tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post116437938338923622..comments2023-11-03T11:48:36.234+00:00Comments on Chris Hamer-Hodges: How can intellectual people believe the incredulous stories in the Bible?Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164658786965542222006-11-27T20:19:00.000+00:002006-11-27T20:19:00.000+00:00Hey Chris, Thanks so much for taking the trouble t...Hey Chris, Thanks so much for taking the trouble to respond to my comment 30 hours after your baby was born! I guess you got your share of the morning chores done extra quickly so you could sneak in a bit of blogging.<BR/><BR/>I think we are fairly close to being on the same page about the relationship between biblical truth and scientific truth. Anyway, I am not going to pursue it now. You should be enjoying your fresh little piece of creation.<BR/><BR/>And great Scot, what a great name you gave him. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for this series,<BR/><BR/>I'll keep a eye on my feed reader to see when you surface again from the nappy changing.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Andrew BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164641587250641642006-11-27T15:33:00.000+00:002006-11-27T15:33:00.000+00:00Nice cinema analogy Chris!:o)Nice cinema analogy Chris!<BR/><BR/>:o)Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164622789941776882006-11-27T10:19:00.000+00:002006-11-27T10:19:00.000+00:00Andrew B, Thanks for your question and the grace w...Andrew B, Thanks for your question and the grace with which you ask it.<BR/><BR/>People often make a big deal about Genesis not being a scientific account, which is true, but irrelevant. The Gospels aren't a scientific account of how Jesus walked on the water, turned water into wine, healed the sick or rose from the dead. There is no scientific explanation for these things because they are by nature miraculous. God is not confined to the "laws" of nature that he himself instituted. So to try to explain everything solely by natural means already has a bias towards atheism.<BR/><BR/>Whatever way you look at it Creation, it is a miracle that cannot be explained by the laws of Science as we now know them.<BR/><BR/><I>So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:3)</I><BR/><BR/>This encapsulates one of the best known scientific laws: the conservation of matter and energy. There is no more <I>true</I> creation in the Universe. Everything that we now observe is merely conversion of one form or another. The total amount of matter-energy in the Universe is set and fixed.<BR/><BR/>I find it highly ironic that Scientists dismiss the notion that all this matter-energy was created in six days because it is "unscientific", and then counter-propose that it was all created in a fraction of a second!<BR/><BR/>You see there <I>is</I> a bias towards atheism in modern science. It's ok to postulate gravity working backwards in the first proto-history of the Universe. It's ok to back up your explanations with postulations that 90% of the matter in the Universe is like the Emperor's new clothes. It's ok to make up entirely new forms of energy and matter that have never been observed... but to postulate any notion that a supernatural hand was involved... "Hey! That's unscientific!"<BR/><BR/>So, what I was driving at, is that we live for a very short time compared to the age of the Universe, in a very small part compared to the size of the Universe. For all our scientific advances we still see in part.<BR/><BR/>It's like walking into a movie late. You could analyse the plot and the characters and extrapolating backwards deduce what happened when the film started... or you could just turn to the person sat next to you and ask, "What did I miss?" It may not be scientific... but it's far more effective!Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164569769782622782006-11-26T19:36:00.000+00:002006-11-26T19:36:00.000+00:00I am very much with Ricky on the historical accura...I am very much with Ricky on the historical accuracy of the early books. But, like him, I am still working through the issue and it relates to a question I put on the opening post to this series:<BR/><BR/>"So how does truth within the scope of the scientific method, stuff we can measure and prove by logic and mathematics, fit with the truth of God which plays on both the spiritual level and the temporal physical level?"<BR/><BR/>At the end of his current post Chris HH says:<BR/>"I'm impressed with the astronomer whose telescope can look back to the dawn of time, but I'm more impressed with the God who was there when it happened."<BR/><BR/>And he also refers to "The creation of the world in six days." as one of the true stories of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Chris can you say something about how you relate the Genesis account of creation to the account of planetary formation which the astronomer provides?<BR/><BR/>My perspective is that the Genesis account is clearly positioning God as creator of everything and the position of man in relation to God and in relation to the rest of creation. And it explains God's intention of the basis of His relationship with man and how man broke the relationship by sinning. All this is important truth, mainly on the spiritual level. But the six days creation timetable and the various attempts to work out the age of planet earth by constructing the calendar of events from then onwards through the OT - those do not seem to me to be reliable facts on the temporal physical level by comparison with those the astonomer looking back to the dawn of time can produce.<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164559881900681722006-11-26T16:51:00.000+00:002006-11-26T16:51:00.000+00:00The Internet is a publishing system whereby anybod...The Internet is a publishing system whereby anybody can easily share their opinions with the world. It is not an authority in it's own right.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the Bible is an authorative text used by historians (secular and Christian) as a reliable baseline for studies of ancient history.<BR/><BR/>I have a relative who studied the Bible in order to study ancient history to degree level. Her studies did not lead her to question the authenticity of the text. In fact, it led her to accept it's authenticity supported by much archeological evidence. However, she wrestled with explaining certain facts as supernatural, and she wrestled with accepting certain accounts as anything more than mythology. She remains an atheist.<BR/><BR/>What's my point? The Bible is a uniquely reliable source of ancient history. You don't need to dis' it. You simply interpret it based upon what you choose to believe, i.e. we all bring baggage to the text. <A HREF="http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/booklets/BTBX.pdf" REL="nofollow">John Piper puts it this way</A> (he is addressing believers but I believe the insight applies equally to us all):<BR/><BR/><I>Can we fallen creatures, who proudly love our own glory so much, ever do good <BR/>exegesis? Will we not use every connivance to hide our ignorance or rebellion? Will we <BR/>not twist and distort the meaning of Scripture so that it always supports our own view and <BR/>our own ego? We all know this happens every day. But must it always happen?</I><BR/><BR/>We need to know how to interpret historical texts, to learn what the author was trying to communicate. But by and large we're content with being spoon-fed by those who hold a similar opinion to our own. So believers and non-believers alike throw around isolated verses out of context and are unable adequately explain the conclusions that we didn't find for ourselves in the first place!<BR/><BR/>But most importantly, if we want to know what <I>God</I> wanted to communicate in the text then we need to invite Holy Spirit as our tutor. If you don't believe, then it can do no harm to invite Him anyway, and see what occurs to your intellect after that fruitless exercise ;-) If you do believe, then put down the Christian books every now and again, and pick up the Bible, pray, and read. It's an amazing journey.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164556424673244432006-11-26T15:53:00.000+00:002006-11-26T15:53:00.000+00:00Christians once again repeat the fallacious nonsen...Christians once again repeat the fallacious nonsense that the disciples were prepared to die for their belief in the resurrection.....<BR/><BR/>Even Paul, who was there, claims in Galatians 6 that circumcision not resurrection was the issue, and that Christian leaders would compromise their beliefs to avoid persecution.<BR/><BR/>And . of course, Christians happily changed whatever they wanted in the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>For example, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the only Greek work before the 8th century to contain all 27 NT books, even if it adds others), both say in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus was pierced *before* he died.<BR/><BR/>It is pretty certain that Luke 24:12 was added to have a visit to the tomb.<BR/><BR/>'Son of God' was added to Mark 1:1.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The eucharistic formula was changed in Luke...<BR/><BR/>And so on, and so on.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm" REL="nofollow"> Reliability </A> for more details.<BR/><BR/>With the growth of the Internet, more and more people can check out these Christian claims and realise that they are being systematically duped.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164530465209360162006-11-26T08:41:00.000+00:002006-11-26T08:41:00.000+00:00Matthew, that is an issue I'm still working my way...Matthew, that is an issue I'm still working my way through. How much did Jesus 'endorse' the OT? He refers to a few bits of it, but there are many bits he is not recorded as mentioning - although that probably doesn't mean much, I'm sure he said a lot that is not recorded.<BR/><BR/>But even if Jesus uses a passage of scripture to make a point, does that mean that it is historically accurate? Preachers often use fictitious or exaggerated stories to demonstrate the point they are making.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164489223477002062006-11-25T21:13:00.000+00:002006-11-25T21:13:00.000+00:00Ricky - the fact that Jesus seemed happy to associ...Ricky - the fact that Jesus seemed happy to associate himself with the OT scriptures in the form they existed in his day is perhaps the best endorsement of their accuracy to the original intention of God. <BR/><BR/>We know that we have the same OT that was in common circulation at the time of Christ - the Greek Septuagint (though Jesus probably read the scriptures in Aramaic in the synagogues).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164397378395672022006-11-24T19:42:00.000+00:002006-11-24T19:42:00.000+00:00With regards to the resurrection... i heard someon...With regards to the resurrection... i heard someone say once that sometimes people will die for something they believe (but don't know!) to be true! But rarely, if ever, will people die for what they know to be a lie. <BR/><BR/>The disciples will have known whether or not Jesus really came back to life. They were willing to die (and many were tortured and killed), for what they would have known to have been a truth, or a lie. If they knew it to be a lie would they have been willing to die for it?<BR/><BR/>In the end it comes down to faith, but it isn't a blind faith, it's a faith that makes sense! <BR/><BR/>Thanks for these posts Chris!Joel Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12805002197843648190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164388596234522422006-11-24T17:16:00.000+00:002006-11-24T17:16:00.000+00:00Chris HH: So we know that the Bible we have today ...<B>Chris HH:</B> <I>So we know that the Bible we have today is an accurate version of the original documents as they were first recorded. We cannot therefore just dismiss what the Bible says, we must either accept it or reject it.</I><BR/><BR/>Here is where we part company for a bit Chris. I agree that we have an accurate version of documents dating back to biblical times. And that <I>some</I> may be accurate versions of the original versions. But I'm not sure that you can make such sweeping statements about the earliest books in the OT. There is pretty good academic consensus that many of the books describing the history of the Israelites up to the time of the first kings were, in all likelihood, <I>edited and compiled</I> from older writings sometime around the time of the exile. Thus all the stories of Genesis, the Exodus, the wilderness years, the time of the Judges and even the events around the time of David and Solomon have a huge question mark hanging over them. <BR/><BR/>Who compiled the books? <BR/>What was their agenda?<BR/>What were their beliefs? (this is critical as it would govern what they cut out and what they included)<BR/><BR/>And many of the very oldest stories were almost certainly never written down at the time, but were passed down as part of an oral tradition, possibly for thousands of years before they were ever written down.<BR/><BR/>I can't blindly accept these books as accurate history. I believe they contain history and myth. But which is which?<BR/><BR/>But I'm with you on the reliability of the NT gospels and letters. Those were widely distributed within a few years of being written.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164385432335569392006-11-24T16:23:00.000+00:002006-11-24T16:23:00.000+00:00I love that the lengthy quote from Athanasius begi...I love that the lengthy quote from Athanasius begins, "In a word then..." it's up ther with Paul writing, "finally brothers" when he is only half way through Philippians.<BR/><BR/>And people say we use long sentances and big words!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-1164380593292823702006-11-24T15:03:00.000+00:002006-11-24T15:03:00.000+00:00It's been a great series, and this is a great last...It's been a great series, and this is a great last post. Thank you so much for hosting such a profitable conversation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com