A New Direction...

[Matthew]

Dear Fellow Posters..

I am grateful I was allowed to come on here. This experience has been a real eye-opener for me. I finally told my dad about my skepticism and it was okay with him. He thanked me for my integrity in telling him, rather than lie to him about my doubts and skepticism. I realize however that my skepticism might be unjustified because of what may be called "temporal provincialism". However it is an issue I fully intend to explore.

I also wish to retract my argument that there are provable contradictions in the Bible. I honestly thought I had a definite case but as it turns out..I may not have a leg to stand on after all. I was pretty darn sure that I knew the context of some of the passages where I thought I had found contradictions. I thought that if I used a lexicon in addition to what I thought was a fair grip of the context..I could prove a contradiction exists. But, however, I realized that my "evidence" may not be as strong as I thought it was; I don't have any real evidence. I am still, however, suspicious and skeptical..but it may be purely subjective on my part. I mean here I was using an lexicon when I haven't even mastered Greek yet.

I have to say right now that I have to deem the "Dear Abiathar" debate as inconclusive. I am going to read Milna and Rohrbaugh's book for myself. I am also going to (at the advice of a friend, you know who you are ;)) read some works by Raymond Brown, N. T. Wright and Pinchas Lapide, as well as others. What about Till's argument about the lexicon? Well..I am going to save that until after I have mastered New Testament Greek. A lexicon in the hands of a novice can be a disaster. This is a painful lesson I have learned and learned well.

I have made a decision at this point to start privately training in learning biblical languages. I am also going to see if I can get a hold of some seminary books on the context of the Bible. I have decided to become a Bible scholar for myself. Wether I want to go professional and end up with a master's or doctorate or just do private studies and be an expert but not necessarily a professional I haven't decided on yet. But..I realized that I can't afford to be like the skeptics whose honesty and integrity JP has called into question and found very wanting. I don't want to lie to my family, friends, and Church about being a believer and ruin my integrity like they did. I am also extremely interested in the findings of the Context Group.

A few other things before I "close". I want to apologize if I came across as rude or arrogant on here. I wanted to apologize also for over-exaggerating to the point of dishonesty ( I am talking about my use of a glacier metaphor for my faith; my faith was actually much smaller, like an ice-cube melting into mere drops of water). My understanding may very well have been pedantric indeed! If I have destroyed my integrity on here, I understand and apologize for it. If there is anything I can do to rebuild my integrity with you folks, I am more than willing to make up for it.

I am planning on becoming a Bible scholar like I said. If it brings me back to Jesus Christ, then I would love to come back into the flock. About the single issue- I actually recall a conversation with a minister from a former Church and he said that he didn't believe in "romantic predestination" ( the idea that God has specifically a mate in mind for each of us at a specific time). So, that will probably be my own conclusion should I give my life to Jesus Christ again.

Well everyone. I thank you all for having me. And for being patient with me! If there is one thing JP has taught me..it's to laugh at myself! He once told Farrell Till regarding Brian Holtz "He is even sillier than you and twice as obnoxious". I concede that my skepticism may indeed be silly as well. I am determined to find out one way or another. If I give my life again to Jesus Christ, it will not be a "temporal provincialist" faith like the one that collapsed. Who knows..maybe I needed to leave that kind of faith. Wherever I land..this is a good place to start.

[GrayPilgrim]

Thank you for this. I have not kept up on those threads so I don't know all the ins and outs, but your honesty shows a high level of integrity, which is a rare thing.

If I may be so bold as to suggest a course on your studies of the Languages, might I propse a thought and let you think on this. If you tend to be more math oriented, I would reccomend beginning with Greek, but if you are more Liberal Arts oriented I would reccomend Hebrew first. This adive comes from my experience that those who have the particular proclivities genreally cling to the two languages accordingly. And one final piece of advice ont his thread, their have been a number of good introductory gramamrs that have been published in the last 2 years these will be both pedagogically and lingusitically more helpful as you begin this new path.

May God grant you His Peace!
GP

[dizzle]

Dear Matthew:

Thank you so much for you post!! You are welcome here. I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to delve deeper into these issues.

[Jaltus]

God bless.

I also hope you plan on continuing to post. Your thoughts are interesting and you are fun to talk to.

- Jaltus

[Captain Ochre]

Wishing you the best during your pursuit of the truth of the matter, Matthew.



Is anybody familiar with Friesen's _Decisionmaking in the Will of God_ (Multnomah)?

[Matthew]

Hello all!

I also hope you plan on continuing to post. Your thoughts are interesting and you are fun to talk to.

Jaltus, you bet! My first inclination was to ask Dee Dee to erase my posts on here because I was embarrassed that I came on and exposed my ignorance..but seeing that people gave me a chance and didn't rush to any judgements or character assasinations, I see every reason to keep on posting. Even if I hadn't bought into Till's arguments and even kept a "temporal provincialist faith", I would probably come to check it out and start posting anyways.

So right now..I am making a list of books to acquire from JP's Book Review on Tektonics..and I am checking it twice. I want to see which scholars are naughty and nice. :rofl: (Okay..that might have been a dumb one). As for Till..I unsusbsribed from his list. Even if is right about any of his articles..I don't want to be associated with someone who is unethical enough to not only to lie and bluff about his past activities, but who is also rude and un-ethical enough to post un-authorized information online and at the same time has the nerve to make a harassing call to Mrs. Holding just to confirm his suspicions.

Right now..I would like to continue to post..and even to air out some of my skeptical thoughts. I figure it couldn't hurt! So..I thank Dee Dee and others here for allowing me to "open up". Jaltus..I personally want to thank you as well. When I found out that you taught Kione Greek..that helped to confirm my decision to want to become a Bible scholar. I thought to myself "Wow! That's incredible! He probably knows more about Greek than Till and myself combined ! Before I make any judgements about Greek..I should at least master it myself!:idea: "

So, I think that this might be a great place to continue. As far as the list of books go..I am going to see if I can get my local library to order them. I had a talk with my mother about my spending habits, so I will only purchase the books as a last resort if I can't get them either through the library, from my former pastor's library, or perhaps on loan from a near-by seminary. At any rate, I have had a complete change in heart. I am also going to be reading books by Robert Price and others just to make an informed decision. JP would expect no less of me :p

Well everyone..I am going to go right now. I have to get some lunch. I have also decided to begin my studies in Hebrew this weekend. I am going to learn the Hebrew alphabet and try tearning transliteration. I got a box of books on Hebrew grammar, interlinear Bibles, syntax study books. They look old..so..I plan on reading more updated books..just in case the approach to languages has evolved. When I read about Verbal Aspect theory, that gave me a hint that language studies are a lot more complicated than Till realizes.

This is all for now. Cheers!:cheers: :read: :thumb:

[Blake Reas]

I am planning on becoming a Bible scholar like I said. If it brings me back to Jesus Christ, then I would love to come back into the flock. About the single issue- I actually recall a conversation with a minister from a former Church and he said that he didn't believe in "romantic predestination" ( the idea that God has specifically a mate in mind for each of us at a specific time). So, that will probably be my own conclusion should I give my life to Jesus Christ again.

He cool that is what I am going to school for!
:yipee:

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[dizzle]

Dear Matthew:

We look forward to speaking with you and wish you all the best in your studies. That is very admirable of you. You have been a very interesting person to get to know, and I am sure to get to know even better.

[$cirisme]

Matthew,

It is so refreshing to see someone investigate it on their own instead of relying on others. I do hope you will stick around. :thumb:

God bless.

[Lizard]

Yes Matthew, please stay. I hope that we can challenge each other. Every-time someone challenges my views I get stronger. (and occasionally I change my mind ;))

[Matthew]

Dee Dee,

Dee Dee We look forward to speaking with you and wish you all the best in your studies. That is very admirable of you. You have been a very interesting person to get to know, and I am sure to get to know even better.

Well Dee Dee..I appreciate all this. I am equally admirable with how you folks have been very graceful to me. A little about me personally, though. I like to think I am a nice, confident, good-humored guy. Yes, I can get a bit serious at times and defensive..but..that's part and parcel of my character. Some girls have even said that I am a sweetheart.

I always strive to be extremely open-minded and considerate of other people's ideas and suggestions. I strive to be as honest as possible..although I do slip up at times and make mistakes. I have to admit my shame (how's that, JP? :grin: ) that at times I can over-exaggerate and even spin a little. I am not proud of this..( Never am) but I do slip up and tarnish my integrity at times.

Right now..my plans I(in addition to acquiring expertise in biblical scholarship) is also to become a research scientist and novelist. I love brilliant and innovative ideas. I do have some high aspirations! One of the most brilliant ideas I think has come about this past century has been a new, rational theory of quantum mechanics. This past year..I was hoping to be the first Christian scholar and chemist ever to embrace "The Theory of Elementary Waves". I am also a fan of Halton Arp, who wrote a beautiful book called "Seeing Red" which provides evidence against an "expanding universe" and refutes, by implication, the Big Bang theory.

I also have a deep love of astronomy as well. I am critical of current establishment astronomy and opt for several ideas advocated by Tom Van Flandern, especially his "Exploding Planet Hypothesis" as well as several ideas about how the early solar system formed. Van Flandern is a professional astronomer who is considered a tad bit crankish for attempting to challenge Einstein's general theory of relativity.

I love the concept of hydrogen powered vehicles. I endorsed it before Bush did publically, and to my suprise and delight, he endorsed it in his S.O.T.U. address. This idea I think is about 30-40 years over-due. Well..I love Italian food, chocolate ice cream, I am a sucker for mocha frappicinos, and I guess, at heart, a romantic. Well this is for you guys/gals to get to know me right now.

[Matthew]

I have a good idea for a new thread series. I was thinking of offering constructive criticisms of many of the apologetics arguments I find on Tektonics and other websites. For example, I have in mind a constructive critique of JP's article on Jacob using a flawed breeding technique in Genesis 30:37-42. I have in mind several other examples where I think that solutions are extremely flawed that..last time I read..were not covered on Tektonics. I think the best place to address them would be here.

Matthew

[dizzle]

Sure Matthew, this particular section of the forum is perfect for that. Also, may I invite you over to the Dormitory just for some silly fun and lots of dancing banannas :yipee: :yipee:

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Sure Matthew, this particular section of the forum is perfect for that. Also, may I invite you over to the Dormitory just for some silly fun and lots of dancing banannas :yipee: :yipee:

I agree Matthew, that would be great. Also, the dorm is cool. I like this site, for that reason. You can have great intilectual discussion, and then goof off with the same people. It kinda makes it easier to keep a spirit of fellowship when you happen to disagree in the more "serious" forums.

[Jaltus]

Just so you know, I have a degree in HE physics, and am obviously a Christian. I'd love tyo talk to you about that stuff.

[Socrates]

Matthew:

Right now..my plans I(in addition to acquiring expertise in biblical scholarship) is also to become a research scientist and novelist.

I join the others in wishing you all the best. And with finding the right girl :) I just hope that you consult real HEbrew scholarship on the meaning of Genesis, not the outlandish "fiat" ideas of Morton and Hayward who haven't an ounce of Hebrew expertise.

M:
"One of the most brilliant ideas I think has come about this past century has been a new, rational theory of quantum mechanics."

I must admit, I think quantum mechanics makes sense. It's hard to explain the Woodward-Hoffmann rules on whether cycloaddition is disrotatory or conrotatory without the signs of the wavefunctions of the molecular orbitals.

M:
"This past year..I was hoping to be the first Christian scholar and chemist ever to embrace "The Theory of Elementary Waves". I am also a fan of Halton Arp, who wrote a beautiful book called "Seeing Red" which provides evidence against an "expanding universe" and refutes, by implication, the Big Bang theory."

Yes, I like many of his points, e.g. evidence of objects with hugely different red shifts which are joined together. Therefore there must be something other than cosmic expansion or the Doppler effect causing red shifts. One example is given in Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/487.asp.

Arp should make Christian big bang apologists like Hugh Ross think again, but Arp is also a materialist. There is a review of his book at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3_doppler.asp, although it implies that Doppler shift rather than cosmic expansion causes red shifts, mainly because most cosmologists still talk AS IF they were Doppler shifts.

M:
"I also have a deep love of astronomy as well. I am critical of current establishment astronomy and opt for several ideas advocated by Tom Van Flandern, especially his "Exploding Planet Hypothesis" as well as several ideas about how the early solar system formed. Van Flandern is a professional astronomer who is considered a tad bit crankish for attempting to challenge Einstein's general theory of relativity."

I prefer to work WITHIN relativity, and instead question the main big bang assumption called the Cosmological Principle. I.e. that the universe has no preferred direction or position, i.e. no center. But Tifft's quantized red shift data indicate that our milky way is close to being at the center of the universe http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf. And with this alternative assumption, an alternative white hole cosmology makes more sense http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

M:
"I love the concept of hydrogen powered vehicles. I endorsed it before Bush did publically, and to my suprise and delight, he endorsed it in his S.O.T.U. address. This idea I think is about 30-40 years over-due."

Fair enough, they would certainly be non-polluting. But the hydrogen has to be generated from somewhere. And it takes exactly the same amount of energy to extract it from water as you get when you burn it. I wonder whether fuel cells would be the way to go. By the definition of efficiency, it's possible for them to be >100% efficient!

[Matthew]

Socrates states

I join the others in wishing you all the best. And with finding the right girl I just hope that you consult real HEbrew scholarship on the meaning of Genesis, not the outlandish "fiat" ideas of Morton and Hayward who haven't an ounce of Hebrew expertise.

Actually..I am already skeptical of the "fiat" hypothesis. I can't get it to reconcile with Exodus 20:11 "For in six days, the LORD made the heavens and earth and all that is in them..". So I have difficulty concurring with the views of Morton and Hayward. It would be very misleading to the Hebrews that this kind of analogy is false, because Yahweh would be implying that all of creation was completed in a week, not just proclamations made on these days to be fulfilled billions of years later.

I must admit, I think quantum mechanics makes sense. It's hard to explain the Woodward-Hoffmann rules on whether cycloaddition is disrotatory or conrotatory without the signs of the wavefunctions of the molecular orbitals.

Well..I have always accepted quantum mechanics. I have learned this past year or so that in terms of qualitative quanutm mechanics, there are two approaches. Quantum nomalism and quantum realism . The former depends on the observor to "collapse" a wave-function. There is no real wave..it's just an abstraction representing particles with are in a state of simultaneous super-position. The Copenhagen Interpretation along with various variations on a theme are examples of this. Quantum realism suggests an actual wave. The observor doesn't collapse a wave function..just discerns hidden variables. In this sense I am a realist.

I still have a lot to learn! But as far as theories or interpretations go..I adhere to Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves. This uses the idea of extramissive realist waves travelling from the detector to the screen which in turn stimulates the emission of particles. It's in exact opposite to Bohm's "pilot-wave" theory which involves intramissive waves, having waves go from the particle source to the detector and traveling along with, or even guiding the particles.

So Socrates, Jaltus, I look forward to some great physics conversation if you guys are interested. I was always dismayed that non of the Christians I grew up with were interested in science.

[Socrates]

Matthew wrote:

"Actually..I am already skeptical of the "fiat" hypothesis. I can't get it to reconcile with Exodus 20:11 "For in six days, the LORD made the heavens and earth and all that is in them..". So I have difficulty concurring with the views of Morton and Hayward. It would be very misleading to the Hebrews that this kind of analogy is false, because Yahweh would be implying that all of creation was completed in a week, not just proclamations made on these days to be fulfilled billions of years later."

Yes, I think you've put your finger on a key point. The fourth commandment makes a causal connexion between creation week and the working week.

Another major problem with compromise views is the conflict between teaching that animals were created vegetarian, and that this condition will be restored (Isaiah 11, 65). More generally, long-age ideas have millions of years of death and suffering before sin, diametrically opposed to the Biblical teaching that physical death of man and animals called nephesh chayyah is the result of Adam's Fall.'

BTW, the article Geology and the young Earth http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp, by an author qualified in geology unlike Morton and Hayward, largely seems to be written as an answer to their "scientific" claims. :bonk:

M:

"Well..I have always accepted quantum mechanics. I have learned this past year or so that in terms of qualitative quanutm mechanics, there are two approaches. Quantum nomalism and quantum realism . The former depends on the observor to "collapse" a wave-function. There is no real wave..it's just an abstraction representing particles with are in a state of simultaneous super-position. The Copenhagen Interpretation along with various variations on a theme are examples of this. Quantum realism suggests an actual wave. The observor doesn't collapse a wave function..just discerns hidden variables. In this sense I am a realist."

Exactly right! Some Christians want to throw out QM completely, but the proper answer is to question some of the INTERPRETATIONS.

M:

"I still have a lot to learn! But as far as theories or interpretations go..I adhere to Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves. This uses the idea of extramissive realist waves travelling from the detector to the screen which in turn stimulates the emission of particles. It's in exact opposite to Bohm's "pilot-wave" theory which involves intramissive waves, having waves go from the particle source to the detector and traveling along with, or even guiding the particles."

Hmm, that's where I'll be learning from you, I think :D

M:
"So Socrates, Jaltus, I look forward to some great physics conversation if you guys are interested."

Sure. Jaltus would probably be better for the pure physics side. While I have studied some of the more basic QM problems, my area was more in the application to some organic chemistry reactions and explaining many spectral lines.

M:
"I was always dismayed that non of the Christians I grew up with were interested in science."

Yes, I love science which is why I work in this area. In fact, the very birth of modern science was dependent on the Christian worldview of an orderly creator who also gave man dominion over the creation. So where the Bible is silent, we to work out how the world works, we must investigate rather than rely on Greek philosophy as they did pre-Galileo.

However, many Christians see science as the enemy. This owes a lot to the 19th century humanist diatribes about a warfare between science and religion. And this is perpetuated by those Christians who compromise the Bible with views masquerading as "Science" such as evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

That's why I appreciate sites like Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/, which have a lot of respect for real science but also point out its limitations, and reject the belief systems about the past that ride on the coat-tails of science. http://www.icr.org/ is very good too, but I'm Australian remember :)

[Matthew]

Socrates,

I noticed that in your posts..you have included links to Answers in Genesis. I, for one, cannot accept a young-earth. Although I reject the Big Bang and Darwin's general theory of evolution, I accept as hopelessly factual, a great age for the earth. I e-mailed JP and asked him if there was biblical support in the Bible, especially 2 Peter in regards to wether or not "kosmos" meant the whole earth was flooded. He argued that a global meaning "can't be gotten around". I agree with this statement. I think that the concept of a global flood is the most contextually coherent understanding of the Bible.

I have to commend Answers In Genesis for credit where it is due; they are willing to look at Arp and Tifft's data and observations whereas the scientific community hasn't. I also commend them for sticking to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which I think is the best meaning of the text. I think that the data is most consistent with a global flood, which is another reason why I am deeply skeptical that the Bible is divinely inspired.

[Socrates]

Matthew wrote:

"I noticed that in your posts..you have included links to Answers in Genesis."

Yes, I thought they had the best articles to help you in the area of creation v evolution and science and the Bible. I think Tektonics.org has the best information about the reliability of Scritpure in general.

M:
"I, for one, cannot accept a young-earth. Although I reject the Big Bang and Darwin's general theory of evolution, I accept as hopelessly factual, a great age for the earth."

But it's important to realize that all "Dating" methods have ASSUMPTIONS. And there are also a number of physical processes which, even granting uniformitarian assumptions, point to an age far younger than billions of years -- see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

M:
I e-mailed JP and asked him if there was biblical support in the Bible, especially 2 Peter in regards to wether or not "kosmos" meant the whole earth was flooded. He argued that a global meaning "can't be gotten around". I agree with this statement.
I think that the concept of a global flood is the most contextually coherent understanding of the Bible.

Me too :) Yeah, the local Flood idea, especially the usual Rossian dodge of a Mesopotamiam Flood, is ludicrous. By that logic, the coming judgment that Peter compares to the past judgement by the global kataclusmos (verb katacluzo) must also be local. So to avoid it, just stay away from Baghdad! :bonk:

M:
"I have to commend Answers In Genesis for credit where it is due; they are willing to look at Arp and Tifft's data and observations whereas the scientific community hasn't. I also commend them for sticking to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which I think is the best meaning of the text."

I'm sure they'd appreciate that from you. I think even many atheists respect them for sticking to their guns, and being far more honest than the likes of Hugh Ross and Glenn Moron for claiming to believe Genesis but distorting what it says.

M:
"I think that the data is most consistent with a global flood, which is another reason why I am deeply skeptical that the Bible is divinely inspired."

Matthew, it would be nice if you demonstrate what is wrong with the global flood rather than simply assert that it could not have happened. I provided a link that refutes the anti-Flood arguments by two people who seemed to have influenced you
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp

Do you know the history of the denial? The founder of uniformitarianism, non-geologist James Hutton, DECREED before examining the evidence that the global Flood was inadmissible as an explanation. His successor Charles Lyell, a great influence on Darwin, fudged data on Niagara falls to support his denial of the Biblical time scale http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_niagara.asp, and see also Gould's opinion on Lyell: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v1n2_qq1.asp

But Matthew, in conclusion, I'd remind you of advice which I think both Kyle and JP gave you from opposite directions. Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection of Christ, not the pathetic "contradictions" that Feral McTill is obsessed with. And applying it to this question, I have no problem believing that IF the resurrection is true, THEN Jesus has validated His claims. This makes it perfectly reasonable to trust Him that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), even if (most unlikely!) Feral could raise a "contradiction" that even JP could not answer.

Similarly, I'll trust Jesus when He treated the Creation and Flood accounts as real history not mythology and allegory (see Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:5-9, Luke 17:26-27). This will not change, even if someone like Ross or Morton could raise an argument that Answers in Genesis could not answer, at least for the moment (again incredibly unlikely!).

[Matthew]

I have to correct an error that I made in a previous post. I explained that Little's theory uses extramissive waves. But I should've stated that extramissive waves travel in the opposite direction than that normally assumed; they travel from the detector to the particle source. They are reversed waves. Bohm's theory has intramissive waves-going from source to detector.

Matthew, it would be nice if you demonstrate what is wrong with the global flood rather than simply assert that it could not have happened. I provided a link that refutes the anti-Flood arguments by two people who seemed to have influenced you

Socrates, I'd be more than willing to look into it. I would rather not go into a discussion about global vs. local in terms of the flood's extent. I don't want to flood posts with scientific arguments. It's mainly the bulk of scientific arguments that lead me to conclude that the universe is old with the earth trailing not too far behind. I can forsee a biblical problem with the concept of a global flood though. There exists a geographical anachronism in Genesis 2:10-14. Four rivers are named, two of them being the "Tigris" and the "Euphrates".

If the flood was global it would seem that in addition to rapidly depositing sediments and causing a global catastrophe it would also radically restructure the geographical landscapes and topography. I grew up believing that Moses was the traditional author (or at least editor). But in the time that the Pentateuch was written, most acient Hebrews would know of these two rivers-else why would Moses include them?

However, I don't know if these two rivers are Hebrew in origin. If they were, and the landscape and topography was radically altered..how would they know which rivers to re-name? Why would the Hebrews re-name rivers that might not even be Hebrew in origin? How would they know what rivers to re-name, where they were, and why? In short..why the anachronism? The mere presence of this anachronism generates much confusion for me. I am not arguing that this proves anything..only it raises serious questions and for me doubts.

[Matthew]

There is one thing I forgot to include in my last post. I do agree that, for the most part, a physical resurrection is crucial to the foundation of the Christian faith. However, this is something I am deeply skeptical. I didn't think I had that much of a leg to stand on in regards to Bible contradictions in general. However, the one apparent contradiction I am almost certain of, however happens to be in the resurrection accounts.

This is something I hope to argue for more in the thread I started on what I thought was a contradiction in the resurrection accounts. I doubt that they can be attributable to mere scribal errors; on the contrary, it strikes me as an inescapable contradiction. But a physical resurrection I think is the essence of the resurrection. Even a Jewish New Testament scholar, I think whose name is Pinchas Lapide even agrees that the Jews held to a physical resurrection.

More to come, folks!

[Socrates]

Matthew wrote:
"I have to correct an error that I made in a previous post. I explained that Little's theory uses extramissive waves. But I should've stated that extramissive waves travel in the opposite direction than that normally assumed; they travel from the detector to the particle source. They are reversed waves. Bohm's theory has intramissive waves-going from source to detector."

Thanx Matthew. I will admit that I wouldn't have picked up the error, since that's all new to me. A good lesson -- even scientists are laymen outside their own field.

M:
"Socrates, I'd be more than willing to look into it. I would rather not go into a discussion about global vs. local in terms of the flood's extent. I don't want to flood posts with scientific arguments. It's mainly the bulk of scientific arguments that lead me to conclude that the universe is old with the earth trailing not too far behind."

Fair enough Matthew. But the links I gave addressed much of the science. I just wanted to put the science into perspective, i.e. that claims about the past are far more conjectural than operational science (see also http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism), and my firm belief that the evidence for Jesus's Rez far outweighs any problem in origins.

M:
"I can forsee a biblical problem with the concept of a global flood though. There exists a geographical anachronism in Genesis 2:10-14. Four rivers are named, two of them being the "Tigris" and the "Euphrates"."

AiG has answered that too, e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/garden-of-eden.asp. As you say, there are four rivers named (actually one river splitting into four). So these CANNOT be the rivers in Mesopotamia today.

The answer is that Noah and his family named post-Flood features after features in the ante-diluvian world. And I can identify with that living in Australia. E.g. Australians go to England and get incensed that the Poms (our equivalent of "Limeys") have stolen all our place names! But of course, the English settlers names places like Newcastle and the Tweed River after places in Britain. My fellow Antipodean Robyn Banks would know that many places near Dunedin, New Zealand are named after Scottish places, while other places in his country are named after English places.

For some North American examples, you would know that Ontario has the River Thames and River Trent, of course named after the English Rivers. And there is Moscow, Idaho which is obviously named after the Russian capital. There are heaps of other examples of English place names borrowed for other parts of the world, e.g. Liverpool, Hamilton, Oxford, Sheffield and Brighton. Your country also has lots of Biblical names, such as Philadelphia.

So here is an example of where relatively modern examples of settling into new areas shed some light on the probable behaviour of the Ark survivors entering the new world.

M:
"If the flood was global it would seem that in addition to rapidly depositing sediments and causing a global catastrophe it would also radically restructure the geographical landscapes and topography."

100% correct! That's why we can't know where Eden was located.

M:
"I grew up believing that Moses was the traditional author (or at least editor)."

And I would agree. AiG and Tektonics.org have both got good articles defending this and knocking the JEDP hypothesis for six.

M:
But in the time that the Pentateuch was written, most acient Hebrews would know of these two rivers-else why would Moses include them?

Explained above -- the post-Flood people named them after pre-Flood features.

However, I don't know if these two rivers are Hebrew in origin. If they were, and the landscape and topography was radically altered..how would they know which rivers to re-name?

They wouldn't have to. They would just pick names of features that seemed appropriate. There is no right or wrong naming, any more than people in Idaho had to worry about what the "correct" city to name "Moscow".

M:
"Why would the Hebrews re-name rivers that might not even be Hebrew in origin? How would they know what rivers to re-name, where they were, and why? In short..why the anachronism? The mere presence of this anachronism generates much confusion for me. I am not arguing that this proves anything..only it raises serious questions and for me doubts."

I hope the above helps. It's not wrong to doubt; it's what you do with them that counts. Thomas had doubts. But Jesus gave him ample reason that his doubts were misplaced, and also gave him a gentle rebuke for doing what modern skeptics do -- doubting the reliable testimony of the apostles. Thomas became a great evangelist, being martyred in India, but to this day Indian Christians credit him with planting the gospel in their country.

[Socrates]

Matthew wrote (and it must have been while I was replying to his other one):

"There is one thing I forgot to include in my last post. I do agree that, for the most part, a physical resurrection is crucial to the foundation of the Christian faith. However, this is something I am deeply skeptical. I didn't think I had that much of a leg to stand on in regards to Bible contradictions in general. However, the one apparent contradiction I am almost certain of, however happens to be in the resurrection accounts."

But as others have shown, even if you are correct, does this affect the overall historicity of the resurrection? All they do is make biblioskeptics like Feral McTill and Robyn Banks salivate.

In any case, I think the NT Greek scholar John Wenham did a great job harmonizing the Resurrection accounts in his book Easter Enigma. I doubt that he'd give a monkey's about whether Robyn Banks thinks that we shouldn't even try to harmonize. JPH has some instructive points to make on these narratives too.

Matthew:
"This is something I hope to argue for more in the thread I started on what I thought was a contradiction in the resurrection accounts. I doubt that they can be attributable to mere scribal errors; on the contrary, it strikes me as an inescapable contradiction. "

Conversely, after seeing the pathetic attempts by biblioskeptics like Feral, Dan Barker, Dennis McKinsey, I'm just more firmly convinced that the Bible is inerrant and they are just desperate.

M:
"But a physical resurrection I think is the essence of the resurrection. Even a Jewish New Testament scholar, I think whose name is Pinchas Lapide even agrees that the Jews held to a physical resurrection."

Yes, and he accepted that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Matthew]

No way! Pinchas Lapide accepts that Jesus rose from the dead?? Son of a gun! So is he the only completed Jewish New Tetament scholar? I heard Jewish Christians call themselves "completed Jews" Is this the case here? Even so..it would make me all the more eager to read his work!

[Socrates]

Matthew asks:

"No way! Pinchas Lapide accepts that Jesus rose from the dead?? Son of a gun! So is he the only completed Jewish New Tetament scholar? I heard Jewish Christians call themselves "completed Jews" Is this the case here? Even so..it would make me all the more eager to read his work!"

Well, he's a strange one. He believes that Jesus really rose from the dead, but doesn't accept the tenets of Christianity. He thinks Jesus was the Messiah for the Gentiles or some such. So he would not be a Jewish Christian or "completed/fulfilled Jew" in the way that Jews for Jesus or Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum http://www.ariel.org/ would be.

[Matthew]

That's odd. I thought that any acceptance of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ would impell anyone to become a Christian. Unless you believe it's true and yet literally reject it.

[Lizard]

Matthew:
That's odd. I thought that any acceptance of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ would impell anyone to become a Christian. Unless you believe it's true and yet literally reject it.

You are assuming that all people are rational. I know of people who say they believe that Christianity is true, but for some reason, would rather spend eternity in Hell than to become a Christian.

Some of the reasons given:

1. Anger at God for some personal harm.

2. Anger at some church for some personal harm.

3. Bitterness at organized religion in general.

4. Unwillingness to give up sinful "pleasures"

5. Refusal to follow a God Who, "allows such evil in the world"

It basically boils down to anger, bitterness, and/or pride.

It has nothing to do with reason or logic.

Hope this helps.

[BronzeArcher]

Just wanted to bump this. I was searching for "Context Group" looking for a comic someone posted about some guy talking about God and jello.

Almost three years later, how much has Matthew changed? :smile: This was just really encouraging...

[jpholding]

Just wanted to bump this. I was searching for "Context Group" looking for a comic someone posted about some guy talking about God and jello.

It's on either Tekton or tektoonics, I think under Stuart Dinenno.

[Darth Executor]

It's on either Tekton or tektoonics, I think under Stuart Dinenno.

Tekton says it's on Tektoonics but I can't find it on Tektoonics.