Monday, July 23, 2012

The 'woeful lack of religious understanding at the heart of government'

Further to the article in The Telegraph by Alan Judd, adviser to the Secretary of State for Education, in which he equated evangelical Christians with 'totalitarian Muslims' and 'segregationist Jews', referring to all such groups as 'extreme', the Evangelical Alliance wrote a letter to The Telegraph to set the record straight. Since the paper's Editor has not seen fit to publish it, His Grace is delighted to do so:
Dear Sir,

It is wrong and worrying that a senior government advisor brands evangelical Christians as extremist (Alan Judd, 19 July). There are approximately 2 million evangelical Christians in the UK , the fastest growing part of the church worldwide. They take their faith seriously, but that does not make them extremist. To suggest it does demonstrates a woeful lack of religious understanding at the heart of government.

Evangelical Christians are at the heart of their community. The churches that are members of the Evangelical Alliance contribute half a million hours of service a week to their communities. In fact, the more important a Christian thinks their faith is, the more likely they are to engage with the world around them. Evangelical Christians work hard to alleviate poverty, counter injustice and care for the vulnerable.

Letting evangelical Christians run schools is not just a matter of equality: it is letting the people who know their communities best work to make them even better.

Steve Clifford
General Director, Evangelical Alliance

What is even more telling, of course, is the silence emanating from the Department for Education on this matter: there has been no retraction, correction or apology from Mr Judd or any spokesperson. Now, if this had been a complaint on behalf of Britain's 2.8million Muslims, who also tend to take their faith seriously without it making them extremist...

138 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

That someone who is an official adviser to the Minister of Education should know so little about British history as to be completely uncomprehending of the faith of the Wesley brothers, William Wilberforce and General Booth of the Salvation Army to name just a few people who should be household names is utterly deplorable.

Mr. Judd is obviously better fitted to be an adviser on "educashun" than "education."

The fact that the Telegraph did not bother to publish the letter from the Evangelical Alliance is also deplorable. I wonder what the journalists on that newspaper who occasionally write on religious issues think of that?

As for the lack of an apology from the Department of Education, that merely goes to show that all the talk of "equality" and "diversity" that emanates from the government is just hypocritical claptrap.

23 July 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger Albert said...

The people who are extremist are those who try to impose a forgetfulness of British Christian culture and support instead, gay marriage and violence such as abortion and euthanasia. True, many people hold such views. Many people are extremists.

23 July 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

NO
WRONG
Evangelical christians are dangerous (see Calvin, Cameronian, witch trials etc.
Religion is not at the heart of ANY community in this country, unless it is there by fear (as in some muslim groups)

Both Evan-christians and muslim fundies deny facts and truths (Evolution, age of the earth etc)
None of them should be allowed anywhere near children, given the lies that they spout.

23 July 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@G Tingay

II know I shouldn't respond but the temptation is too overwhelming!] How will the country make up the short supply of teachers if evangelical Christians aren't allowed near children? And how will social services cope with the sudden need to care for the millions of children with evangelical parents? And who will run all the mother & toddler groups & youth groups if evangelical Christians are not to be allowed to run them? And who will foster all the children in care if evangelical Christians don't do it?

Can I ask, do you use voice-to-text software to write your posts or do the nurses release the restraints on your jacket every now and again?

23 July 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Owl said...

Mr. Tingey,

You sound very, er, fundamentalist, in your beliefs.

23 July 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Richard Barker said...

Thank you for this item, Your Grace. Regrettably this woeful lack includes the PM and deputy... shame on them all.

23 July 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingay,

Evangelical christians are dangerous (see Calvin, Cameronian, witch trials etc.

Well on such a broad brush, one could hardly deny that post-Christian Europeans are dangers (see Stalin, Hitler, the holocaust etc.)

Both Evan-christians and muslim fundies deny facts and truths (Evolution, age of the earth etc)

Both Nazis and Communists have denied facts and truths - much more dangerously than Evangelicals. Moreover, even mainstream atheism has resisted science - e.g. those who resisted the evidence of the Big Bang because of its theistic over-tones.

And then we would draw the following conclusion:

None of them should be allowed anywhere near children, given the lies that they spout.

Make sense? I don't think so and I doubt you will too. So all you are doing is engaging in special pleading and discrimination.

23 July 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Tingey @ 11.41, doesn't it ever occurr to you that Christian belief and the theory of evolution are capable of peaceful co-existence? It's merely a matter of where to place evolution in the context of the Deity.

As for, 'None of them should be allowed anywhere near children, given the lies that they spout.'

This is the sort of progressive thinking so many of us fear; that a secular state will demand all children are to be taken from their parents and educated in an atheistic and Bolshevik manner.

It's certainly a dangerous world. On the one hand we witness the paranoid ravings of the Harbinger. On the other hand we have Dawkins inspired proposals from you to indocrinate the young so that they despise their parents.

23 July 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The charge of "religious extremism" means nothing other than "a religion that rejects the presuppositions of the post-modern worldview." It's basically a charge of heresy against post-modernism - especially with regard to the knowability of Truth. In a sense, it's a compliment.

carl

23 July 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

doesn't it ever occurr to you that Christian belief and the theory of evolution are capable of peaceful co-existence?

No, actually. They aren't.

carl

23 July 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Why not Carl?

23 July 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I am racing out of my hotel room. I will explain my position later in the day.

carl

23 July 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Carl @ 13.02, if the Deity is Pantocrator, it is hard to understand your objection to peaceful co-existence. In this communicant's view evolutionary theory is both subordinate to, and an instrument of, God.

23 July 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Philip said...

I suggest all who are concerned email Mr Gove (the DfE website doesn't seem to allow such queries) pointing out the inappropriateness of implying evangelical Christians are 'extreme', making the type of points HG and the EA make, asking him to raise this matter with his Permanent Secretary, write a correcting article to the Daily Telegraph, and ensure Mr Judd is removed from his post.

23 July 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

In a sense, it's a compliment.

Quite.

23 July 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger John Henson said...

Mr Carl @ 13.02

Can't see the difficulty myself.

A creator can choose whatever mechanism He/She likes to bring the creation into being. If that mechanism is evolution then so be it.

23 July 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. One would expect a ministerial dept like Education under a Conservative influence, the greater part of the coalition, to at least accept Evangelicals if not actively support them. Now, this fellow Judd uses his influence in a way that really UPSETS traditional conservatives when the party that gained the greater number of seats allows examples like him access to the top.

Judd is a novelist ! The Inspector has a fairly low opinion of these sorts. Mere entertainers for money, the majority of them. Someone with only one foot on the ground of reality at the best of times is a particularly apt description in his book.

It has been noted on this thread that the Labour party abandoned their traditional supporters, the working class, decades ago. Yet those unfortunate mugs still turn up at the polling station and cast their vote for a socialism that doesn’t want to know them. If the Conservative party thinks it can treat its core voters with similar disdain then they are in for a big surprise. All the Inspector asks is that UKIP field a candidate in EVERY constituency.

And no guff about splitting the right wing vote, thank you very much. One is beginning to wonder if the Conservatives still deserve that attribution…

23 July 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greg. The Inspector feels your pain. It’s not just religion, it’s everything. Is it not…

23 July 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl will no doubt answer for himself later, but strictly speaking he is correct in noting that modern evolutionary theory would allow for, and permit no place for God in its process.

Indeed, the entirety of the modern understanding of natural selection is based on the assumption of an absence of God; or rather, the explanation it affords is for the development and evolution of life without any guiding force, purpose or plan.

It is certainly possible to take the evidence on which evolutionary theory is founded, and incorporate some of the mechanisms as a tool of the Creator, but by definition this is something other than evolutionary theory in its proper scientific sense.

23 July 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger David B said...

There seems to me to be a lot of scope for people talking past each other in discussions on evangelical Christianity.

As I understand it from my position as an outsider, evangelicalism is often conflated with the science denying Christian of Answers in Genesis and their ilk, and/or the money grabbing and often fraudulent and hypocritical American Televangelists like Benny Hinn, and/or the obviously barking mad like the Rapture Ready crowd.

To a degree this conflation is understandable, but I can understand that it would irk the more decent and sensible Christians - and they do exist in numbers - who do take science on board, are not fraudulent, who try as hard as they can to practise what they preach, and are not obviously as barking as the commenters at Rapture Ready who spend their lives looking for signs of the end of the world with joyful anticipation.

But who still regard themselves as evangelical, on the ground that they see telling people what they believe is the good news of salvation through Jesus is a good thing.

I suppose that it is a bit like the characterisation of atheists as joyless, nihilist, amoral people by many Christians, but in reverse.

Except that there are very many Christians who do fit the stereotypes of evangelism I mention first, while in my experience very few joyless nihilist amoral atheists, of course.

Maybe the more sensible Christians who also see evangelism as a good thing need to coin a new word for themselves?

Either that or themselves take on the darker side of evangelism, and, by opposing, end it?

Failing one or the other, it is hard for me to see that they will succeed in pushing back the tide of how the term 'evangelist' is commonly used.

David B

23 July 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

I'm not completely sure I understand you. Science certainly operates on an assumption of methodological naturalism - quite rightly too. However, it ceases to be science when - as I think you do in your post - it slips from that, into metaphysical judgments.

Nothing exists without God - at any moment. There is no power, no capacity, no regularity or any existence at all, without it, at every moment being caused to be that way, by God. Consequently, it is impossible for science to remove God from anything.

23 July 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger Albert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 July 2012 at 19:25  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I think you are slightly confused. There's a difference between Evangelical and evangelist. Evangelical refers to a set of Protestant theological positions - ones alleged to be based on scripture, and therefore to those who subscribe to such positions. Evangelist just refers to someone who spreads the Gospel. So Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, St Augustine of Canterbury etc. were all evangelists, but not Evangelicals.

23 July 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Preacher said...

As none of us can honestly claim to have been witnesses to the start of life on Earth, What any of us really have is a cosmic detective story.
The existence of planet Earth is evidence that SOMETHING happened long ago to start the process of life in all its forms.
We can examine the evidence & draw our own conclusions for our own reasons. This is free will.

The design & complexity of our planet draws me to conclude that it had an intelligent designer. I don't know how anyone could not draw this conclusion even if they were an atheist.

In my opinion many people will not examine the evidence without bias because they fear that they will discover something or someone that they don't want to find. So they fool themselves that if there is a supreme being who all must answer to, they can plead ignorance & so escape judgement.
Some of course have a highly inflated opinion of themselves & could not possibly play second fiddle to Deity.
Whichever group Mr Judd belongs to, is really irrelevant. But his job, now that is a different matter, as it effects us all.
Perhaps he's ignorant, maybe rude, or perhaps he has his foot stuck firmly in his mouth. Whatever, an apology would go a long way in restoring his credibility.

23 July 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Padre, one of your more profound posts. Well done Sir !

23 July 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Everyone, just to cheer you all up, I think it is time for a horrible histories song, via Charles Darwin:

Mmmm yeah.
Mmmm yeah.

People thought all animals
Arrived here unrelated
The world began, and then came man
All perfectly created

But then someone looked up a tree.
And said "That monkey looks just like me!"
So it really was a mystery
What I'd learned in natural history!

So I joined HMS Beagle
Watched the eagle and the seagull
We studied rock and plants
Flowers, trees and bees and ants

Slept on hammocks without pillows
Eating rats and armadillos
Till I realised on reflec-tion
It's natural selection! Yeah!

Natural selection means
Each animal evolved
To blend with its surroundings
Ch-ch-changes were involved

So birds with different, foods to seek.
Seem to have developed, different beaks.

And over time they'd,
Modified
So just the fittest
Of them all survived!

On the Isles of Galapagos
I noted the giant tortoise
Had interesting shells
And I rode on them as well

Iguanas land and swimming
Meant my new theory was winning
It all led in the direction
Of natural selection.

My findings went with outrage
From the ch-ch-ch-ch-church of England
And from me.

The idea that we came from ch-ch-chimps
Questioned my own Christianity
But it was hard to disagree!

Every species new mutation
Had a perfect explanation
It seems the worlds inception
Must predate common perception

And if lack of adaptation
Means a fatal limitation
So each creature's imperfection
Over time gets a correction

Meaning animal collections
Grow unique means of protection
And to fail nature's inspection
Means immediate rejection
Which all leads to the detec-tion
Of natural selection!
Natural selection!"

23 July 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Preacher said...

Thank you Inspector. I can do it when I try hard!.

23 July 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "In my opinion many people will not examine the evidence without bias because they fear that they will discover something or someone that they don't want to find. So they fool themselves that if there is a supreme being who all must answer to, they can plead ignorance & so escape judgement."

The reverse also applies: some people prefer to imagine evidence of design and intelligence where none actually exists because they can't bear the idea that they have no cosmic purpose or meaning. As an atheist, and seeing the world as it is, I expect to hold god to account should I find it actually exists rather than try to plead ignorance.

23 July 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Especially if its name is Allah.

23 July 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "I suppose that it is a bit like the characterisation of atheists as joyless, nihilist, amoral people by many Christians, but in reverse."

A few of them hang around here too and have tried that line on me. They usually get short shrift from me when they do, bless 'em.

23 July 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Hannah,

Horrible Histories is such a good show, even for adults ! I just won't mention the song about the Borgias...

23 July 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger David B said...

@ Albert

No doubt you are technically correct, however it is, I think, what evangelical means to the man or newspaper writer in the street that is really the issue, don't you think?

I don't think my characterisation too far off the mark, there. Do you?

David B

23 July 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger David B said...

On second thoughts, to the mass of men, perhaps the word 'evangelism' just brings the concepts 'Jehovah's Witnesses' and 'God Botherer' to mind.

David

23 July 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, well here it is, this is you indeed... As an atheist, and seeing the world as it is,

No deep sense of the abstract at all. That IS you...

23 July 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The offending sentence in Judd's article:

"The trouble is, as always, when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s evangelical Christians, totalitarian Muslims or segregationist Jews."

doesn't look to me like he's quite saying what is being attributed to him. A more benevolent view of it might be that he's talking about when evangelical Christians take things to extremes. Even so, he's being too broad-brush there but I suppose he's really talking about those wanting to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory as though they are similar but competing things.

23 July 2012 at 20:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "No deep sense of the abstract at all. That IS you..."

If by 'abstract' you simply mean 'religious belief' then you're correct. I don't really do wooooo stuff. If you mean the normal sense of the word then you're way off.

23 July 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "On second thoughts, to the mass of men, perhaps the word 'evangelism' just brings the concepts 'Jehovah's Witnesses' and 'God Botherer' to mind."

Certainly to me, evangelism is to religious belief what chugging is to charity.

23 July 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Seriously, do you remember your dreams in the morning. If you don’t then your abstract is only a faint part of you. To comprehend a creator, abstract is a must...

23 July 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This bit of Judd's article:

"There is an argument for banning faith applications altogether – why should the state fund faiths to advance themselves when the only example we have here of an almost entirely faith-based educational system (Northern Ireland) is discouraging?"

is interesting. The Charity legislation allows charitable status and hence significant tax relief for organisations to advance religion. There's now an additional requirement of public benefit in order to qualify. It seems to me that Judd's point there about State funding of schools and charitable status are related. If he argued to get rid of one then he ought to think about the other too. Or, conversely, if he wants to retain the charitable status thing then he'd struggle to argue about denying the school funding.

23 July 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "To comprehend a creator, abstract is a must..."

Unicorns, too.

23 July 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Had this discussion with Jon a few months back. The ‘state’ is not some all powerful being we must bend to. It is our SERVANT. It is of us, and some of us are religious...

23 July 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: 2The ‘state’ is not some all powerful being we must bend to. It is our SERVANT. It is of us, and some of us are religious..."

Gay, too.

23 July 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Indeed, you must learn to fight your corner. Ah, one sees that you already have, and have managed to project yourself as half the population ;->

23 July 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sorry, I meant some of us are gay.

23 July 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Indeed, you must learn to fight your corner. Ah, one sees that you already have, and have managed to project yourself as half the population ;->"

The numbers don't necessarily count. Half the population aren't disabled either but they have access to stuff too.

23 July 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

No doubt you are technically correct, however it is, I think, what evangelical means to the man or newspaper writer in the street that is really the issue, don't you think?

I suspect you are right about the man in the street. But if this is the position of Mr Judd then there is a greater problem: he does not even know what the words mean that he uses.

23 July 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Albert said...

cont.

and as a Government adviser on a community matter like faith schools, that would be very worrying.

23 July 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Sorry folks, maybe I'm just being dumb.

What actually is 'Evangelicalism'? Is one of its cardinal doctrines a belief in literal creationism with the earth being 4000 years old? Does it actually have any commonly shared doctrines? Or are 'Evangelicals' as divided on all this as 'Dispensationalists' are about the their particular theology? Or are Evangeligals also Dispensationalists?

23 July 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger David B said...

@ Albert

Or, then again, he might be familiar with the esoteric definition, but prefer to use words as they would be generally understood.

David B

23 July 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Within the CofE Evangelicalism simply refers to those Christians who take the Bible seriously, but aren't Anglo-catholics (as opposed to liberals who don't take the Bible seriously). I would say that they believe all the usual Protestant doctrines, albeit with nuances. But yes, you're right, it is a difficult term because of the breadth of those who might apply it to themselves. Some call themselves things like "open" Evangelicals. As far as I could see that just meant they patronised the traditional Evangelicals.

23 July 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Possibly David, but if so, what he says makes even less sense.

23 July 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

So I crawled back into my hotel at 8:15. I haven't reviewed the thread yet. My response follows as to why evolution is mutually exclusive with Christianity.

1. It attacks the historicity of Genesis. Christianity is an historical religion that makes historical truth claims. There are essential historical truths in Genesis that cannot be surrendered. Adam and Abraham to name but two. The Book of Genesis presents itself as history and there is no textual reason to dispute this.

2. It blurs the created difference between man and the rest of creation. Evolution makes man and animal ontologically equivalent. Man becomes a highly evolved mammal instead of a separate creation made in the image of God. You have to incorporate some act of special creation to bridge the gap by which the mortal becomes immortal. But why would you assert an act of special creation at this point when you have denied special creation as the origin. The only difference would be that this act of special creation is unobservable.

3. It breaks the connection between sin and death. Indeed, death the last enemy has become the principle agent of creation. Evolution absolutely demands the existence of death prior to Adam's sin. You would thus be asserting the existence of a post-fallen world before there was a fall.

4. It compromises the position of Adam as the federated head. Adam is the source of sin in every other man. We all inherited his sin nature. His sin is imputed to every human being. This is basic Christian anthropology, and basic Christian soteriology. Christ as the second Adam stands in Adam's place as our new federated head. If Adam isn't the source of sin and death, then Christ doesn't stand in the place of Adam as the source of righteousness and life.

5. It denies the testimony of Creation to the power and glory of God. You are postulating that God acts in the shadows of a random mechanism - a mechanism that was developed specifically to explain life in the absence of transcendent cause. There is nothing observable in evolution that would force men to proclaim God says that Creation demands - an admission of the power and Glory of God. The whole point of that Scriptural assertion about creation is that only God can explain existence. That is why men will be found without excuse. Theistic evolution would assert that God hides His glory behind randomness so that men could credibly deny His essential agency.

carl

24 July 2012 at 03:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Theistic evolution is an unnecessary concession to Materialist Dogma dressed up as science. Every materialist argument will be shot through with presuppositions about the necessity of immanent cause, and the a priori exclusion of discontinuity. But (for example) why should we look for an immanent cause of life? The Materialist will answer "Because there is nowhere else to look. Life must be immanent because there is no transcendent. If chemistry is all we can see, the life is nothing but chemistry." This is science? And yet we quiver before it lest the High Priests of materialism call us primitive.

In truth Evolution would collapse tomorrow if there was some credible immanent mechanism available to replace it. Can it explain consciousness? No. Can it explain conscience? No. Can it explain the brain/mind connection? No. Can it explain irreducible complexity? No. can it explain the mathematical impossibility of forming even so much as one RNA protein molecule? No. Can it explain Life? It doesn't even know what life is. It focuses on chemistry because it has nothing else to observe. All it can do is make assertions of faith by saying all unknowns have immanent answers. This is science? Why then do we fear such things?

As it is written. Let God be True and every man a liar.

carl

24 July 2012 at 03:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, I was okay with the 1-5 post as it can be boxed in and carried into a church.

24 July 2012 at 06:39  
Blogger David B said...

@ Carl 3.03

Thanks for that, Carl, I am truly grateful.

For one thing it demonstrates a world view which, whether Albert likes it or not, is in common parlance closely associated with evangelism.

And for another it is in one sense so out of touch with reality that it should show why such views should have nothing to do with education or charity status.

I shall return to that.

There is a sense in which the post is not out of touch with reality, but it is conditional.

If Christianity were necessarily to involve a literal belief in Genesis, then you would be right in claiming that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

But, since so many self proclaimed Christians deny any such literal belief, and I have no reason to deny their sincerity, and since so many self proclaimed Christians deny the necessity for Christians to believe in a literal Genesis, and indeed accept an old earth, an older universe, that evolution happened and much else incompatible with a literal view of Genesis, then I reasonably conclude that Christianity as practised requires no such belief.

Now, back to why such beliefs should be not be endorsed by education providers.

There is no good reason to think Genesis is any more than one of a myriad of creation myths formed within human populations in prehistory, nor that it is more or less true than any other.

There is, on the other hand, more than ample reason to think that the consilient discoveries of archaeology, geology, biology, cosmology, dating technology, and the list goes on and on, show conclusively that the literal (and mutually exclusive, by the way) biblical accounts of creation are plain wrong.

Teaching kids that the clearly false is truth is wrong, Carl.

As for the potential falsification of evolution.

One rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, any other ancient geological era would do it.

I use rabbit as example only - a human, ape, modern elephant, in fact any mammal fossil before the Devonian would do it, as would any fossil of a flowering plant before that time. I use these as examples only, allowing ample margin for the boundaries of the appearance of such things to be pushed back by millions of years.

None found, of course.

Plenty of fossils of life forms mainly not found today though.

I would hope that the more sensible and better informed Christians who comment here would chime in and agree with me that there can be no place within a modern education system for the teaching of Genesis as literal historic fact. Because it clearly ain't.

David B

24 July 2012 at 07:31  
Blogger David B said...

It's off topic, I'm afraid, but I hope His Grace will not take umbrage if I draw the congregation's attention to an interesting piece in today's Irish Times concerning the commitment to human rights and truth of some senior officials of the Roman Catholic Church.

It can be found at the Irish Times website under the heading 'Former Argentinian dictator says he told Catholic Church of disappeared'

David B

24 July 2012 at 07:53  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
I stand by what I wrote.
I wish you good fortune when you eventually bring your case against the Almighty.

Blessings. Preacher.

24 July 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher, your "when" is just unsubstantiated personal belief. A mere hope of yours, if you will. I expect, and sincerely hope, that my consciousness will just disappear when I die. In the unlikely event that it survives brain death, I reckon I'll be in completely unknown territory. I reckon you will be too. Let's both hope it's not Allah which is responsible for all this. Or worse, something much crueller than even our reality might suggest. Good luck.

24 July 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Thank you for your reply - especially after presumably a hard day!

The Book of Genesis presents itself as history and there is no textual reason to dispute this.

How is it then, that Augustine, Origen and others from the early church, working only with the text, recognise that Gen.1 & 2 is not literal natural history? The point they would make is that it cannot be literal history as, taken as such, it is riddled with contradictions and absurdities. To require it to be literal scientific history is to impose our categories and needs on it, and not to let it speak for itself.

Evolution makes man and animal ontologically equivalent.

Again the issue here is not so much biblical as philosophical. In saying they are ontological equivalent you miss the ontological category of form. Moreover, to subscribe to evolution as a correct description of the physical events that make modern man, is not to say that man is only material. As the paleontologist Simon Conway Morris put it:

Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway

What makes us ontologically distinct from animals is not our origins - that is to commit the genetic fallacy, but our form - the fact that, as a result of our souls, we are rational bodies.

24 July 2012 at 11:02  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 July 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"I expect, and sincerely hope, that my consciousness will just disappear when I die."

What a depressingly nihilistic pronouncement. To actually hope for one's complete extinction. I fear you may get your heart's desire.

24 July 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Evolution absolutely demands the existence of death prior to Adam's sin.

Not evolution, fossils do. Perhaps you mean evolution demands the existence of human death prior to Adam's sin. I cannot for the life of me see how that could be shown to be true. Besides, what is actually meant by death in the story?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

But clearly they do not die literally in the day that they eat of it. Therefore, either "death" means something different here from what it normally means, or your literal reading is already defeated.

It compromises the position of Adam as the federated head.

Again, I don't see that that is true.

It denies the testimony of Creation to the power and glory of God.

Again, that is rather odd. Shortly after Darwin published his theory, Newman wrote to a friend:

As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God.

The last sentence is surely crucial and shows how theology and philosophy are opened up once one ditches the late Medieval univocal understanding of God which has caused such harm in Protestant thought:

You are postulating that God acts in the shadows of a random mechanism - a mechanism that was developed specifically to explain life in the absence of transcendent cause.

Absolutely not. Darwin never denied the existence of God. He always denied he was or ever had been an atheist. He finally described himself as a theist. The theory does not deny the transcendent cause, rather it explains everything from natural causes. This makes perfect sense theologically, for God is not a natural cause among natural causes - on the same ontological level (as univocal theology would have us believe), rather, God is the cause of nature, hence, as Newman says:

[Evolution] may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill.

You write:

The whole point of that Scriptural assertion about creation is that only God can explain existence.

Shed your late Medieval assumptions about God, and the whole point of scriptural assertion about creation will open up to you.

24 July 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

What a depressingly nihilistic pronouncement. To actually hope for one's complete extinction. I fear you may get your heart's desire.

Quite. The irony is that earlier there had been a complaint that theists indulge in a

characterisation of atheists as joyless, nihilist, amoral people.

I suppose I would want to ask why someone would say that they sincerely hope, that my consciousness will just disappear when I die.

I can guess, but I'd like to hear the answer. It sounds about a nihilist as you can get to me.

24 July 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

For one thing it demonstrates a world view which, whether Albert likes it or not, is in common parlance closely associated with evangelism.

Not evangelism, some strands of Evangelicalism.

I would hope that the more sensible and better informed Christians who comment here would chime in and agree with me that there can be no place within a modern education system for the teaching of Genesis as literal historic fact.

I completely agree - not in a science class anyway. In RS perhaps - as one position people take.

Former Argentinian dictator says he told Catholic Church of disappeared

I don't know anything about this, but three things occur to me:

1. The Irish Times seems to me to be an instrument of cultural forgetfulness. It seems very anti-Catholic and its telling of stories seems opportunistic and ideological. Hence:
2. There is nothing giving an alternative point of view. We just have odd quotations, without context or response from the Church. These quotations come from a man serving life in prison for human rights abuses.
3. The story doesn't make sense on its own terms. It sets up the Argentinian bishops in contrast to the Brazilians. Now perhaps for national or internal reasons the Argentinian bishops were just sinful here. The trouble is that it also refers to the nuncio. The Nuncio is not part of the local bishops, but is the wider representative of the Church. He belongs, if you like, much more in the field of the Brazilians and is there to ensure that Church teaching on human rights is upheld or else violations be reported to Rome.

I'm not saying the Church did not get this wrong in parts, but you'd have to be quite naive to buy it as it stands.

24 July 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, you find it depressing but I take an atheistic view along the lines of the acceptance and pragmatism in Ecclesiastes 3. To me, you appear grasping at life and frightened of death, relying on a hope of something to transcend your inevitable death to get you through the day. Let it go and enjoy life. There's deep happiness in living virtuously for its own sake, you know.

24 July 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, I don't wish for death and I enjoy my life. I notice though that my view of life and my place in the world changes as I get older. A time to live, and a time to die, I think. I just wish for no after-life in some unknown state when death inevitably comes.

24 July 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger David B said...

@ Albert 11.28

OK I stand corrcted on your evangelism v Evangicalism point, though, as we sort of agreed above, what the words mean to the mass of men is somewhat confused.

I am glad to see you agree with me re a literal Genesis being taught as science, and for my part I agree that it would be appropriate to mention in an RS class.

Like Professors Dawkins and Dennett, I rather favour religion being taught, though not in a partisan way teaching one view as right and the rest wrong.

The Irish Times report is interesting, I think, but your cautionary notes are wise in my view.

That there is much not known about it is certain.

David B

24 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
I believe my 'when' trumps your 'I hope'.

Don't forget, I was once an agnostic almost Atheist. So I have been that side of the fence, but my side is an unknown factor to most of you guys.

God bless & keep you safe.

Blessings. Preacher.

24 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher, you've had a subjective experience which you believe to be a personal revelation from your god. Well, that's fine. In fact, that's great as long as it has left you with benign feelings towards your fellow man.

Of course, not all Christians have an experience like that. In fact, it sounds quite rare as far as I can tell. Moreover, the experiences don't.seem to impart consistent information, especially with regard to which version of Christianity to follow. On top of that, related experiences like the Toronto Blessing have not been that well regarded.

Of course, divine revelation has not been restricted just to Christianity. Islam rather relies on the truth of Mohammed's revelations, and Mormon's are lucky that Joseph Smith was given a pair of magic glasses.

Hence, when someone claims they have received a personal and subjective revelation, I ought to be forgiven for being sceptical. When someone says they know better because they've progressed from scepticism to what may just be a state of delusion, I am not necessarily left in some sort of reduced state myself.

As for your god blessing me, that seems a bit unlikely. According to some of your co-religionists, it will be subjecting me to timeless torment, or allowing me to be so, which seems much the same thing at that pont. Of course, according to some competing religionists, we'll both be feeling quite toasty in the future. Oh well.

24 July 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Like Professors Dawkins and Dennett, I rather favour religion being taught, though not in a partisan way teaching one view as right and the rest wrong.

Except of course that no one (or almost no one) actually believes that children should be brought up a "value-free" environment. Values have to come from somewhere.

So if you teach all religions in a non-partisan way, either you plumb for education without values, or you get your values from somewhere else, and you subtely inculcate the view that that position is reasonable or unchallengeable - precisely because it isn't even articulated.

In contrast, in a faith school, yes values stem from a particular position, but because of our secular society, no child will grow up without that position being challenged.

In our age, the unselfconscious dogmatists are secularists. Dawkins & Dennett are at their head.

24 July 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Incidentally, I would be in favour of creationism being taught in science classes, if such classes included philosophy of science (as I think they should). If that were to happen, pupils could see for themselves why creationism isn't science - even while it is parasitic on certain currently unresolved difficulties.

However, I don't see it as being likely that philosophy of science will be taught in schools. Too many scientists seem to be unaware that they have philosophical assumptions. Others would be frightened of losing the mystical power that science (and usually naturalism) gains from not declaring its assumptions and examining them to see on what metaphysical world-views they are reasonable.

24 July 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, I would personally like to see critical thinking taught in schools, and with a lot of discussion and questioning being involved in such a course.

I think it will not happen, because neither big business, politics or religion would want it.

In such a class I would have no problem with metaphysical naturalism being challenged.

I would regard myself as both a metaphysical naturalist and a methodological naturalist, and within science classes methodological naturalism should, I think, be either explicitly or implicitly assumed.

In RS, or any course on philosophy and/or critical thinking, then it should be as much up for discussion as any other metaphysical system.

No doubt we shall look again at issues like this in other threads.

In the meantime, I shall pay you the compliment of saying that you are among the most courteous and reasonable Christians it has been my pleasure to talk things over with, despite our continuing areas of disagreement.

David

24 July 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you David, for your kind words. I enjoy discussing with you for the same reason - I find you reasonable and charitable.

Critical Thinking is taught in schools. The first person to draw my attention to it was an Evangelical RS teachers, who raved about it. I am slightly less keen on it than you, however, since I think it tends to present logic as if it were the whole of reason.

Regarding science, I think methodological naturalism should be explicitly assumed in the classroom.

24 July 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
You & I would agree on many points & agree to disagree on others.
If you sincerely believe that I'm deluded, that's up to you.
I can't explain the experience, I won't even try. One accepts or rejects, it's that easy & also that hard.

I deliver the message, that's all, the rest is up to the recipient.

I am often sad that many reject the One who loved them so much that He died to give them eternal life but that's free will for you.
I often get insights into the sadness & loneliness of even the brashest of sceptics & know that behind the hard veneer is a hurt & injured soul.
My task is not to judge or condemn, but to warn.

The difference between Joseph Smith, Mohammed & the rest is evident when you've met the Living God. If you ever do decide to take the plunge, you'll understand what I mean.

In the meantime I'll re-iterate. God Bless you & keep you safe.

Preacher.

24 July 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
We don't 'get along' so you may chose to just ignore what I say.

Many Christians do not have a 'subjective experience' that is instantly life changing. This is a dangerous message put out by some evangelists. The hyped-up events, music and hand clapping are not necessarily conducive to lasting faith. Some do, of course, have a moment of personal revelation but I am suspicious too if they are given a "message".

Accepting the existance of God is a gift and an act of faith and a postive response to grace when it comes knocking. Initially, it does not have to be experiential or intellectual.

One further thing, whilst I believe active homosexuality is sinful, who knows how God in His mercy will receive any of us? Do not hope for extinction because you fear what might lie beyond the grave. Far better to consider a more proactive approach.

25 July 2012 at 01:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Accepting the existence of God is a gift and a gift that is not given to everyone.In my own case I have not always welcomed this gift and would have preferred in many situationss in my life not to be a believer.God will just not leave some people alone.I hope no messages will ever be given to me. So far so good!

25 July 2012 at 05:44  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I also think that those who judge what is truth solely by their own personal experience to be narcissistic and limited intellectually .It seems to be commonplace to dismiss anything to be true that one has not experienced personally..It is also gross vanity and convenient e.g.on the part of someone who may be coloured,gay and jewish to assume they are only disliked
because of these packaging traits
rather than the defiencies in character they may possess. It virtually places them beyond reproach in a pc worlds gone mad.
Bigotry does exist but some use the label to avoid criticism.

25 July 2012 at 06:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "If you sincerely believe that I'm deluded, that's up to you. I can't explain the experience, I won't even try. One accepts or rejects, it's that easy & also that hard."

I believe you are sincere about it and I accept the possibility, however small, that your experience was initiated outside your mind by a god. I know Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and even Buddhists who appear to have very strong beliefs too and I think they are sincere about it. From the outside, one must take it all into account.

The trouble all of you have is that the human mind seems to be very closely coupled with the human brain, and we know that what we experience is heavily influenced by changes in the brain. Without meaning to be rude, you may have just had (say) a very minor stroke or an epileptic seizure.

25 July 2012 at 06:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "I often get insights into the sadness & loneliness of even the brashest of sceptics & know that behind the hard veneer is a hurt & injured soul."

You probably mean well there but that's very patronising, and incorrect in this case, and it doesn't help you if you're truly trying for empathy. It just adds to the incorrect things like "joyless" and "amoral" from earlier that is more indicative of stuff about the person saying it.

25 July 2012 at 06:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Do not hope for extinction because you fear what might lie beyond the grave. Far better to consider a more proactive approach."

I'm an atheist so it's hardly to be described as fear. I fully expect to die and cease to be. I'm also rational and sceptical, and I see no compelling evidence at all to think there's a life after death. It's just wild speculation of varying sorts, and the speculation includes reincarnation as animals to some religious people. We're aware of our own mortality so it's no wonder some people try to cling to the idea of neverending life. Better to just be virtuous, I'd say, and get on with the life we know all about as best we can, recognising that eventually we will die.

25 July 2012 at 07:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
Apologies if you think I was being patronising or trying for empathy.
Not the case. I was trying my best to explain something that as I stated earlier was nigh on impossible in a small space like this. Possibly a mistake. But others read the postings & perhaps it spoke to some of them & helped.

All the best. Preacher.

25 July 2012 at 09:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi All,

I always love the tangents we get on this blog.

I think that there is a balance (must be something from my Anglican part of my background here) between individual subjective experience of personal revelation from G-d and the objectivity (for the believing group) of one’s faith group (the religious traditions, texts, rites, rituals, commentaries et al). Put the two together and you have a faith which is more complete.

I also think that those who judge what is truth solely by dictation by their own faith group and the reliance on someone else to do your thinking (e.g. a Priest) to be narcissistic and limited intellectually .It seems to be commonplace to dismiss anything to be true that one has not been told as truth by some Churches..It is also gross vanity and convenient e.g.on the part of someone who may be female and Catholic to assume they are only disliked because of these packaging traits rather than any flaws in character they may possess . It virtually places them beyond reproach in a pc worlds gone mad. Religious bigotry does exist but some use the label, e.g. being anti-catholic, to avoid criticism.

Hannah

25 July 2012 at 09:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I don't think a white Catholic heterosexual female can play the discrimination sympathy card. I have never been discriminated against for being heterosexual or a Catholic so it is not possible for me to hide behind anything.If I were in your position,Hannah, to avoid popular derision and contempt I would not accuse anyone of not liking one on the basis of
being homophobic , or anti semitic.
I know you may find this hard to believe but there are many different reasons for disliking a person. I could say that some of my best friends are coloured anglican jewish lesbians( to rework an old saw) but I do not feel I am ready for this conversion by perversion.

25 July 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Sorry folks, maybe I'm just being dumb. " as if, dear dickie.

THe problem lies with theistic evolutionists being locked in 20th century science and not understanding the advances of particle physics and how this understanding has changed the world we live in.
It was presumed that darknes was an absence of light but due to black holes we know that darkness exists where light is.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
If it exists at all, he made it.

We now understand that things that appear solid have more space than matter within. It is all an electrical simulation.
(The atom is a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons.) If we made the nucleus the size of a pin head the surrounding space would be the diameter of 100 metres.. that is a lot of space.

The limited knowledge we grasp about light and it's mysterious nature shows we know little about the time-space continuum we exist within.

The more we discover about the new science and it's frontiers, the more the account of Genesis is vindicated.

The universal law of entropy is recognised by all sciences except biology..for obvious evolutionary reasons/belief. Information only goes from order to confusion, NOT visa versa.

All known mutations are degenerate and involve a loss of data, not an input of new.
This is completely different to variation.

Evolutionists state"Evolution is not a planned process. It does no engineering. The end products were never visualized. No goals exist. There is no thought of failure or success. There is no seeking of perfection. There is no seeking of anything. Evolution does not do anything. It only happens. Mutations produce chaos with genetic accident after accident, most of which are eventually fatal. Evolution uses misery and death to sort it all out. Evolution produces the strongest organism when the organism is in absolute misery. Rapid and early deaths make deleterious allele deletions quickly. " and
"The environment no longer removes deleterious mutations unless they are immediately fatal. " the nonsense of evolution..Can a dead fossil pass on this fatality knowledge to it's species.
It does not know it is going to die until its DEAD!! DEAD animals don't evolve!!!Its own offspring that existed, prior to its death, will die, because they have the same defect. It was not able to tell them because it only knew it was dead when it was dead!!! They will die!!!!!!!!!!

The atheists must have their opium, must they not and theistic evolutions their common ground.


E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

We have a problem. If you even dispute that six days were not literal but a literary device for primitive people (day = 1 billion) who could not comprehend time, LOL,then what about

8 `Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it;

9 six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work,

10 and the seventh day [is] a Sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, --

11 for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.

What on earth is God talking about and actually writing it with His own finger in stone.

Jesus himself personally confirmed many of the historical events in the Old Testament, but what would He know, eh.

Matthew 9:4, "'Haven't you heard,' [Jesus] replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female," we see here that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. His seated Jewish listeners would have assumed this certain meaning in Jesus’ words spoken, because in the 1st century the Jewish historian Josephus indicates to his readers that the Jews of Christ's day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.
or
Matthew 23:35, "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah..." or in Luke 20:37 it reads, "But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'"
or

Matthew 12:40 Jesus says, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
even
Matthew 24:38-29, "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." He also says in Luke 17:26, "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man."

Jesus assumed the people were actual people and the events literally occurred. We never find Him giving the slightest hint of anything but the complete acceptance of the Old Testament as the Word of God.

John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad...John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
and Jesus also stated that it was God who gave the people the rite of circumcision through Moses.
John 7:22
On this account Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.

Jesus whilst walking on this earth confirmed some of the most controversial accounts recorded in the Old Testament. These include: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Flood in Noah's day, and Jonah and the sea fish/creature.
The problem could be easily shown as "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

But what would Jesus know???

E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

The more we discover about the new science and it's frontiers, the more the account of Genesis is vindicated.

Two problem here:

(i) It all depends on which interpretation of Genesis one takes. If one follows something like Augustine, or compares the theology behind Genesis with other ancient creation stories, then yes, science does seem to vindicate Genesis. Genesis says, in effect, the world is neither divine (as per paganism) nor chaotic (as per some of the ancient atheistic philosophies).

In fact, given that science flows from certain philosophical assumptions, one could say that science flows from the theology of Genesis.

(ii) On the other hand. If you mean science vindicates a six day creation, then that is clearly false. And even if it wasn't, it would be foolish to rely on science. As you indicate, scientific understanding changes and develops. If you rely on it now, you may be without defence in the future.

25 July 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher, I meant it in its technical meaning as implying some sort of sense of superiority masked by kindness. If you've moved from one state of mind to another then that's all well and good. However, it doesn't follow at all that people who are not in your current state of mind are in your former state of mind simply because they are sceptical about the causes of your current state of mind. If you have insights from your transition then I daresay there was more to your previous state of mind than lack of belief which you recognise in some others.

I am neither in a state of sadness or loneliness, and I am not aware that I have a hurt and injured 'soul' because I don't accept the contents of one or more religious beliefs. Following on from earlier, I am not joyless or immoral either simply because I'm an atheist. I enjoy my current life and look forward to more positive, joyful experiences. I donate time and money to charities, I help neighbours and strangers in a nominally altruistic way. I'm loyal to my friends ... in fact, I'm currently paying the mortage of one of them who has lost his job. I have strong personal ethics too. A religious belief is not necessary for any of that.

25 July 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

We have a problem. If you even dispute that six days were not literal but a literary device for primitive people (day = 1 billion) who could not comprehend time, LOL,then what about

Well what is a day? We would say it is the time for the earth to turn completely on its axis - so that the sun returns to the same position (or thereabouts). But the sun is not made until the fourth day. Secondly, the text speaks of And there was evening and there was morning, one day. How can there be a literal morning and evening, if there is no sun? So what does "day" mean? There is nothing created that day by which to measure the meaning of "day". And there is nothing which could give literal content to the passage (e.g. morning and evening). So what are they "God-days" or something?

St Cyprian points out that scripture says:

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So we know that they are not days as we know them, but could be more or less any amount of time.

To continue:

8 `Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it...for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.

You mean God literally rested? Apart from the absurdity of this proposition, what does the Gospel say:

this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working."

The issue is not so much how to reconcile 6 day creation with science, it is how to reconcile six day creation with scripture. It's a modern pre-occupation to need to force scripture into scientific categories.

You go on:

"'Haven't you heard,' [Jesus] replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female," we see here that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

But by no literal interpretation of the OT can man and woman be there from the beginning of creation - they arrive on day six according to Genesis 1. So "beginning" does not always refer to the beginning of creation (afterall in John 1 "beginning" seems to refer to "before" creation). Therefore, all we can get from your quotation of Jesus is that God instituted marriage at the beginning of humanity. Hence the full quotation is this:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [i.e. as the law had been interpreted as permitting]

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

25 July 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Cont.

So heterosexual marriage is built into the very essence of humanity. It's there from the beginning, not instituted later. Therefore divorce is not just wrong, but impossible:

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

But then they catch up with the apparent conflict between Jesus and Moses:

They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

And Jesus gets behind the law of Moses, by appealing to the original state (finally we have confirmed what he means by "beginning"):

He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

And so we come to real point of the scripture - so often ignored by the very same Protestants who go to such lengths to make this passage about natural history. The point is that divorce is actually impossible:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

There is one Church, and to my knowledge one Church only which still upholds the real teaching of this passage, and it is Roman.

25 July 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Creesida

Thanks for you post to me. Spell it out then- why you don't like me, please, if not here then post on my own blog.

I also have Catholic friends - both straight and gay, I am so sorry you think gays are perverted.

I don't hide behind anything.
If you look at the thread below and Marcus Lintus and John Magee's posts you will quite clearly see that they are anti semitic and there is no way I am going to let anyone get away with that.

Hugs to you,

Hannah

25 July 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Well what is a day?(24 hours due to it's hebrew meaning because a number is assigned with the word 'day'Yom Echad..This gives it precision NOT to be used as a rhetorical device (yom is used 1480 times in bible. It has 54 variations but the majority of the time, 1181 times, it signifies DAY) It can mean nothing else in Hebrew and is confirmed by other OT passages when this occurs) We would say it is the time for the earth to turn completely on its axis - so that the sun returns to the same position (or thereabouts).(INDEED) But the sun is not made until the fourth day.(absolutely correct) but
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

In beginning God created the Heaven (space) and the Earth (our tiny planet) first. If you trust His word, nothing else wil be a problem that He accomplishes.

Secondly, the text speaks of And there was evening and there was morning, one day. How can there be a literal morning and evening, if there is no sun? So what does "day" mean?(see above) There is nothing created that day by which to measure the meaning of "day".(Disagree..And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night). And there is nothing which could give literal content to the passage (e.g. morning and evening).
Evening EREV and BOKER Morning. Firstly, neither of these terms are recorded as spoken on the 7th day (there must have been a literal morning and evening on day 7) so this could be a clue to their true meaning when first used and became what they are today?! So what are they "God-days" or something?(Ernst has just defined your answer for you.. until The Almighty created the Sun etc)
Erev comes from a root meaning Obscuration - an inability to discern objects shapes identities.
Boker comes from a root meaning becoming discernable- perception of order.

The words were probably archaic to us but are obvious that they are not mentioned on the 7th day. Why because they describe Gods bringing order 'Boker' out of confusion 'Erev'. Each word describes what He accomplished that day. He says He rested from His work but He is NOT creating new things!!!He merely sustains His work in existence. IS THIS NOT HIM WORKING?? Our work is continual but different as we create nothing in the universe that is not already here to use!!! His creative work was completed on Day 6 and He imposed a repose on the universe by establishing the completed laws!

The problem of days is not rooted in Genesis as you and others find ways to make it mean something else but the problem is, as ERnst stated, in Exodus 20:11 as to whether the days are to taken as 24 hr periods!!

You obviously believe that all the known laws were accomplished immediately at the big bang whereas GOD Describes it completely differently from His account in great detail. Remember the universe is finite not INFINITE..a product from scientific discoveries last century.

Trust this helps.;=))

E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

What about orbital time (1 full orbit around the sun divided to produce the measurement of a second) versus atomic clock time (a certain number of oscillation of the cesium -133 atom). All measurements since 1967 are measured in atom time! However if atomic clocks are correct then the speed of orbit for mercury venus and mars are increasing!!THis is impossible because where is the energy coming from??
If the gravitation constant is truly constant then atomic vibrations and the speed of light are decreasing.

If a orbital speed of a planet is increasing it goes against/violates the Law of Conservation of Energy!If atomic clocks are correct then the gravitational constant should change. No such variations/changes have been detected.

If atomic frequencies are decreasing, then 5 properties of the atom such as plancks constant, should be changing. This means the speed of light is slowing down, which has profound consequences.

Trust this helps further.;=O

E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"He says He rested from His work but He is NOT creating new things!!!He merely sustains His work in existence. "

What does Ernst mean by this.

Even the things we see around us are sustained by Him, His very thought, active to keep all things together. This universe has no life or substance UNLESS He sustain it's being by His Will despite what people who deny Him and His Power believe.

The atheists and others may believe the universe will keep on going until some heat death brings all matter to a final, cold conclusion but this is not the case. It may well do this if allowed to continue for millions or billions of years but He has declared He will change and create a new Heaven and Earth. Can He do this..Will He evolve this new creation as we hang around for 10 billion years for it to be so?

To scientists, Christ being risen from the dead after 3 days is impossible. Are they correct? Should we believe them as we cannot see it happen today and discredit those who saw God accomplish this or that Christ raised Lazarus similarly and was seen by others and known to the Jewish authorities?
No Laws were invoked but actually overridden by Him (no life remaining and a decaying rigid body), or are these lies.?

E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

St Cyprian points out that scripture says:
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
So we know that they are not days as we know them, but could be more or less any amount of time.

You Equivocator you. Ernst has answered this already to Dickie!! It is how God views His Time as perceived by man and related to His returning in Great Power and Glory....in the last days (a specific period in time) scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’(Return of Christ to rule) he promised?
...8 `Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it...for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.

You mean God literally rested? Apart from the absurdity of this proposition, what does the Gospel say:" What has He been doing..CREATING..Which is infinitely different for sustaining!

this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working."Father is sustaining and working out the plan of salvation as Christ is upon the earth at that time. What was Christ creating here?

"The issue is not so much how to reconcile 6 day creation with science, it is how to reconcile six day creation with scripture. It's a modern pre-occupation to need to force scripture into scientific categories."Nonsense. Then God lied and Christ lied also by confirming the events and identities associated with History!

You go on:

"'Haven't you heard,' [Jesus] replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female," we see here that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

But by no literal interpretation of the OT can man and woman be there from the beginning of creation - they arrive on day six according to Genesis 1.(EQUIVOCATION! 5 days after were man/woman created and we have the genealogies from Adam to Christ and from Christ to The Day of our Lord Tuesday 25th July 2012) So "beginning" does not always refer to the beginning of creation (afterall in John 1 "beginning" seems to refer to "before" creation). (One refers to the created universe and the other defines His Eternal status and that HE WAS THE CREATOR HIMSELF)

E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God (Father), and the Word was God (Christ is Eternal and the same as the Father..ETERNAL)).
2 The same was in the beginning with God (He was Eternally with the Father).
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (Christ is our creator..He mentions nothing about evolution..Must have slipped his Omniscience).

Therefore, all we can get from your quotation of Jesus is that God instituted marriage at the beginning of humanity. (He declares a literal Adam and literal Eve) Hence the full quotation is this:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [i.e. as the law had been interpreted as permitting]

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,(Where might they have read this nonsense that Adam and Eve were Male and Female)
and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (Oooh. Genesis 2:24

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Christ is quoting Moses's nonsense in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve literally marrying each other. Did He read Genesis but not correct the misunderstanding. Is Christ a liar or is saying one thing but meaning another not an EQUIVOCATOR. Did He know who this related to as the first marriage instituted. Heavens to Murgatroid) ;=))))

Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

Ernst is waiting for your detailed responses to the 'specifically defined' comments that have been presented to you from your own questions.

What would be your answers?

Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
Excellent. May your life be long & happy.
I hope you don't feel that I am critical or judgemental as this was never my intention.

We are all travelling through this World on a one way ticket & sharing with each other the discoveries we have made in the hope that we can improve, learn & be more fulfilled.
Unless we are prepared to share our own experiences & listen to others, we can't evaluate the beneficial from the detrimental.

It's rather like finding water in a desert. You can keep it a secret, or tell others. some are grateful & their lives are saved. Others say they have plenty, (but if their canteens leak they may be thankful one day that they listened) others still may think there's a catch or the water is poisoned.
The responsibility lies with the person who has found the water, if he makes it common knowledge & others reject it & die, that is their own fault.
If on the other hand he keeps quiet & they perish he is surely to blame.
Ultimately, I speak, others choose. The outcome is in their own hands.
Thanks for the chat.

25 July 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger Albert said...

What would be your answers?

Well, Blofeld, it's tempting to follow your example,simply ignore all your arguments (especially as some of them are incomprehensibly expressed) and simply shout in triumph, using words like "hopeless" and "chortles".

Well what is a day?(24 hours due to it's hebrew meaning because a number is assigned with the word 'day'Yom Echad..This gives it precision NOT to be used as a rhetorical device (yom is used 1480 times in bible. It has 54 variations but the majority of the time, 1181 times, it signifies DAY) It can mean nothing else in Hebrew and is confirmed by other OT passages when this occurs)

This just looks muddled to me. You say that in Hebrew it can mean nothing other than 24 hour day. But you say there are 54 variations and by your maths there are 299 times when it doesn't mean that.

Let's take a few examples:

The Bible often speaks of "the day יום of the Lord". Now surely this just means a period of time. For God's wrath and his punishments do not last for only and exactly 24 hours. Therefore, the word "day" does not have to mean 24 hour periods.

Then we have the problems of Genesis 1 & 2. Now according to Genesis 1 the last thing God creates is on day 6. But then we read:

2.4b In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

But we just read it took 6 days. But that day of 2.4b cannot be the first of those six days for it is the day in which God makes man - but according to Genesis 1 man is made on sixth day. Similarly, Genesis 2 has God making plants on that day, but Genesis 1 indicates they are made on the third day. I could go on, but that should be sufficient to demonstrate that if you require the Bible to be literally true here, you make God a liar.

Now what about morning and evening? There is no sun to cause them, but you want the light of day one to cause them. Well then they are not morning and evening as we use the words - and why would they be, when we have already demonstrated that we do not have to use the word "day" in a literal sense.

At this point, I mention "God days" again. Your answer here is obscure. So I turn to Cyprian's reference to the use of the word "day" to mean. You reply:

You Equivocator you.

Not me Ernst, scripture and it isn't equivocation but analogy:

with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

But you elucidate that:

It is how God views His Time as perceived by man and related to His returning in Great Power and Glory

Exactly, it shows that the word "day" could refer to how God "views his Time" rather than 24 hour periods. That was my point!

As to your point about God's rest and not creating new things. Clearly you are right about the latter, but if so God is still working and not (literally) resting.

One refers to the created universe and the other defines His Eternal status and that HE WAS THE CREATOR HIMSELF

Beside the point. You needed "beginning" to mean Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation. They weren't, not even according to a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Christ is quoting Moses's nonsense in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve literally marrying each other. Did He read Genesis but not correct the misunderstanding. Is Christ a liar or is saying one thing but meaning another not an EQUIVOCATOR. Did He know who this related to as the first marriage instituted.

I haven't the faintest idea what this means. Please explain.

25 July 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Why because they describe Gods bringing order 'Boker' out of confusion 'Erev'. Each word describes what He accomplished that day."

Perhaps an analogy might help.

I receive a load of parts from online company in different boxes etc.

I lay all these things out and it appears confused as to what it is that they relate to.

Piece by piece Ernst assembles the parts until 'Voila' I have assembled a Kit car from the manufacturer. What appeared confused and with no obvious purpose as to what it was to those untrained, is now assembled and in it's order. Ernst now rests but may have to sustain its purpose with oil changes etc but creates nothing new for the car. It is complete.
Vroom Vroom.

E S Blofeld.

Dear bertie just seen your ' informed commenting', to reply will be a delight as you appear confused with plain English and reasoned explanations.

25 July 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst now rests but may have to sustain its purpose with oil changes etc but creates nothing new for the car.

Well that's not literal rest is it?

25 July 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hannah said ...

"I also think that those who judge what is truth solely by dictation by their own faith group and the reliance on someone else to do your thinking (e.g. a Priest) to be narcissistic and limited intellectually."

Rather a silly comment. And you say this as a person about to return to Judaism with its 613 rules, Rabbis, Torah and Talmud?

"It seems to be commonplace to dismiss anything to be true that one has not been told as truth by some Churches."

Commonplace? What 'Churches' are you referring to? And by 'truth' you mean what?

25 July 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo

I am sorry you think me to be "silly", LOL.

Oh I have been thoroughly warned on my own blog about my Judaism, by a Born again believer as thus :

"It's Jesus or Hell friend, turn or burn. Will you turn from your unbelief and to the Loving Savior. Please do so now before it is too late to get saved."

And by a Roman Catholic :

“ I mean, the New Testament is a far more reliable history than the Old Testament, which, if not for the authority of the Catholic Church recognizing them as inspired and true Scripture, I would probably have a hard time accepting them modern day Judaism is a man-made religion much like Protestantism. And like Protestantism and Isam, there is no legitimate authority from God that backs up any of these things. Without this authority, there are a lot of internal inconsistencies, which, like Protestantism, leads to chaos. There are multiple sects of Judaism, there is no cohesion or continuity between them or between Old Covenant Judaism and today. Such cohesion and continuity only exists in the Catholic Church.”

If you take my post as a whole rather than cutting and pasting a few choice words you will understand the context of what I was saying. Re Churches, why which Church claims to be the one and only universal Church appointed by G-d himself?

In respect of ‘truth’ now that is whole topic neither a Gay Jewish girl or a Dodo are going to come to an agreement on, are we?
Kind regards Hannah

25 July 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

Well, Blofeld, it's tempting to follow your example,simply ignore all your arguments (especially as some of them are incomprehensibly expressed) and simply shout in triumph, using words like "hopeless" and "chortles".(I have answered your points step by step within the questions. No , as usual, you have no response worthy of standing on it's own except sleights on how it is presented, supposedly.)

Well what is a day?(24 hours due to it's hebrew meaning because a number is assigned with the word 'day'Yom Echad..This gives it precision NOT to be used as a rhetorical device (yom is used 1480 times in bible. It has 54 variations but the majority of the time, 1181 times, it signifies DAY) It can mean nothing else in Hebrew and is confirmed by other OT passages when this occurs)

This just looks muddled to me. You say that in Hebrew it can mean nothing other than 24 hour day. But you say there are 54 variations and by your maths there are 299 times when it doesn't mean that.(You quote the word 'Day'in reference to it's usage in Genesis relating to the 6 days mentioned of Creation. This was only the book and the creation account that we were discussing) Ernst told you that it is Yom Echad , which means Day ONE!!!As echad is used it codeifies it as a literal day. Too difficult to comprehend is it, when the answer is given in advance in the reply?)
Let's take a few examples:(Let me give you the full description, as you appear to not know it's 'rhetorical' usage in Hebrew Scriptures, shall we?! 67 - time, 30 - today, 6 - age, 4 - life, 18 - forever, 10 - continually, and 2 perpetually.)

The Bible often speaks of "the day ??? of the Lord". Now surely this just means a period of time. For God's wrath and his punishments do not last for only and exactly 24 hours. Therefore, the word "day" does not have to mean 24 hour periods.

Then we have the problems of Genesis 1 & 2. Now according to Genesis 1 the last thing God creates is on day 6. But then we read:

2.4b In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

(Lets see what came before shall we .

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...
GOD ENDS HIS ACCOUNT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE and now will go into specifics of what happened and where to whom...ps there are no chapters dividing the books in hebrew scripture, they were added later for ease of reading.. for us poor gentiles.

But we just read it took 6 days. But that day of 2.4b cannot be the first of those six days for it is the day in which God makes man - but according to Genesis 1 man is made on sixth day.


E S Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "Piece by piece Ernst assembles the parts until 'Voila' I have assembled a Kit car from the manufacturer. [...] It is complete.
Vroom Vroom."

Have to confess I properly laughed at that. :)

25 July 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Genesis 1;26-27

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,b and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Similarly, Genesis 2 has God making plants on that day, but Genesis 1 indicates they are made on the third day. I could go on, but that should be sufficient to demonstrate that if you require the Bible to be literally true here, you make God a liar.(Light gives off energy..Does the Creator not know what He is doing before initiating the Sun's start. The New Heaven and Earth have no sun, only the Light from God, how will things be)

Now what about morning and evening? There is no sun to cause them, but you want the light of day one to cause them.(Read God's explanation rather than grasping for logic which does not apply during the creation process as the Laws are being established that had not previously been in place) Well then they are not morning and evening as we use the words - and why would they be, when we have already demonstrated that we do not have to use the word "day" in a literal sense.(Then why is it not used in Day 7..has morning and evening stopped...not that we would notice it has? I have told you the root meaning in Hebrew yet you still appear to not understand what it may mean this here..not used in Day 7!!)

At this point, I mention "God days" again. Your answer here is obscure. So I turn to Cyprian's reference to the use of the word "day" to mean. (Because he uses it out of context by applying a false comparison against what the text relates to.) You reply:

You Equivocator you.

Not me Ernst, scripture and it isn't equivocation but analogy:( It refers to Christ's Return and why it appeasr slow to us on the earth but to God, He is not bound by Time but outside it.)

with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

But you elucidate that:

It is how God views His Time as perceived by man and related to His returning in Great Power and Glory (Indeed, Why it appeasr slow to mankind..He is trying to bring in as many as will be saved..This does not relate to Creation but the salvation plan)

Exactly, it shows that the word "day" could refer to how God "views his Time" rather than 24 hour periods. That was my point! (But then He states in Exodus what He means and WHY, for man to copy Him!!)

Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

As to your point about God's rest and not creating new things. Clearly you are right about the latter, but if so God is still working and not (literally) resting. (He rested on this day only, He says so! It was finished all that He had CREATED)

One refers to the created universe and the other defines His Eternal status and that HE WAS THE CREATOR HIMSELF

Beside the point. You needed "beginning" to mean Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation. They weren't, not even according to a literalist interpretation of Genesis.(Creation ended on the 6th day...the beginning of creation had not finished The 7th God rested from creation. They were there!!)

Christ is quoting Moses's nonsense in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve literally marrying each other. Did He read Genesis but not correct the misunderstanding. Is Christ a liar or is saying one thing but meaning another not an EQUIVOCATOR. Did He know who this related to as the first marriage instituted. (If there really was no true creation record, He cannot even get His Laws and how He created everything scientifically correct, can He. Can we even trust Him as this is His explanation of how it all went pear shaped) it is wrong (Which apeman/woman got it wrong..what if 6 couples evolved to a form of humanity but 4 evolved couples lived righteously but 2 couples sinned.
What need could there be for a Saviour as the sinning will die anyway for their sin and the others will continue undying and to their offspring.
There is no need of Christ for the righteous couples. Their seed is sound..and what on earth is Satan about then and why mention him) and as God is Omniscient He would know it's wrong but that would be to say God is a liar. So there Was no real sinning Adam or Eve. There was no Garden of Eden that God walked in..even though He, Lucifer and Adam and Eve is said to have been there.
It is so scientifically wrong that God does'nt even know His plants from His plankton)

I haven't the faintest idea what this means. Please explain. (Is it really worth the effort for poor old you) :=(

Blofeld

ps

"When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— (5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earthb and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earthc and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streamsd came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground— )7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." It's called a brief recap for it's readers, you know, humans!

Always a joy but you RC's appear to have impervious skin for taking knowledge in or understanding others explanations...Must be a Tiberian quirk in the gene pool, at baptism. *Chuckles*

25 July 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Hannah

Now you know and I know you merely copied another blogger's comment and changed a few key words.

We have already repeated covered the biblical basis for the authority of the Catholic Church.

25 July 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 July 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

No , as usual, you have no response worthy of standing on it's own except sleights on how it is presented, supposedly

Do you really think that response is worthy of you? If I am mistaken, oughtn't you to correct me charitably:

the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

and

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ

It is strange how much effort you go to to defend a literl reading of Genesis, when you so obviously flaunt passages which are so much easier to understand.

Well what is a day?(24 hours due to it's hebrew meaning because a number is assigned with the word 'day'Yom Echad..This gives it precision NOT to be used as a rhetorical device

But you're missing the point - it doesn't always mean that:

And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light. On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter.

This "continuous day" (echad yom) is clearly not a 24 hour period as we know it: it is to last all summer and winter.

Another example:

“After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will restore us…”

This surely isn't so precise as to mean we will be revived after 48 hours and then restored after a further 24.

GOD ENDS HIS ACCOUNT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE and now will go into specifics of what happened and where to whom

Yes, but we have a contradiction in terms of the number of days and in terms of what happens on that day(s) and the order of what happens. No amount of worrying about whether Yom has qualified by echad is going to help here. Neither will talking about light and energy get you off the hook. The days are contradictory for the simple reason it is two quite different stories put side by side - we're not meant to understand it as natural history.

The New Heaven and Earth have no sun, only the Light from God, how will things be

Well it will be one eternal day, not a 24 hour period.

Read God's explanation rather than grasping for logic which does not apply during the creation process as the Laws are being established that had not previously been in place

I am not grasping at logic. I am simply observing that words are being used in different ways from how we normally use them. Here's your error, you can't tell the difference between the word "literal" and "univocal". The words "morning" and "evening", even if we take them literally, are not being used univocally to how we use them, if there is no sun. And if the language is not univocal here, why must it be elsewhere?

we do not have to use the word "day" in a literal sense.(Then why is it not used in Day 7..has morning and evening stopped...not that we would notice it has? I have told you the root meaning in Hebrew yet you still appear to not understand what it may mean this here..not used in Day 7!!

But that just defeats your argument. You argument (I think) is that when the Bible uses an ordinal with the word "day", it must refer to 24 hours (on the false, but in any way rather surprising argument that this is how it is used everywhere else). But there is an ordinal with Yom in 2.3, so that day must (by your reasoning) have lasted only 24 hours. But (again on your reading) it is still going on now. Therefore Yom does not need to mean 24 hours in Genesis 1&2.

25 July 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Cont.


Because he uses it out of context by applying a false comparison against what the text relates to.

No. Cyprian just understands scripture better than some modern day Protestants. He knows that Genesis 1&2 cannot use the word "day" in the univocal way that we use it for 24 hour periods. Since he cannot impose his own pre-understanding on the passage he allows scripture to interpret itself. An example, perhaps.

But then He states in Exodus what He means and WHY, for man to copy Him!!

The idea that a story can only provide meaning for something if it is literally and univocally true is to me, just bizarre. You might as well say that whether you act as a Good Samaritan depends on whether there really was a good Samaritan.

He rested on this day only, He says so!

This is just shot through with dodgy late Medieval philosophy. Many words, even in daily parlance are used analogically. Because of the nature of God, not word may be used univocally of him. The Reformers failed to understand that their univocal assumptions were a late Medieval departure from scripture has never been corrected because Protestants do not typically study philosophy or tradition enough.

Obviously, it cannot mean "rest" in the same way that we rest. To say so would make God a big creature. Similarly, it cannot mean God speaks in the same way that we do (e.g. God said "Let there be light"). Obviously, the language of Genesis 1&2 is shot through with symbolic language.

25 July 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Do you really think that response is worthy of you? If I am mistaken, oughtn't you to correct me charitably:" You and I both know exactly what you do.

Blofeld

25 July 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Cont.

Creation ended on the 6th day...the beginning of creation had not finished The 7th God rested from creation. They were there!!

That is not what it says.



How can that possibly be the case? So you cannot get a moral from a parable because the parable never happened? Of course, there is a problem if the Genesis is telling lies. If God intends us to read Genesis 1&2 as history and it isn't. But whether God so intends us to read it, is the very thing we are discussing. You can't bring in your conclusion to bolster your argument!

Which apeman/woman got it wrong..what if 6 couples evolved to a form of humanity but 4 evolved couples lived righteously but 2 couples sinned. What need could there be for a Saviour as the sinning will die anyway for their sin and the others will continue undying and to their offspring. There is no need of Christ for the righteous couples. Their seed is sound..and what on earth is Satan about then and why mention him

Presumably there weren't righteous couples reproducing. Just because you can imagine something does not mean it is real. Perhaps all couples sinned or the sinning couples murdered the righteous ones. Hardly seems implausible given Genesis 4.8.

It is so scientifically wrong that God does'nt even know His plants from His plankton

Again, that dodgy late Medieval philosophy undermining your theology there. Science doesn't deal with God, he is not a thing among created things.

Always a joy but you RC's appear to have impervious skin for taking knowledge in or understanding others explanations...Must be a Tiberian quirk in the gene pool, at baptism.

Can't be Ernst. I was baptized as an Anglican.

25 July 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Something weird happened there. After I have written "that is not what it says" there should be a quotation from you Ernst:

If there really was no true creation record, He cannot even get His Laws and how He created everything scientifically correct, can He.

25 July 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Albert said...

You and I both know exactly what you do.

What is that supposed to mean?

25 July 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

"You and I both know exactly what you do."

Argue rationally, philosphically, scripturally and in a polite and well mannered way?

25 July 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dodo!

26 July 2012 at 08:54  
Blogger Nemagraptus said...

Perhaps it would be more difficult for the government to write off evangelicals as "extremists" if some of their own brothers and sisters in Christ didn't do the same. So let's not pin derogatory labels such as "science deniers" on those who don't accept evolution. I have an earth science degree and am actively involved in geological research, but I'm also a creationist.

26 July 2012 at 09:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Nemagratus

Doesn't it all depends what we mean by the term "creationist"?

Above is a debate where one person is saying Genesis is literally accurate and must be understood as a descriptive and scientifically definitive account of creation. At least that is what I think he is saying as it is difficult to follow his thought processes.

26 July 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

If we permit 'New Earth Creationism' to be taught as science, making the earth beteen 4 and 5 thousand years old, which contradicts science, why not include Hindu creationism?

According to this theory, all species on earth, including humans, "devolved" from a state of pure consciousness. It claims that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.

Hindu Creationists insist on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long as trillions of years ago and claim the present universe may is even older than billions of years.

All these views are based on the Vedas, a Hindu religious text, which depicts extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.

26 July 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A Stuffed Liokkle Dickie bird spouted

"Above is a debate where one person is saying Genesis is literally accurate and must be understood as a descriptive and scientifically definitive account of creation.(indeed. God is not giving a defined lesson in higher mathematics nor Particle Physics as we would receive in a defined science class whether physics chemistry etc. He is stating that HE created all things and how it was accomplished Day by Day as boundaries were set, (the fall of man and how this happened and the people concerned, the need and promise of a Saviour from a specific/named common ancestor falling from sinless to sinful) until He stopped/rested 'Creating!! The whole of the Bible is replete with Gods processes revealed thousands of years before man even discovered them..Care for me to show the untrained who speak ignorant rubbish??) At least that is what I think he is saying as it is difficult to follow his thought processes.(Pathetic justification for disagreement but as per.."

E S Blofeld

ps

"If we permit 'New Earth Creationism' to be taught as science, making the earth beteen 4 and 5 thousand years old, which contradicts science, why not include Hindu creationism? " Tripe..Ever wondered why different nations supposedly have not only there own supposed account of creation but the flood story?? Common descent from one line of people and incident, orally taught and recorded corruptly from the original as they are separated from the True God by dispersal amongst the earth.

However we know both Creation and Noah are true as detailed in OT as Christ validated who wrote the Torah and the people named as real, hence they being in His genealogies!!FACT.

26 July 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

He is stating that HE created all things and how it was accomplished Day by Day as boundaries were set

No. That's what you say it means, it is not what God says it means. You provided an argument for literal 24 hour days. I have shown it to be false.

who wrote the Torah

So who did write the Torah?

26 July 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"You provided an argument for literal 24 hour days. I have shown it to be false.
" Ooh dear..You have not!!!


Bertie

But you're missing the point - it doesn't always mean that:

You are about to quote Zechariah 14
Lets show what you have missed 'accidentally' from below quote, that enlightens this 'day'..1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee....6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: (Not bright nor Dark but between - TWILIGHT!!)

(it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light. On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter.

This "continuous day" (echad yom...err no, this is not what is described by Hebrew... this refers to no bright nor dark during a 24 hr period..no darkness. it is not clearly separated as it is today) is clearly not a 24 hour period as we know it (YES IT IS!!: it is to last all summer and winter (No..This is how each day will be, transformed from how we see our 24 hr day currently). (This is not Eternity being described.)

Another example:

“After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will restore us…” YOU missed something very important..was it an oversight * CHUCKLES AND GUFFAWS*..that we may live in his presence. whose presence.. JESUS CHRIST's presence!!!

"This surely isn't so precise as to mean we (We..are we ISRAEL..It relates to Israel and their calling on Him to return, which He does for them...Do you think this relates to Christians..Good Lord) will be revived after 48 hours and then restored after a further 24." It depends what is being stated does it not..it must be and can only be a reference to the start of the millennium and Israel salvation from destruction, in Ernst opinion.

The Messiah said that He would return to heaven and remain UNTIL the Tribulation comes and the people of Israel, in the Tribulation, see their mistake, confess their sin, repudiate the crime, and plead for Him to return and save them.They will appoint one day, the first day of this period involving the last three days of the Tribulation as relating to Israel— to fast and pray and look to Jehovah. They will fast and pray on the second day and all will come together publicly to repent the national sin and to seek the face of Him, the promised one, whom they rejected. At the end of two days — forty-eight literal hours — of their repenting, confessing, and pleading, God will effect something in Israel. “After two days will He revive us ..” (Hosea 6:2)..to be revived is to be led to repentance for sins. The procession of Christ and the saints accompanying lasts 24 hours, so that all the earth see this.

When Jesus is ruling as the Messiah, that will be the fulfillment.

Do read what a book and it's chapters relate to, there's a pleasant chappie. It's boring tiring you through your obvious refusal to study properly what is clearly stated in Scripture.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. QED.

E Blofeld

26 July 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

This "continuous day" (echad yom...err no, this is not what is described by Hebrew... this refers to no bright nor dark during a 24 hr period..no darkness. it is not clearly separated as it is today) is clearly not a 24 hour period as we know it (YES IT IS!!: it is to last all summer and winter (No..This is how each day will be, transformed from how we see our 24 hr day currently). (This is not Eternity being described.)

The translation I gave you is the RSV - a perfectly reputable translation. Of course, there are other ways of translating the text, but that is because echad yom is not being used here to mean 24 hours.

But even if I concede your point, your argument still doesn't work. You seem to be saying "echad yom" only ever means "24 hour day" and therefore that is how it should be used in Genesis 1.

Where is the rule that says scripture cannot use words in a unique way? Is it in Leviticus or something? Have you checked it, to see if you villate it. No: you have inferred from "in ever other case it means X" to "therefore it will always mean X". It doesn't follow.

But here's where your argument ends up. The word τρώγω always means physically to eat. Therefore, it must mean this in John 6. So you cannot wriggle away with your symbolic Eucharistic theology.

As you would say CHUCKLES AND GUFFAWS.

Beyond that, you have failed to engage in all the problems of the literal and univocal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 that I have provided.

Again, to quote your own post:

It's boring tiring you through your obvious refusal to study properly what is clearly stated in Scripture.

26 July 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Blowfly

So, according to your reading of Genesis and the rest of the bible and its geneologies, how old is the earth and the universe? Between 4 and 5 thousand years?

And by the way, very many nations do not subscribe to the Genesis account of creation and the Flood. I gave one example - the Hindi people who represent a sizable population. Do the Australian Aboriginals? Native Americans? The Chinese? Mayans? Eygptians?

Hardly "Common descent from one line of people and incident, orally taught and recorded corruptly from the original as they are separated from the True God by dispersal amongst the earth." They vary too widely in form and content to be accounted for by corruption of a single oral account.

26 July 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger Nemagraptus said...

The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

> Doesn't it all depends what we mean by the term "creationist"?

Then I ought to clarify. I am a young age creationist, in addition to having an earth science degree and conducting geological research. The two things are not mutually incompatible. And my creationism is not based on a slavish literalism regarding Genesis 1, but rather what the Bible says about the whole sweep of redemptive history. Dr Stephen Lloyd's talk, 'Creation and the Story-Line of the Bible' on the Biblical Creation Ministries website explains this beautifully. http://www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk/b/index.php/downloads

26 July 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector, I'd like to point out that I wasn't proposing that we bend the knee to any state, but rather this was your (I hazard deliberate) misunderstanding of what I wrote, simply because you are addicted to the feeling of your bile rising.

26 July 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - you're right. Or what we also taught the equally valid theory that the earth is flat, and balances on the back of four elephants, standing on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space, as taught by Terry Pratchett?! ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld

26 July 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon
There is one truth and it is revealed in Genesis. As in all things 'religious' disputes arise among men over how to understand it in the light of reason and scientific advance and who has authority to interpret it authoritively.

Nemagraptus
You and your science believes the world is how old exactly?

26 July 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Jon,

Didn't Pratchett get that from some sort of Indian creation story?

26 July 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
Sorry old bird, The Australian Aboriginals Do have a story of a catastrophic flood virtually identical to the Genesis account. Don't know about the rest though.

26 July 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher

Yes, but their creation myth is distinct.

In Hindu mythology there is a story of a great flood too where the Avatar of Vishnu warns the first man, Manu, of an impending flood and advises him to build a giant boat.

There are a variety of hypotheses about why ancient Flood myths prevail.

26 July 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The translation I gave you is the RSV - a perfectly reputable translation. Of course, there are other ways of translating the text, but that is because echad yom is not being used here to mean 24 hours.

The Hebrew Bible states 'on that day..'A specific '24 Hour DAY' known only to God.)

1 Look, a day is coming for ADONAI when your plunder, [Yerushalayim], will be divided right there within you. 2 "For I will gather all the nations against Yerushalayim for war. The city will be taken, the houses will be rifled, the women will be raped, and half the city will go into exile; but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city." 3 Then ADONAI will go out and fight against those nations, fighting as on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 You will flee to the valley in the mountains, for the valley in the mountains will reach to Atzel. You will flee, just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of 'Uziyah king of Y'hudah. Then ADONAI my God will come to you with all the holy ones. 6 On that day, there will be neither bright light nor thick darkness; 7 and one day, known to ADONAI, will be neither day nor night, although by evening there will be light. 8 On that day, fresh water will flow out from Yerushalayim, half toward the eastern sea and half toward the western sea, both summer and winter. 9 Then ADONAI will be king over the whole world. On that day ADONAI will be the only one, and his name will be the only name.

"But even if I concede your point, your argument still doesn't work. You seem to be saying "echad yom" only ever means "24 hour day" and therefore that is how it should be used in Genesis 1." I have demonstrated that it does and not to an age or period by the context and structure of the text..Its called rules of language structure. A Lexicon!

Simply put, a lexicon means a dictionary. The word has a Greek origin which implies "a vocabulary". The lexicon consists of words or group of words which convey a meaning and make grammatical sense. Thios helps interested persons study the language, the word structure, history and development of words, relationship between words etc in the language.

It strives to arrange the vocabulary of a language by showing/revealing certain standards that must be met and then even tries to produce new and simple words according to certain lexical rules, I.e, the suffix "able" can be added to "laugh" to make the word "laugh-able" but it cannot be added to lie to make the word "lie-able".

This is what Ernst uses to understand what is meant but Koine is even more precise than Hebrew!!

E S Blofeld

27 July 2012 at 09:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Where is the rule that says scripture cannot use words in a unique way? Is it in Leviticus or something? Have you checked it, to see if you villate it. No: you have inferred from "in ever other case it means X" to "therefore it will always mean X". It doesn't follow." SEE ABOVE!!!

"But here's where your argument ends up. The word τρώγω always means physically to eat. Therefore, it must mean this in John 6. So you cannot wriggle away with your symbolic Eucharistic theology." What on earth is this. Were they not eating physical bread..You talk nonsense. Was the bread at the last supper not physical bread? We are to commemorate this as taking all of Christ to sustain us physically and spiritually. The difference is your little wafers are NOT life sustaining bread either physically or spiritually! The early believers ate real; bread and drank real wine when remembering the Lord's Table. THIS IS WHERE YOUR NONSENSE LEADS YOU WITH YOUR THEOLOGY.

"As you would say CHUCKLES AND GUFFAWS.
Old Ernsty thinks and demonstrates 'NOT' !! *Humungous Chortles, Tiberian*

Beyond that, you have failed to engage in all the problems of the literal and univocal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 that I have provided.

I have answered every question and demonstrated why you are incorrect from Zechariah 14 that they are specific 24 hr days and what they relate to, that it shows by the structure within context they mean 24 hr days and they are 'a sequential/72 HRS' rule as they refer to the last 3 days before Christ comes to ...HALLELUJAH!!! and your application arrives at falsehood and bit by bit, little by little, precept upon precept you build on falsehood til you arrive where you stand today.

"Again, to quote your own post:

It's boring tiring you through your obvious refusal to study properly what is clearly stated in Scripture."*YAWN..ZZZZZZZZZ*

Ernst 'Know That Which You Say and Mean' Blofeld

ps

The real concern is not, did it take 6 days to create all but WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG!! Did those loaves and fishies evolve or were they instantaneously multiplied *Chortles, Chuckles, Rib Tickles and Shoulder Shaking*

27 July 2012 at 09:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

Has our discussion stopped, what have I done??

I had hoped to explain discoveries of scientific fact spoken of in the old testament, thousands of years before the truth of stars was revealed by recent science.

The Bible states that the stars are innumerable and cannot be counted: Genesis 15:5 and Jeremiah 33:22
For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe.

1.Brahe stated there were only 777.
2. Kepler claimed the total was more like 1,005.
3. Hipparchus said 'no way', it's 1,022 stars.
4. Ptolemy increased his estimated number to 1,056.

After much effort, many scientists, including the great man Galileo himself, stated conclusively that the sheer number of stars was truly incalculable, just as the Holy Bible had always claimed it to be..He can even name them all, individually..Guess He must know them intimately, The Creator that is!!

or

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Job is talking to God the Creator and is given a science lesson regarding the only two constellations known to science that have a gravitational coupling that other stars do not have..Others may appear to be in the same cluster but are not. It is an illusion.

Ernst does enjoy all the old commentaries that try to make it means something else, bless them..but it had only been discovered recently as true. What would God know, scientifically speaking, anyway??

Blofeld

27 July 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Blowfly

What an astonishingly dense exposition. And how it excelled your usual standards.

Chortles,
Chuckles,
Rib Tickles
Shoulder Shaking
Guffaws

Ego sum ipse quam tu mecum es et omnia simul

27 July 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ego sum ipse quam tu mecum es et omnia simu..

Perhaps everyone has a bit of the hypocrite in them, don't you think.

*Multo Risus, Dulcis Raphus Cucullatus*

Maximus, Salvus, Meridius Per Scientia, Usque Omnes Est Revelatum Blofeld

28 July 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Some more than others - don't you think?

29 July 2012 at 19:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older