On Plodding

In a discussion on another blog I noted that many claims against the historical validity had been made prior to the one being asserted by the poster in question and that these had been refuted. Among those I listed was the claim, made prior to the discovery of the inscription in Caesarea, that there was no Pilate who was a Prefect of Judea during the time cited in the gospels. He correctly states that we knew of Pilate from Josephus prior to this discovery. So that for him seems to clinch the fact that Pilate was never questioned prior to 1961. This however is false, as the passage in Josephus was claimed to be a forgery added by early Christians at a later date. This is still asserted by some scholars. This is done on the basis of textual criticism. One of the skeptic’s objections is that Josephus refers to Pilate as a Procurator and not a Prefect. This is of course silly, if the Christians had modified or added the text they would have most likely have named him governor to fall in line with the new Testament description of him. Besides, all of this is pure conjecture, they have no proof of any of it.
Prior to the discovery of the inscription it was claimed that the forgery was done to cover the fact that there was no Pilate who was governor of Judea at that time, not that there was never anybody named Pilate who ever existed. The discovery of the inscription of course put to bed the argument that there was no Pilate who was governor to Judea during the period, if not the facile forgery claims. This is a fairly well known event, but our intrepid atheist ran to his atheist apologetics site no doubt, where he was informed that this claim was never made, Christian apologetics ministries made it up. Armed with this information he came back and informed me that history didn’t exist. Now of course he didn’t bother to ask himself if those who provided him his information would actually know about scholars views pre-1961, or whether such disproved claims were likely to be put on the internet for him to google, which seems to be the limits of modern scholarship. If you can’t google it then it didn’t happen. There were a couple of other defunct historical claims I listed which are commonly known, but I have no desire to reinvent the wheel repeatedly so I shall only deal with this one.
The historian Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903) expressed his belief that Pilate was a prefect, and not a procurator as identified by Josephus and Tacitus. Claudius changed the term for the governor of Judea from prefect to procurator. Based on this discrepancy, the fact that Josephus and Tacitus referred to Pilate as a procurator, scholars asserted the accounts were additions made later by Christians. This was done ostensibly to shore up the evidence for the New Testament references to Pilate, and that Pilate was not governor of Judea during the period that Jesus lived and was executed. Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence as to what records were used for Tacitus’ account this is pure conjecture, and based not on scholarship but bias. The same goes for Josephus’ account, the fact that the term procurator as opposed to the earlier term proves exactly nothing. This is bad scholarship, it is an attempt to discredit a text by modern historians based on nothing but a bias against the narratives, particularly one that establishes the historicity of those involved in the Gospels.
Among those leading the charge were various German scholars such as KL Schmidt, Willi Marxsen, and Rudolf Bultmann who questioned most of the historical claims as to time and place made in the gospels. These attacks on the historicity of the scriptural account have abated somewhat as archeology has discovered more corroborating evidence, but one has to question why this penchant for making arguments from silence. While I do not claim innerancy for extra biblical sources the fact that the critics seem to view the ancients as superstitious liars who prevaricate and manufacture stories at every turn leaves one in the untenable position of having no history at all. It will take more than facile claims made hundreds and thousands of years after the fact solely to support the critic’s bias. Indeed, now that we have entered the post modern era I expect the situation to get worse, as now things are false simply because “there is no truth”.
But as we see there is a larger problem, namely the intellectual laziness, assumptions, and predisposition’s of our opponents, who despite their claims to the contrary are not interested in what the real story is but in seeking an escape route from history in an attempt to reinforce their denial of God. In this case has taken the form of pedantry and demanding proof of common knowledge. Given that these critics are repeatedly proven wrong it rather amazes me that he demands quotations from non-Christians to accept history, particularly given the fact that the ones he seeks citations from have repeatedly proven themselves unreliable. When one gets into a discussion with these folks there comes a time to get out, and though it may sting our pride to leave them feeling justified in their arguments better to move on to those who are truly seeking the truth.

Whither Our Gifts

Over at Hugh Ross’ site you’ll find a list of various theologians and apologist who support the so-called “Old Earth” creationist position. Now many of these men are no longer with us, while others a current leaders in the church. But I am firmly convinced that many of them do not fully understand what it is they are supporting, and realize that even within the OEC camp there is a slew of different views. But they all have one thing in common, they compromise the word of God. One can claim they are an inerrantist regarding scripture, as some of these do, yet that means little when you are promoting a view that directly undermines it.
The OEC view can only be held by the most tortured hermeneutic imaginable. It undermines the relationship of man to his fallen state and makes God the author of death and misery. But more than this it can only be accomplished by bringing outside opinions to bear on the text. The common understanding of the orthodox church from the beginning of Christianity was a literal six day creation. This is apparent by the way Genesis one is written, as a straight narrative, not figurative. That is not to say there is not figurative language used, but that the point of the passages are not figurative, but written to explain how God created the universe. It was only recently that this idea of “millions of years” entered into the church, and that from outside. Now you may think that we must change our understanding of Genesis, but as I’ve shown the “science” involved is nothing but a host of assumptions adopted solely to undermine the creation account in scripture.
I find it somewhat troubling that we will argue to the death over prophecy, which admittedly has a correct interpretation, but because of its nature is difficult and obscure. However when it comes to the direct and clear testimony of God as to how he accomplished his creation we’ll argue “well, it just not important really, as long as you believe in Jesus”. How fatuous is that? Ok, how about “Jesus wasn’t really born of a virgin, that was figurative” or “Jesus just spiritually rose from the dead, that wasn’t literal”. Now you’ll scream bloody murder. But if we are to take the same approach these people take with Genesis how can you argue against it? If science is the benchmark, then things like the virgin birth and resurrection cannot happen. You can only do so if you are totally arbitrary where you apply this magisterial use of science. What kind of testimony is that? A scoffer will rightly laugh in your face.
Now I cannot know what the spiritual state of these men are, but I can say that what they are teaching is heresy plain and simple. Man does not have dominion over Gods word, or the right to change what he likes to suit the prevailing fad. We are loathe in this modern age to use the term heresy, but that is what it is, a false teaching which directly contradicts sound doctrine. Many of these men have ministries which I admire and teachings in other areas which are sound, yet this one heresy is enough to disqualify them from our support. I suggest that you be a good steward of God goods and support those ministries which proclaim the whole of his gospel, including the unpopular areas of mans fall and Gods creative act. Withholding funds from those brazen enough to allow themselves to be listed as promoters of a heresy which denies God’s sovereignty over his word and creation seems like a good place to start. Perhaps some will repent and return to a proper view of scripture, but until they do not a dime!

History Repeats Itself

Having lost the infamous "Horse Series" as a demonstration for evolution the evolutionists now repeat the same Lamarckian just so stories in the form of a tepid National Geographic article which resurrects it's errors in the form of whales. Find a response here: A Whale Fantasy. It took years to remove the patently false "Horse series" from textbooks, a task still not entirely accomplished, and I strongly suspect that it will be replaced by this foolishness. Then we can spend some more wasted years getting it removed, all the while graduating many students who have been failed in schools by being taught obviously false information in support of a destructive religion, materialism. How ironic that in the name of keeping "religion" out of government schools we are having our tax dollars squandered to teach lies to our children in the name of "blind Faith"; namely evolutionary assumptions.

Theory and Reality

There's an interesting post at Triablogue that has some troubling admissions by those who are supposedly the guardians of dispassionate science. Once again we see that much of what passes for science, particularly in the theoretical realm, is actually dogma. You can find it here.

Happy National Astronomy Day!

Today, Saturday May 6th, is National Astronomy Day, So let me take this opportunity to encourage you to support creationist ministries across the world. If you are a young Christian looking for where you can serve the Lord I would like to suggest that you should look into science or science education as a career.
It is quite fashionable at this period in history to describe Christianity as anti-science, but this is a falsehood. What we should be is anti-scientism, which is the false religion of the materialist. This universe of ours was created by the Lord and rightfully belongs to his people. For too long we have abandon important areas of our culture to unbelievers, and theoretical science is one discipline where we have been particularly lacking. This has had terrible consequences for the churches ministry and outreach. One of the responsibilities given to man is the task of naming, and I suggest that science is part of this task. How many souls have been lost because of our slackness we can not know, but when asked why they abandon their faith a great many young people cite the claims of materialist scientific philosophy as the reason.
While it is true that every person’s ultimately responsible for their own spiritual state I firmly believe in a God who can save and who grants favor based on the intercession of His saints. By reclaiming the field of science we will aid the cause of evangelism and strengthen the faith of converts. If we glorify God in every facet of our culture God will bless our nation and its people. However this requires our obedience and diligence in all areas. Nothing can be left to the enemy, for what we surrender to the enemy will certainly be used to attack the Lords people. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of science, particularly cosmology and origins science. The time has come to reclaim these vital areas and change the philosophy of science from anti-God to a discipline that glorifies our Lord.
The world is the Lord’s and was made for His people. The questions asked by science should be how does Gods world operate, not how can we create a world without God! Because the gospel is an appeal to mankind’s intellect as well as his spirit, and not a faith spread by force we must reason with others. We must always be prepared to give an answer for our faith in every area. Some have claimed that we should only concentrate on “the spiritual things” and that we can leave the material things to the secularist. The folly of this thinking is demonstrated by the sad state of the world and our churches. Every aspect of our existence belongs to God; both spiritual and material. Who are we to surrender any part of it to the enemies of God?
So let us all take this opportunity to repent our failure in this area and glorify God by reclaiming science as an instrument for spreading the gospel. If we do this it will go a long way towards healing our nation and giving a godly inheritance to our children. If you're a young person please take up the challenge and reclaim science for the Lord. Let the rest of us support creationist ministries and support our young people in this endeavor. All is the Lords, so let us be good stewards of His creation!

Beginning at the beginning

Over at AIG they are making the book Creation: Facts of Life by Dr. Gary Parker available online. This gives some answers to some of the issues raised by the materialist. It will be posted in serial form and the link takes you to the first chapter. Enjoy!

It's about time!

Recently in a discussion a materialist pointed out that prior to the BB there was no time. Now in BB cosmology this is correct, as time is simply the rate of physical phenomenon. However this presents a problem for the BB. The story goes that a singularity underwent a quantum fluctuation, which caused the BB. Now quantum mechanics are a physical process. It is basically a measurement problem, we cannot know the position of a subatomic particle at a given moment, but we can predict its path of travel. Now if particles are moving then there are physical processes occurring and so there is time, perhaps not our time but time nonetheless. Now these physical properties must exist in something other than the universe, as it came into being with the BB. The singularity, which is matter condensed to "infinite density and infinite mass with no dimensions" according to BB cosmology, would be static. No particles would be moving, hence there is no path to predict, no quantum mechanics. They have to assume the existence of something that did not exist prior to the BB. So to account for the BB they have to admit that there was some process occurring prior to the BB. Which of course is time (physical processes). But this too supposedly came into existence with the BB.
When asked to account for the matter which supposedly existed in the singularity, they either claim it just happened or always existed. Now they offer no evidence for this, and as I pointed out could not offer any as we can know nothing prior to the existence of the universe. So they have assumed it, which of course is what they berate us for, blind faith (i.e. an unproven assumption) in God. One went so far to claim that "the universe is not an effect", which is just silly. If the BB created the universe then it would be a cause and the universe would be the effect. This should be fairly obvious, as only through the most tortured pedantry can one dispute this. But what caused the BB? "The quantum fluctuation of course." But there was no motion, so no quantum fluctuation. "No, it occurred just at the moment of the BB". Oh, so what caused the fluctuation, and how can you have a fluctuation in an event that’s not occurring? "Uh, it was always there" Then time did not begin with the BB. "Sure it did, an eighth grader can grasp that." Pretty circular if you ask me. So who has to have the greatest faith?
I’ll leave it with this, it now looks like the expansion of the universe is accelerating, if so it will not recombine but just expand forever and suffer heat death. So much for the eternal universe theory. When this was pointed out to our materialist he simply posted a reference that to a scientist who holds the oscillating universe theory, which of course doesn’t address the issue. Scientist also believed bad gasses from swamps caused canned meat to spoil. So what?

Assumptions

Being a rather ardent creationist I’ve begun looking more closely at what the materialist actually believe. Now you might think that this was pretty well known given the fact that public schools teach evolution and materialist causes with a vengeance, but you’d be wrong. While most people think that science has proven these things when you dig a little deeper you’ll find a philosophical assumption at the base of all materialist teachings. Know too they deliberately try to keep these problems from becoming common knowledge. Question any proof of darwinian theory, even those that have been discarded by materialist themselves, and you'd better be ready for a fight.
The Big Bang, hereafter on this blog BB, is built on a foundation of assumptions. It assumes a centerless, boundryless, and homogeneous universe. This however is unproven, and indeed a needless complicating of actual observations. This is done on the basis of "The Copernican Principle". The problem is Copernicus never made this claim, indeed he never addressed anything beyond our solar system. It also assumes either matter/energy was self-generating or eternal. This of course is not proven either. These claims are not falsifiable, and as such are not really science.
Evolution assumes that only material causes can be invoked. But this is not derived from an observation, it’s a given. It also assumes a mechanism for information to generate itself by random events selected by nature. The problem is that nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Information does not arise on its own; it must be created by intelligence. When someone claims, "one must remind themselves that what they see was not designed even though it appears that way" then you know you’re not dealing with science but with philosophy.
Geologists assume that the features we see arose gradually, but when we observe nature the geological formations we see are usually formed by catastrophic events. The story goes that the Grand Canyon was formed by water running through the canyon for millions of years and forming layer upon layer of sediment. Yet when we look at the events of Mt. Saint Helens we see 30 foot embankments of layered sedimentary deposits which formed in about six hours. Another questionable method they use to date formations is radioisotope dating of the rocks in the formation. Here again the process is based on assumptions of the beginning levels, steady rates of decay, ect. Also the various methods give widely varying results, and when you scratch the surface you find that they simply discard results which they don’t like.
So when someone claims that the materialist view is "rational" and the theist view is superstition understand that they are not expressing a rational view, but instead are doing so for philosophical reasons. The materialist views are needlessly complicated and counter intuitive. It is a longer leap of faith to believe in a view that violates its own rules than in one directed by a Being with intelligence. The fact of the matter is that materialism is no more founded in proof than deism, and requires far more faith than a Christian has to muster.

Welcome, you must be desperate!

Welcome to my blog. Check back regularly if you're bored to tears, and you won't find things changed much. I will try to post here on occasion, but don't expect much, as I'm probably playing with my grandkid. One must keep their priorities straight after all. I will however try post links of interest regularly! Enjoy :)