Wednesday, August 03, 2005

I haven't checked my e-mail in a while, so I missed an anonymous comment posted to an entry that had already slipped into the archive. I'm posting the response here because a) it will likely be too long as a comment, b) no one is likely to read it because the entry itself is no longer on the main page (Yes, in fact I am vain and I want people to read what I write; otherwise, why have a blog?) , and c) this is a very good example of the sort of "logic" that True Believers (tm) think is devastating to science.


While you are giving history lessons, allow me to throw out a few historical facts of my own.

Charles Darwin was studying to be a minister when he began the field research that led to his most famous work Origin of Species. He was hardly an "unbeliever." He became estranged from his church largely because the church leaders didn't like his work.

The Bible says many things that have in the past been taken literally which are then reinterpreted to match science, usually after a bit of struggle between scientists and clergy. Google "Sir Isaac Newton" for details of one such incident. [I will leave this as a perfect example of what happens when I write a post in a hurry. Of course, I actually meant to type "Galileo Galilei."] I haven't heard many preachers in my lifetime arguing that the earth is set on a foundation and doesn't move. (Bonus points for knowing who said that). Of course we still have the Flat Earth Society.

You claim that believers have a rock to stand on that never moves, then suggest I read church history. I have. It is one long litany from day one (some say, "I follow Paul", some say, "I follow Apollos") of divisions and factions all proclaiming themselves to be the keepers of Absolute Truth (tm). Evangelicals are the new-born babes in this process with a history that only goes back a couple centuries. They are also the new Flat Earth Society denying what is obvious to everyone else, including fellow-believers. Oh. Sorry. I forget that Evangelicals are the only ones going to heaven. Too bad about all those poor souls burning in hell for eternity because Evangelicalism didn't exist prior to the 1700's. It seems God's perfect plan has some flaws.

You claim kinship with Luther, a Catholic priest who was merely attempting to reform the priesthood and had no intention of starting a break-away church. Speaking of which, have you been to a Lutheran church? Have you ever read a Lutheran doctrinal statement? Are you aware that the Lutheran church, like the Roman Catholic Church, and nearly every mainstream Protestant denomination, accepts evolution? Are you aware of the vast chasms of disagreement between Lutherans and Evangelicals on such basic doctrines as salvation and baptism?

You claim that fundamentalism has been undermined by bad Bible translations. I agree. The King James Version is an abomination to the original text. The person for whom the KJV is named had some pretty radical doctrines that he had no intention of seeing undermined by the Bible translation that was to bear his name. Here is an exercise for the reader: what tense is the Hebrew word that is translated "created" in Genesis 1:1? I'll give you a hint: it ain't the simple past tense used in the KJV and every other English translation I've seen used in an Evangelical church.

You claim "Darwinists are moving". This reflects a basic ignorance of science. Science (including biology) is constantly "moving" and it's a good thing that it is, otherwise, I would be chisling this on a rock rather than typing it on a keyboard and publishing it for every literate person on the planet to read. I thank God that science is "moving" every time I start my truck and drive the 70-mile round trip to work instead of walking it like my great-grandfather did during the depression. I thank God that science is "moving" everytime I open my refrigerator door and see a literal cornucopia of food, some of it produced thousands of miles away. And I thank God that science "moves" every night around 10PM when I fill a needle with Lantus, without which I would likely be dead in a very short time, and inject it into myself.

One more time: science is tentative, not dogmatic like, say, religion. There is no revealed Absolute Truth (tm) in science. There are theories that fit the currently known data. One of these theories says an inherent property of all matter is mutual attraction. It has grown from observations made repeatedly, in a wide variety of situations both in the lab and in nature, over a period of centuries. Another says that time is not absolute, but rather varies with a person's frame of reference. It, too, has grown from observations made repeatedly, in a wide variety of situations both in the lab and in nature, over a period of decades. Another says that all species are descendents of a common ancestor. It, too, has grown from observations made repeatedly, in a wide variety of situations both in the lab and in nature (both before Darwin and since), over a period of decades. All of these have been attacked by Biblical literalists, who have (mostly) given up on the first two, and are rapidly losing ground on the third. Good thing Christianity is such an immovable rock.

And I will never give up beating Creation "Scientists" and Intelligent Design "Scientists" over the head until they stop propagating outright lies to gullible Christians and school children who would never suspect a fellow-believer or authority figure capable of intentional deceit. It is disgusting. It is embarrassing. It is sin. It must stop and it must be stopped by believers. There is no moral difference between a deacon using his position of trust to steal from the church, a youth pastor using his position of trust for sex with teens, and Kent Hovind peddling lies that he knows are lies so he can live a lavish lifestyle while claiming zero income on his federal taxes. The first two would never be tolerated for one second in any church I've been in, yet Hovind is treated like some sort of rock star by Evangelicals all over North America.

I simply will no longer stand idly by while this goes on, no more than I would turn a blind eye to a youth worker having sex with a 14-year-old. I have become the enemy of the Kent Hovind's of the world.

Enough. I have to run.


Anonymous said...

I love your blog! You did an excellent job! My website is about xbox360 cheat codes if you would like to come and give me a review!

Anonymous said...

good post... thanks.

my articles: financial articles

Ric said...

Gotta love the blog spam. So far it hasn't been a problem. I don't want block anonymous comments, so I hope this is just a blip.

Eric said...

Hello Ric,
I am sorry for your view of creation and the Bible. It is truly a sad thing to witness. I mean nothing against you nor do I mean to personally attack you. So, here goes.
What did Darwin believe? Not the Bible.
Who is reinterpreting the Bible?
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
I don't need to reinterpret the Bible to match science.
I do have the Rock to stand on Ric, it does not and has not shifted. Men are not perfect and they do shift. Even men of God. It should not be a revelation to find fault in a preacher, because he is fallen man, saved by free grace. I was not talking about just a man, I was talking about the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word in fleshed. I know you know that, but some readers might not. As far as you comparing my statement concerning a rock to stand on to a sinful person, and you related to the 1 Corinthians 1:12-15 text. it says:
1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

The very Bible text you referred to answers your section about that. The text was nipping that problem in the bud.

I do claim kinship to Martin Luther; he was a Catholic Monk, not a priest. I am not Catholic and The Catholic church in Rome is leading many to Hell. Martin Luther was different though, he read his Bible and believed it, and from that point on, he had to watch out for the Vatican for teaching the Gospel as was written in the Bible. Yes I have been to a Lutheran church. They believe many different things depending on which one you visit. In general, I wouldn't trust them. I don't think Martin Luther has been to any Lutheran churches lately either. He taught the Gospel according to the Scriptures.

I know that many mainstream denominations accept evolution. That does not make it fact. That is the bandwagon syndrome.

Well Ric, Tyndale was around before 1700, he was a Christian. The church has been around since Christ instituted it. People have been saved all down through the history of the church. The church did not begin in 1700. Where did you pull that date out of? I did not say anything about evangelicals being the only ones going to Heaven. The thief on the cross went to heaven. Souls are burning in hell because they died without Christ in their sins. You seem to be flippant about people going to hell. It's nothing to joke about. I don’t really think you are that flippant about Hell, I am sure you are serious about it. Your blog came off as flippant though.

About the Bible translations, I did not mention the Authorized Version, but you did! So since you did, it is fair game.
The King James Version properly known as the Authorized Version is translated from the Greek received besa B 1598 Greek NT. The OT is from the 1524-25 Abraham Benhoyeim(sic) mosoratic Hebrew. This is known as the received text. The KJV is the only English Bible translated out of the traditional texts that have been handed down and faithfully copied through the (true) church. There are 5210+ manuscripts in existence today known as the received text and they agree with one another. The critical texts are supported by only 45 manuscripts. These manuscripts do not even agree with themselves. Which witnesses would you trust? The ones whose stories are consistent seem reliable. The ones who disagree with one another seem as though they could not be reliable. Do you think King James translated it himself? He was a very educated man of the world, but he did not. He authorized translation thus the name "Authorized Version". William Tyndale prayed as he was being burned at the stake that the God would bring about His Word in the English Language using the King of England, and God granted that prayer. King James was no Christian, but he was used by God. He was ignorant of this I think. God uses people who are hard hearted. God used Pharaoh to drive the Israelites out to the Promised Land after he finally let them go due to the final plague.
The KJV was known as the AV 1611 until the mid 1800s. King James did not want his name on it. This English translation will not match up to the Westcott and Hort as that Greek text is from the critical text thrown out by the church in the early 300s. Westcott and Hort came up with a thesis to undermine the received texts and this is it: around 350AD the church leaders were being persecuted and often their copies of the scriptures were burned with them, and so that is why so few of the critical texts are around and the received text is so plentiful (5210+ manuscripts). They introduced this with no evidence whatsoever. The received texts are plentiful because they were copied faithfully over and over and the critical texts were left alone and not touched or trusted. That is why the materials on which the critical 45 texts are printed are much older than the 5210 received text manuscripts. The words themselves, though, on the received text manuscripts are much older and date back to the apostles. They were thumbed to death and worn out and were copied over and over and it was done very faithfully because the manuscripts taken from all over the known world back then agree with one another. This is fact. The KJV is a Formal translation, meaning whenever possible, a word retains its form -verb or adverb noun or pronoun- in translation. It is a plenary translation meaning word for word with as little instance of dynamic equivalence as possible.
The KJV is not an abomination to the original text. Are you sure you want to say this, Ric, that the Bible translated into English from the received text is an abomination? I am concerned for you. The Westcott and Hort Greek NT is an abomination to the received text the KJV is translated out of. And, Ric, if you are looking for more Darwinists, Bishop Westcott and Prof. Anthony Hort were Darwinists.

I know that that barely scratches the surface of that subject.

The NKJV does claim the Received text but its footnotes undermine the authority of it.

The Genesis 1:1 word is 'bara' and it means: to create.

I did claim Darwinists are moving. How old is the earth today? Ask them, they will argue about it. It was 270 Million years when I was in High School. Now it is measured in the hundreds of billions and I am not even 30.
Typing on a keyboard as apposed to chiseling on a rock is an advance in technology, not biology or science, but which takes more skill? Your truck is also an advance in technology and can not be compared to the idea of evolution. Did your truck create itself? Is it flawed?-Just Kidding. So your fridge and any appliance you have is an advance in technology. It is good; too as you say with Lantus. I am glad of the advances in Technology.
I like to fly planes. They were invented not long ago and I enjoy being a pilot. But this is technology and not biology. Misapplication of aforementioned hobby could result in a major change in biological condition. Some various aspects might be biological, but nothing happened without intelligent design.

Charles Spurgeon once said that man has created science to cover up his ignorance.
I think that applies to man's theories as he tries to think God out of existence. God is not tentative. And whenever one quotes the Bible, one will be labeled 'dogmatic' by a Darwinist. Oh well, much worse has been said.

The Bible does says a day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. That's God's time reference. It is subject to God. Not the other way around.

Yes Ric, I agree. We do descend from one common ancestor: Adam. You have to be from Adam to be saved. The Word was made flesh and He died for our sins and shed His blood for all who believe on his name and repent. Christ is the second Adam.. His earthly mother was from Adam.

Romans 5:12-15 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Yes Ric, you must be in Adam, and then in Christ to be saved. I am from the same ancestor as you. Christ saved sinful man who needed saving, not the animals if that's what you were referring to in the common ancestor thing.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the immovable Rock I was referring to and I apologize for not making that more clear, and not Christianity.

Yes Ric, it is Sin to lie and deceive whether it be intentional or un-intentional. You do need to give 'gullible' school children more credit though. I remember my unsaved classmates laughing at the latest numbers from the Darwinist biology textbooks. They found it very hard to believe. When I was in school I though for myself and chose carefully what to believe, for there was a multitude of conflicting inputs. I must admit I don't know who this Hovind guy is without a google search but it sounds bad by your description. Rock star treatment of church leaders is a serious problem in some churches in this country, I agree. We must keep ourselves from idols. It is a sic horrible thing that some churches have youth workers committing such abominable sin. It does happen and should be stopped and punished. I have seen the aftermath of like instances and it always ends up making provision for the lost to blaspheme God and mock. What awful sin!

As for me, I will stand on the Word of God and I can trust it and have confidence in it. I do not worry what is found on Mars or in the ground. I will put my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who is eternal without beginning or end, the same yesterday, today and forever. He is my Savior and King. His blood do I plead for my sins. I am not perfect. I am a great sinner. But The Lord Jesus Christ is a much greater Savior! Praise His name! He is God the Son whom the Father sent to save all those who would believe on Christ and the Father who sent Him. I fail, but does that mean that Christianity is doomed? If I can't come up with all the detailed answers does that mean Darwinism is true? Nope. It does not depend on me, I'm too stupid -thank the Lord.

I part with this scripture:
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

steve said...


I just thought that this would explain what is happening.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.


You are and continue to be a friend. However, I am sad by the turn of events here. In short, I am not going to argue on the internet about this because it doesn't accomplish anything. The saying is true: Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded.

With that said, I will just change the entire topic my saying that I just see this as an symptom of a bigger problem that we have in our church (local and global). We are abandoning our Bibles and picking up other scholarly books. Anything from Purpose Driven Life to Prayer of Jabez are being used in our churches instead of the Bible. Pastors now even refer to other books as their answers when asked questions. When is that last time that a Bible study was done with only the Bible?

This attitude that the Bible is not sufficient has changed our church to less of a reliance on His holy and perfect Word and more of a reliance on people. Accoring to 2 Peter 3, things are going to keep going this way until the end. It is sad, but true.

Love you Ric,