Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
But it is God who ordained sin, unless things happen contrary to his will. And if it was part of his will, then it is his doing, because the world is either exactly as he wills it or he is no sovereign lord over this world.
The appeal to the "machines" argument may be an attractive way to let God "off the hook", but then if God wants "all men saved" and no one will sin in heaven then we must assume that he really wanted us that way, namely mindless machines who only do his will.
For why would God create man innocent and pure only to let him fall so he can then save him as such a price so that he can be innocent and pure once again?!?
If God were to stamp out evil today, he would do a complete job. His action would have to include our lies and personal impurities, our lack of love, and our failure to do good. Suppose God were to decree that at midnight tonight all evil would be removed from the universe – who of us would still be here after midnight?
Well, the short answer is: all the people for whom Christ died and who believe.
That's not a Golden Rule. The word somewhat erroneously translated as the "neighbor" doesn't mean someone physically close or near, i.e. a literal neighbor, but rather someone actually "closely related to," a member of the same clan, or family.
The rule applied to the Jews and Jews only, just as everything else in the Torah, and is not a universally applicable Golden Rule, but a binding commandment meant to preserve and protect the Jewish clan/nation from self-destruction. A pragmatic statement aimed at self-preservation.
In that respect, JCB is quite right about the "millennial update", when he contrasts the Torah with the universally applicable Golden Rule teachings of Jesus.
I must say, at first your argument seems quite good. As is the case whenever this same argument is used, whether the language is straightforward or whether its nuance slides, as a serpent would hide slithering, among dying, moss covered logpiles. But poke it, just a feather-light touch at the ground beneath, and the whole thing comes crashing to bits.
Your premise, that you can judge God’s will because you meet the necessary criteria of knowing and understanding it fully, is false. So your argument doesn’t hold.
LOL, I simply asked a few questions (which you didn't answer). So, how do you know — unless you can judge God's will — that my argument doesn't hold? You can't judge my argument a failure without elaboration. And if you are thinking of copying and pasting someone else's wisdom, please make it short or better yet, speak your mind.
And since, by your conclusion, you seem to know God's mind, why don't you answer my questions: If God doesn't want "machines" than what will you call people in heaven for all eternity (they will never sin)? If God wanted us to be perfect, why not do it right from the get go? Why all the blood and suffering and killing himself to "fix" the broken world?
Did the world get to be wicked against God's will or according to it? It seems to me that Genesis 6:6 tells us God was unpleasantly surprised (!) and angered/saddened by the wickedness of man, and that God actually regretted/repented of his creation! Is that a sovereign, all-knowing deity who is in full control? Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
Thou shalt love thy clan member as thyself? Biblical scholars tell us that the testaments, old & new, refer back and forward to each other. So, are you opining that in Matthew 20:19, for example, Christ instructs one to love one’s clan member as one’s self?
Most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor.”
“The rule applied to the Jews and Jews only, just as everything else in the Torah, and is not a universally applicable Golden Rule, but a binding commandment meant to preserve and protect the Jewish clan/nation from self-destruction.”
Oh, I see.
Scripture continuity is evident as long as it provides an opportunity for scripture scoffing and Christian bashing. The moment the opportunity disappears, the continuity likewise disappears.
And even though the Hebrew Golden Rule is not universally applicable, the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules somehow take on an added significance?
Including for non-observant Jews?
“JCB is quite right about the "millennial update"
Really?!
Where?
Observant Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah and take no (official) notice of the New Testament, so what “millennial updates” exist in their scriptures? If they have something wrong, perhaps they have need of your scriptural expertise to set them straight.
Christians have the New Testament, and try to read and understand the Old Testament in context with the New.
So, I ask again, what startling new revelations have magically appeared in the New Testament around approx 1000CE (Christian Era)?
It’s true generally, I think, that Christianity’s scriptural understanding has changed over the centuries. Perhaps this is equally true for Jews (I’ll leave that to them). But it’s quite another thing to try to suggest that God’s word has changed.
You’re committing the same error, again.
Here’s the difference you seem to miss (I hope you’re not only pretending to miss it):
Your assertions are dependent on the premise that you know the entirety of God’s will. Mine are not.
You say what God has done is intrinsically contradictory. I say the seeming contradiction is reconciled by the part of God’s will that we don’t know—the part we take on faith.
Here’s an analogy: A father limits the amount of television his five year old child can watch, in the interest of the child’s mental development. He says “Someday you’ll understand.” The child doesn’t know all the facts and can’t comprehend the logic behind the father’s rules, but the child understands that there are things the father knows that he, the child, doesn’t know.
The child also knows that the father is doing the right thing, but his knowing this doesn’t depend on knowing all the facts behind it or comprehending the principles involved.
You mean Christian biblical scholars? Sure, by inference, but not in any direct way. And the New Testaments makes references to the Old Testament in a way the Jews never knew their scriptures. Jewish biblical scholars and the Old Testament make no such back-and-forth references.
So, are you opining that in Matthew 20:19, for example, Christ instructs one to love one’s clan member as one’s self?
Yes, because that same Matthew also says that Jesus also explicitly stated he was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only" and that this includes neither Gentiles nor even the Samaritans.
Matthew's (in)famous 28:19 uses the terms "ethne" which can be interpreted as nations or tribes (but not necessarily as Gentiles only), just as we call Navajo a 'tribe' or a 'nation'.
Most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor.”
Not Greek or Slavic Christians, since their New Testaments actually use the word that means someone related, and these terms are a true equivalent of the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament.
Old Testament says nothing about loving other nations (who deny the God of Israel). To the contrary. The only reference to any God's concern and expectation of the Gentiles is to be found in the Noahide laws. The Gentiles have no other obligation or role in God's kingdom. The OT is about and for Jews and Jews only.
Oh, I see. Scripture continuity is evident as long as it provides an opportunity for scripture scoffing and Christian bashing.
Not really. The alleged "continuity" is strictly one way — retrograde, that is from the NT to the OT. The fact that Christians scholars see it as a two-way street is by design. Some alterations and changes had to be made to make it that way. After all, the Mormons will tell you that there is perfect bidirectional scriptural continuity between the OT, NT and the Book of Mormon! It's also by design.
And even though the Hebrew Golden Rule is not universally applicable, the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules somehow take on an added significance?
I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.
Observant Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah and take no (official) notice of the New Testament, so what “millennial updates” exist in their scriptures?
It wasn't quite "millenial" consideirng that the Torah was reduced to writing circa 6th century BC, and the rest of the OT was added slowly as late as the 2nd century BC (the last book being the "prophetic" book of Daniel, c 160 BC).
The quincentennial "updates" are strictly a Christian creation. The Golden rule was added to the New Testament because Christianity obviously had no choice but to seek universal appeal (and a new authority) after Jamnia.
Christians have the New Testament, and try to read and understand the Old Testament in context with the New.
Correct.
So, I ask again, what startling new revelations have magically appeared in the New Testament around approx 1000CE (Christian Era)?
It's a never-ending process. Between approximately 90 AD and 380 AD (after first two ecumenical councils) the Christian dogma was pretty much set in stone and, shortly thereafter, so was the Christian version of the Bible. But this is precisely when the real innovaitons began to emerge!
By the 11th century the East and the West were teahcing two different Christianities and the Church was ocming apart at the seams ending in monumental split (1050 AD) that hasn't sotpped since then and it's unlikely to be repaired any time soon.
It’s true generally, I think, that Christianity’s scriptural understanding has changed over the centuries. Perhaps this is equally true for Jews (I’ll leave that to them). But it’s quite another thing to try to suggest that God’s word has changed.
Assuming it is God's word, it was changed over the centuries with impunity by Christian copyists and translators. The OT concepts were changed to fit the Christian doctrine, first by divorcing them of their Judaic roots, and then transplanting them to yield a new meaning, doctrinally correct meaning. Word such as the Kingdom of God, the Son of Man (ben adam), the Lamb of God, the messiah (meshiyah), the holocaust, and so on, and on.
Oh? And what are your assertions based on? Mine are based on reason which is supposedly what your God gave us so we could understand and be able to discriminate reality from fantasy.
You say what God has done is intrinsically contradictory. I say the seeming contradiction is reconciled by the part of God’s will that we don’t know—the part we take on faith.
So are you saying you really don't know but (for some reason) are hoping that it is so? How is that a "reconcilliation"?
Here’s an analogy: A father limits the amount of television his five year old child can watch, in the interest of the child’s mental development. He says “Someday you’ll understand.” The child doesn’t know all the facts and can’t comprehend the logic behind the father’s rules, but the child understands that there are things the father knows that he, the child, doesn’t know.
Except that his father is real and yours is presumed. You have no proof that this analogy is valid. It is an assumption lacking any evidence, and must be taken on faith alone. How convincing is that?
The child also knows that the father is doing the right thing, but his knowing this doesn’t depend on knowing all the facts behind it or comprehending the principles involved.
How does the child "know" the father is doing the "right" things if a five year-old doesn't know right from wrong?
Yet that same Book of Matthew relates how Christ took notice of the great faith held by a woman of Canaan, therefore showing her mercy (“O woman, great is thy faith: be it onto thee even as thou wilt”). So it appears that Christ choses not to spurn even the lowest of Gentiles when they have sincerity and faith (“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”).
Now, when I observe that most Christians seem to have a somewhat different understanding of the Biblical meaning of “neighbor,” you reply, “Not Greek or Slavic Christians, since their New Testaments actually use the word that means someone related, and these terms are a true equivalent of the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament.”
”Thou shalt love thy relative as thyself”; others can go fish. Is that it? That being the case, then KJV Matthew 5 must really throw Eastern Christians into a state of confusion. Read Luke 10:25-37 and you will know who your neighbor is. Another confusing bit of scripture for our eastern brethren, or so you would have it. Or are these passages the work of wicked, ignorant bishops who have, to fit their perverted visions of Holy Scripture, rewritten it to the point of insensibility?
Not so, according to Alister McGrath (see In the Beginning). McGrath relates that the KJV translators were charged with the dual task of producing a scriptural volume both elegant in translation and faithful to the original text. It seems that the general verdict of biblical scholars and historians (including McGrath) is that they (the translators) were eminently successful in fulfilling their mission. So successful in fact, that it is been suggested by these same scholars and historians that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture. McGrath relates that, “elegance results from a faithful translation,” not requiring an outside imposition on the text. God knows, the translators had the highest quality material with which to work: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as well as earlier English translations (and later confirmation came from the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archeological finds of the Twentieth Century).
According to McGrath, the KJV translators worked under the discipline of fifteen rules. Among others, those rules required the work of the translators to be subjected to what we would call “peer review” by “three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities (Oxford or Cambridge) not employed in Translating . . .” (rule #15). Rule #1, on the other hand, required that “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” (emphasis mine). So it would seem that these were scholars who could not change scripture “with impunity” in any manner they pleased.
The forty-seven translators were separated into six groups (called “Companies”), with each assigned a particular segment of The Bible (including The Apocryphal texts, which became the task of one of the Companies). As a Company completed work on any one Book, they were commanded to dispatch it to the others, in what would seem to be a second “peer review” submission, “to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point” (#9).
You, on the other hand, would have us believe that biblical translation is the work of corrupt, ignorant priests, who routinely change at will (“with impunity”) the import of scripture, to fit the current political and doctrinal objectives of their religious institutions or their own personal agenda, or that it is, at best, translation error piled upon translation error, over and over and over. None of this appears to fit the KJV model of research.
But, there are many translations aside from the KJV and its derivatives. There is, of course, the RC Bible, which has several books not found in the KJV, and the Greek and Slavic testaments you mentioned above, and, I’m sure, any number of other translations (including LDS scripture?). Perhaps it is these translations to which you refer when you suggest scripture is the product of corruption, ignorance, and spiritual conniving.
“It (“millennial updates”) wasn't quite "millennial" considering that the Torah was reduced to writing circa 6th century BC, and the rest of the OT was added slowly as late as the 2nd century BC”
So. . . You were mistaken when you asserted that our friend James C. was “quite right” with his “millennial updates” theory. According to the First Gospel of kosta, it’s more an ongoing enterprise of Christian (and Hebrew) wickedness? The normal scholarly practice of reviewing translations for corrections you would characterize as a meddlesome interference driven by nefarious motives.
When I ask why the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules take on an added significance when the Hebrew Golden rule is not universally applicable, you reply, “I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.”
JCB has been copied to our exchanges and is perfectly at liberty to enlighten us should he choose, but I find it more than passing strange that while the Hebrew Tanakh or the OT, as it is otherwise called, relates to the Hebrew religion to the exclusion of all else, no matter how thoroughly it is immersed in Western Civilization, the Hindu and all the other golden/silver rules purportedly are of overriding significance even in cultures where they have had little or no effect.
LOL, he called her a dog (the most insulting thing one can call someone in the Middle East).
And in that same Book of Matthew (10:6), he defines what the mission to the house of Israel is: not the Gentile nor the Samaritans. So, it's pretty clear he didn't concern himself with Samaritans and "dogs", because that's not what the Jewish meshiyah is all about.
”Thou shalt love thy relative as thyself”; others can go fish. Is that it?
From the point of view of the OT, yes. The universal appeal of Christianity was never taught by Jesus, at least not based on the synoptic Gospel accounts. That is a Pauline innovation trying to sell a Jewish sect to gullible and superstitious Greeks seeking mystery religions.
Read Luke 10:25-37 and you will know who your neighbor is
Luke is introducing the Golden/Silver Rule and redefining the Jewish concept. You will notice that the cross reference to Luke 10:29 is none other than Luke himself! So, in other words, a person who never knew or heard Jesus speak, who by his own account collected hearsay legendary tales about Jesus is the only one who is "witnessing" this alleged conversation. never mind that Luke Gospel exists in two version, a short and a long one...so take your pick.
Also this whole thing about loving your neighbor as yourself is taken out of context of the OT verse (Lev 19:18) which in full reads:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Notice that it is says "thy people" ('am in Hebrew, meaning kindred, compatriots, etc.). Obviously, Christians dropped that part by design and turned it into a "universal" concept to suit their agenda. How could Paul, and Luke following him, include "thy people" when they were sleling the Christians etc to non-Jews?!? Of course, the meaning of the term had to be changed, as is the case with numerous other OT concepts, to bring it in line with the doctrinal goals they were peddling abroad.
Also notice that this obligatory "love" in Lev 19:18 is not a Golden Rule of Luke's narrative, but a prohibition, or mitzvah, a commandment of omission.
In other words, it doesn't command you to help but not to take revenge on your kindred. This is night and day what Luke is saying. And, speaking of Luke, verse 10:28 is also taken out of context out of Lev 18:5, which doesn't say 'do this and you shall live, but
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD.
Live in them, not live. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the degree of corruption that took place in order to create this new religion. The falsifying work that went into it can only be compared to something the Mormons pulled 1800 years later.
Not so, according to Alister McGrath (see In the Beginning).
Why should I give Alister McGrath more weight than, say, Richard Dawkins?
It seems that the general verdict of biblical scholars and historians (including McGrath) is that they (the translators) were eminently successful in fulfilling their mission
Either you don't know the history of the KJV or don't want to know it. The very same eminent scholars who completed this somewhat forced translation admitted that it was full of errors.
All this gibberish you cite doesn't change the fact that the terms for "neighbor" in Hebrew, Greek and Slavonic mean kindred
And in all three of these languages "neighbor" means kindred. Only in English it doesn't. And his historical perspective is flawed. KJV translators worked off of Textus Receptus, which was itself translated from a flawed 12th century copy of the Greek Codex Alexandrinus. TR, of course, had numerous errors, was a rather hasty compilation, and in one instances used the Latin Vulgate as the "original" source, retrotranslating it (badly at that) into Greek! A new version of the TR was issues almost every few years in successions because of all the errata found in previous copies.
Rule #1, on the other hand, required that “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” (emphasis mine). So it would seem that these were scholars who could not change scripture “with impunity” in any manner they pleased.
Obviously you are not aware of the numerous Protestant scholars who shortly after the KJV was published began working on the numerous errors and changes of the scriptures. I will be happy to provide you with their names if you so please.
Numerous changes in the Greek manuscripts have been documented, some obviously accidental (such as duplicate verses), but others blatant insertions, or alterations, such as the famous Comma Johanneum, or Pericope Adulterae, or Mat 24:36 (KJV) where the Son is omitted, or Mark 1:2 (KJV), where written by "Isaiah the prophet" is omitted and substituted with "written in the prophets", or a more serious and sinister alteration in 1 Timothy 3:16 where "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." the word God was 'created" by a scribe form the Greek word hos (?S), meaning he, was changed to the ligature for God (TS) in contrasting ink! Etc,. etc. etc.
None of this stopped your KJV scholars from propagating this fraud, mainly because they didn't have reliable sources in Greek, but cneturies old copies of copies of copies with lots of errors and alterations.
Of course not. That's why all new editions of the Bible don't match with the KJV.
But, there are many translations aside from the KJV and its derivatives...Perhaps it is these translations to which you refer when you suggest scripture is the product of corruption, ignorance, and spiritual conniving.
They are all corrupted because the early copies were made by hand and were full of variants. After centuries, the soup got really thick. The KJV itself used a flawed translation (Textus Receptus), and its editors admitted ot "hundreds of errors."
So. . . You were mistaken when you asserted that our friend James C. was “quite right” with his “millennial updates” theory.
Not really. Between the first writing of the OT (c. 500 BC) and the canonization of Christian scriptures (~ 400 AD), it's just about a millennium. I was only putting it into its proper context, namely the BC portion of the millennium, since you were thinking only in AD terms.
When I ask why the Hindu version and all the many other golden/silver rules take on an added significance when the Hebrew Golden rule is not universally applicable, you reply, “I am not sure. You will have to ask JCB.”
Sure, because I am not familiar with the Hindu teachings and I defer to someone else who may know.
JCB has been copied to our exchanges and is perfectly at liberty to enlighten us should he choose, but I find it more than passing strange that while the Hebrew Tanakh or the OT, as it is otherwise called, relates to the Hebrew religion to the exclusion of all else, no matter how thoroughly it is immersed in Western Civilization, the Hindu and all the other golden/silver rules purportedly are of overriding significance even in cultures where they have had little or no effect.
The OT had to be included although it is incompatible with the NT, or else Christians would have had no authority to claim. That's why it took the Church so many centuries to codify the scriptures. It's not easy to create a seamless two-volume book with so much disagreement in them. Term had to be redefined and changed, and stories recounted...if you know what I mean.
For some reason the Greek text didn't copy and I didn't notice. It should read ΟΣ changed to ΘΣ. Someone simply drew a horizontal line through "O" (in contratsing ink!) to change the word from he (in the original) to a ligature used for God.
A five year old does know right from wrong.
The law doesn't think so. The schools don't think so. The Church doesn't think so. The Bible doesn't think so. The parents don't think so. The courts don't think so. ONLY you think so! If children knew wright from wrong, they'd held accountable for wrongdoing, they could be prosecuted for crimes. There seems to lack reason in your faith on this subject. And, pray tell, at what age does a child begin to know the wright from wrong? Is it at 3, 4, 5? With your thinking I am not surprised at the conclusions you reach.
If you’ve ever been a parent, you would understand. A five year old child knows right from wrong.
And I’ll go one step further: atheists know right from wrong.
I am a parent, and when my children were five years old they did not know right from wrong. Children at that age know only what they like or dislike. That's why we don't let 5-year olds run make decisions, well some of us don't. Maybe in your houshold they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.