianity because of Christians is really suggestive of the fact that you weren't really a Christian to begin with (as you well know).

I could say I left atheism because of people like False Convert, or Christopher Hitchens... It just doesn't matter. People abuse food all the time but it's not going to keep me from eating lunch. There are a lot of bad drivers on the road but it doesn't keep me from getting in a car. To paraphrase Frank Turek, there are a lot of bad Christians and we've got room for one more.; June 29, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Reynold said...: Or, he "flat out opposes" science that's done by people who are so eager to justify their faith that they make several mistakes in their work that a person of their education should not make?

That doesn't seem to be the case. You can tell a lot from his writings.

From what I read, and from what I quoted previously that IS the case. He made several elementary mistakes which Perakh caught him on, and which I had quoted previously.

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.

Then besides the above biblical problem:
There is nothing scientific in the notion that God's frame of reference may be vastly different from men's frame of reference. As far as faith is considered, the above assertion is not a new one, and is simply beyond any discussion in rational, scientific terms. Schroeder, though, wants readers to believe that the described explanation is somehow based on the theory of relativity. It is not.

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":

To satisfy the requirements of the special theory of relativity, as per Schroeder's explanation, we have to accept that, first, God is a physical body, second, that it is a body which occupies a certain localized volume in space, 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. What would then remain from the concept of the omnipresent non-material God? God performing a marathon - this picture might have been satisfactory for Schroeder's eight-year old son. For those over eight years of age, a better choice seems to be relegating the six-days creation story back to the realm of faith.

Chris:
I did read it, Reynold, hence my response...

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

It was a joke - you know, like the fundy redefinition word game I think you called it, only this time it's coming from the other end of the isle.
It's "aisle", I think, besides unlike you, I did more than just make a joke.; June 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Reynold said...: There's a whole field's worth of excuses. It's called apologetics.

Hardly excuses. Most of the claims are so ridiculous it's a wonder people take them seriously.

Yet many people do take the bible seriously: yes, it's a poor joke, but really...talking animals, people rising from the dead in Jerusalem, around the supposed "resurrection" of Christ, yet only one bible verse records it and no Roman records exist of it?

Science refutes the young earth and a global flood (See Glen Morton's site: DMD Publishing) and look around. He's a geologist, I believe, and he's spent actual time out in the field.

As a relevent aside for apologetics: 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.

Some of the claims in it:

-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.

-The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.

-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.

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

-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.

-The commonly told story of Jesus -- his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.; June 30, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Reynold said...: Chris:

It was brazen hussey's who 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.

Not you. Sorry, that should clear up one point of contention when I started arguing against the anti-semitic meaning of that phrase.; July 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Reynold said...: Please read my comment again: Try and come up with something better than the same kind of remarks (Jesus hating Jew) that anti-semites like Martin Luther have used throughout history.

Because that wasn't even what I was responding to, and a quick find on the page for 'Jesus hating Jew' will show those are not my words. In fact, the whole previous comment where you were quoting me, I think you were under the impression you were responding to someone else.

Yeah, I had forgotten that it was BH who said that, not you, Chris.; July 1, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Reynold said...: Innumerate Fundamentalists and π on the Good Math, Bad Math blog, post #91 has an interesting point.

As to the article Chris mentioned ("On the Rabbinical Approximation of Pi"), they basically say that they used approximations, which no one argues against, and that others had also figured out the approximate values of pi.

Which was my point when bringing up sites like Bible and Science which pointed other such examples out.

No supernatural "inspiration" was needed when such holy books were written. People have been able to figure things out for themselves.

That's why I brought up the idea that if the bible mentioned things like other planets, moons orbiting them, etc. In other words, stuff that the ancient people could NOT have known, or figured out, THAT would have been true evidence of biblical "inspiration".; July 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Chris said...: Brazen Hussey's -

Did I claim you were? If I did, I apologize, as it would be completely uncalled for.

I think the term 'Jew', while we know it to be used interchangeably in Scripture with 'Israel' may be what Reynold is running with. These day's it seems to carry a derogatory tone.; July 2, 2009 at 5:39 AM
Chris said...: Reynold –

Yet many people do take the bible seriously

Absolutely; I’m one of them. It’s stood the test of time. It’s held up to more scrutiny than anything else, bar none. Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is THE central figure in human history, regardless of man’s attempt to dethrone Him. The Bible exists today despite countless attempts to destroy, outlaw, demolish, obliterate, ridicule, corrupt or keep locked up. Michael Jackson is dead. All the pictures of his glory from the 80s do nothing now but demonstrate that regardless of how great you are (or think you are) on this side of Eternity, you too will die Reynold. I pray you recognize your own need for a savior.

Science refutes the young earth and a global flood (See Glen Morton's site: DMD Publishing) and look around. He's a geologist, I believe, and he's spent actual time out in the field.

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. Robert Ballard and his research in the Black Sea. Frozen In Time by Michael Oard. 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. Sharks found at large in Kansas from oceans that once covered the area – how bizarre that is. Marine creatures buried with insects, amphibians, reptiles, etc – all in the fossils of Montceau-les-Mines, France. Ferns, jellyfish, mollusks, insects all buried in the coal beds of Mazon Creed. These things are all over the place and indicate major instantaneous catastrophic change – they don’t get preserved any other way. There’s no way to get marine and land animals together in one spot in the same time frame. You can read about this kind of stuff in Grand Canyon Geology by RL Hopkins and KL Thompson – Kaibab Formation, Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon Formation; Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology by JP Davidson, WE Reed and PM Davis – The Rise and Fall of Mountain Ranges, Isostacy, among others. All evidences that the world we know now is indeed not the world that then was (2 Peter 3:3-7.); July 2, 2009 at 9:32 AM