Sunday, November 01, 2009

Christian publishers admit Christianity's "image problem," "postmodern turn," differing rival "views" and...


Evangelical Christian publishers admit Christianity's "image problem," "postmodern turn," differing rival "views" within the Evangelical fold, and speak about "hopeful skepticism" and "questions" rather than dogmatic truths:

Baker Academic

Outsider Interviews, The: A New Generation Speaks Out on Christianity Statistics tell us that Christianity has an image problem. The authors of this book hosted a national interview tour with young non-Christians and Christians to hear why. Also see Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views

Zondervan
Perform a search at Zondervan's site for all their books with the word, "views" in their Title, and you will discover a host of Christians arguing for differing views and debating each other inside the same book, check out the list of titles!

Intervarsity Press
Click here to see Intervarsity's books with "views" in their title and you will discover (just as in the case above) a host of Christians arguing for differing views and debating each other inside the same book! One new book includes the views of two secular biblical scholars pitted against moderate Evangelical and conservative Evangelical scholars, who critique each other's articles, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Also see Intervarsity Press's The Hopeful Skeptic, the story of a Christian who heard a little voice telling him to set aside the faith of his childhood. So he changed his Facebook religion status from Christian to "Hopeful Skeptic" and set out to see where God would take him.

Also see the Questioning Faith blog on Intervarsity's site, that recently featured this candid admission: "Eric: I have been deeply involved in church for most of my life, but over the past few years I have become very unsure of anything. I have read a great deal of history and anthropology and have found so many different societies and cultures have developed religions that claim to be the One. I have found early religions that seem to presage the stories of the Bible, often telling the same stories in different settings or earlier times. It makes me wonder if the Bible is simply carrying on the oral tradition that other, earlier societies had developed. I have tried to discuss my doubts with pastors and with priests and have generally been told to just accept God's Word. "Take it on faith." When I try to get my head around prayer, I run into too many questions- why have prayer circles, with many people praying for the same thing, when God is supposed to hear even the lowliest of us in our silent prayer? Does God hear a loud chorus more clearly? I wonder if creating a God is just a way to give us something bigger than ourselves to lean on, to ask for help, to rely on. I felt safer when I just didn't allow my questions to come to the surface, but I have had so many uncertainties that they just won't go away. I have read all of the Scriptures and know many of them by heart, but it seems like a sham - at least my belief in them now does. I wish I could just "believe," but it isn't there for me. How do I stop wondering if God is really there? In addition to all of this, I have lost a daughter, who was so young and innocent and who clearly did nothing to deserve to die. My little sister was born with a serious developmental disability. My mom died very young of a brain tumour. Saying God works in mysterious ways or that He has a plan for us or that they are in His hands is not an answer. At least it seems like a glossing over to try to make me stop asking. What do I do to find my faith, again? I am aching for answers."

Recent books not published by Christian presses but which demonstrate that people, including former Christians are growing less interested in doctrinal dogmatic replies to their many questions:

Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) by Frank Schaeffer (Hardcover - Oct 27, 2009)

The Case for God by Karen Armstrong (Hardcover - September 22, 2009) Armstrong's "God" is not exactly the "God" of doctrinal dogmatic religion but a "God" of universal mystery and hiddeness, and she advocates one stream of spirituality in particular, the via negativa, the apophatic stream.

Roll Around Heaven: An All-True Accidental Spiritual Adventure by Jessica Maxwell (Hardcover - Oct 6, 2009)-

A Spiritual Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe

Lastly, see Christine Wicker's website in which she's keeping up with the latest statistics concerning The Fall of the Evangelical Nation.

God Gets a "D" in Writing Class


If it was the exact word of God it would be real clear and easy to understand. God’s got a way with words, being the creator of language and all.

Bill Hicks (comedian)
____________________________

HELP STAMP OUT AND ABOLISH REDUNDANCY

God said to Moses, “Take off your shoes from off your feet” in his redundant way. (Ex. 3:5, KJV)

David Steinberg
____________________________

In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
- Mark 6:10

And what glass soever ye drink from, lift it to your lips till ye put it down. Duhh!
- E.T.B.
____________________________

EXAGGERATIONS OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS

The Bible contains the same exaggerated speech, boastful lies and holy hyperbole common for its day and age, rather than evidence of special inspiration.


Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ [or flute, NIV].
- Genesis 4:21

“All?” Were the ancient Hebrews claiming that one person in particular brought musical instruments to the world, just as the Greeks portrayed Prometheus as the one human-like god who brought fire down from heaven and gave it to all of humanity? It would appear so, even though stringed instruments and blowing instruments were probably invented numerous times by countless numbers of people over the ages and round the world after someone plucked something or blew into something and enjoyed what they heard.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

In this passage, Hebrew spies tell their desert-wandering comrades what they found in Canaan:

…all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
- Numbers 13:32-33

The spies are clearly exaggerating (cf. Barker, p. 210). If “all the people” were of such great size, one wonders how to account for the apparently normal size of Rahab, the Gibeonites, and others that Joshua encounters upon entering Canaan 38 years later (cf. Joshua 6:25, 9:3-15).
- Peter T. Chattaway, “Giants in the Bible,” RELG 303, March 10, 1994 http://peter.chattaway.com/articles/giants.htm

____________________________

The camels were without number as the sand of the sea.
- Judges 7:12

If the entire surface of the earth was filled with camels they would not be “without number,” nor would they be as plentiful as “the sand of the sea.”
- E.T.B.
____________________________

As the host of heaven cannot be counted, and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David.
- Jeremiah 33:22

A Hebrew cultural-centric exaggeration. The number of David’s descendants is nowhere near the number of stars in heaven, nor sand in the sea.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men left-handed; every one could sling stones at a hair’s breath, and not miss.
- Judges 20:16

Seven hundred who could sling stones at “a hair’s breath,” and “not miss?” I’m surprised the author’s nose didn’t grow when he told that one. Even the greatest sharp shooters at the turn of this century, who performed in Wild West traveling shows, and shot cards out of each other’s hands, did not retire with all their fingers--because they “missed” some shots by “a hair’s breath.”
- E.T.B.
____________________________

Their slain shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
- Isaiah 34:3

It would take quite a lot of blood to melt a mountain. Isaiah must have been confusing mountains with molehills.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

The famine was over all the face of the earth...And all countries came unto Egypt to Joseph to buy corn; because the famine was so sore in all lands.
- Genesis 41:56,57

“Over all the face of the earth… all countries… all lands?” More exaggerated speech. Were folks in far off China and Japan and Australia and North and South America “sorely famished” and had to go to “Egypt” to buy corn?
- E.T.B.
____________________________

[In one of the plagues with which the Lord smote Egypt] All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
- Exodus 8:17

Doesn’t the Bible use the word “dust” to describe the ground, mud, and sand upon which we all walk as in “the dust of the earth?” Therefore if “all the dust of the land became lice” would not the Egyptians have drowned in lice and the pyramids been adrift in seas of lice? “Knock, knock.” “Who’s there?” “Lice.” “Lice Who?” “Run for your lice!”
- E.T.B.
____________________________

In one plague with which the Lord smote Egypt “all the cattle of Egypt died.” But a few days after that, “all the firstborn cattle died.”
- Exodus 9:6 & 12:29

Another exaggerated way of speaking. Or perhaps the Lord resurrected the “firstborn” among the cattle just so he could smite them again?
- E.T.B.
____________________________

[The Lord said to the Israelites when they were wandering in the desert] “This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.”
- Deuteronomy 2:25

A typical Hebrew cultural-centric exaggeration, i.e., to speak of the nations “under the whole heaven… shall hear report of thee… and tremble.”
- E.T.B.
____________________________

THE EXAGERRATED ABUNDANCE OF THE “PROMISED LAND”
In the year 1553 Michael Servetus was on trial for his life in Geneva, Switzerland on the charge of heresy. One point raised by the prosecution was Servetus’s edition of Ptolemy’s Geography, in which Judea (the “promised land” of the Jews), was spoken of, not as “a land flowing with milk and honey,” but mainly meagre, barren, and inhospitable. In his trial this simple statement of geographical fact was used against him by Protestant Refomer, John Calvin, with fearful power. In vain did Servetus plead that he had simply drawn the words from a previous edition of Ptolemy; in vain did he declare that this statement was a simple geographical truth of which there were ample proofs; it was answered that such language “necessarily inculpated Moses, and grievously outraged the Holy Ghost.”

A. D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. 1
____________________________

EXAGERRATED PROMISE
I have set my king upon the holy hill of Zion… Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen [as slaves] for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron.
- Psalm 2:6,8,9,12

The above psalm is believed to have been sung at the coronations of Hebrew kings. Another Hebrew cultural-centric exaggeration. (Though it must be admitted that this psalm later proved popular with some Catholics and Protestants who used it to justify their “breaking” of the “heathen,” driving them into slavery and stealing their land in alleged fulfillment of this exaggerated Biblical promise.)
- E.T.B.
____________________________

[Jesus said] “The Queen of the South [i.e., the Queen of Sheba] came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon.”
- Matthew 12:42

The Queen’s residence, being probably on the Arabian Gulf, could not have been more than twelve or fourteen hundred miles from Jerusalem. If that is the “uttermost parts of the earth” then it is a small world after all.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom.
- 2 Chronicles 9:23

“All the kings of the earth?” Another silly Hebrew cultural-centric exaggeration.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
- Matthew 4:8

Shown “all the kingdoms of the world” from an “exceedingly high mountain?” I suppose so, if the mountain was “exceedingly high” and the earth was flat. Verses in the Bible’s book of Daniel presume a flat earth the same way that verses in Matthew do:

I saw a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.
- Daniel 4:10-11

Instead of an “exceedingly high” mountain from which “all the kingdoms of the earth” can be seen, Daniel pictures a tree “whose height was great,” growing from the “midst” or center of the earth and “seen” to “the ends of all the earth.”

Funny how such flagrantly flat-earth verses appear in both the Old and New Testaments. “Bible believers” will of course reply that such verses are only “apparently difficult” to explain, and not the “real truth” as they see it. But it is the “apparent difficulties” that remain in the Bible, as it was written, and they will always remain there, regardless of all the ingenuity employed in explaining them away.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
- Luke 2:1

“All the inhabited earth?” The Romans and Hebrews indulged in the same cultural-centric exaggerations when it came to viewing their cultures as central to “all the earth.”
- E.T.B.
____________________________

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
- Acts 2:5

“Out of every nation under heaven?” Another exaggeration.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

A great famine all over the world took place in the reign of Claudius.
- Acts 11:28

“All over the world?” Another exaggeration.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

Paul the apostle wrote:

Their voice [of first-century proclaimers of the Christian Gospel] has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.

The mystery is now manifested and… has been made known to all the nations.

The gospel, which has come to you, just as in all the world.

The gospel… which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul was made a minister.
- Romans 10:18; 16:25-26; Colossians 1:5-6,23

Sorry Paul, but “Their voice” (of Christians proclaiming the Gospel) had only reached a handful of churches in the Roman Empire when you wrote the above verses. The Gospel had not reached, nor been proclaimed in “all the earth,” nor “to the ends of the world,” nor “to all nations,” and certainly not “in all creation under heaven,” not like you said it “has” and “was.” (Three billion people on earth still haven’t heard “the Gospel,” at least not according to a statement made by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2004.)

The early church father, Iraenaeus, maintained Paul’s charade when he wrote: “Now the Church, spread throughout all the world even to the ends of the earth;” “...even though she has been spread over the entire world;” “Anyone who wishes to see the truth can observe the apostle’s traditions made manifest in every church throughout the whole world.” (Iraenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1, 1.10.2, 3.3.1-2) Not a very big “world,” mind you, leaving out most of Asia and Africa, not to mention the continents of Australia, North America and South America.

SUMMATION OF THE “EXAGGERATIONS OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS”
If an all-wise God had inspired the Bible He would have been able to give its human authors a few inspired geography lessons, just to show them how big the earth really is. Instead the Bible contains the same exaggerated speech, boastful lies and holy hyperbole common for its day and age, rather than evidence of special inspiration.

Furthermore, if the Bible is speaking in an exaggerated fashion when it speaks of “all the earth,” “to the ends of the earth,” “from the uttermost parts of the earth,” “all the inhabited earth,” “in all creation under heaven,” “under all the heavens,” and, “every nation under heaven,” then how can anyone be expected to assume that the statement, “everywhere under the heavens,” as found in the tale of the Flood of Noah isn’t also an exaggeration? (It says in Gen. 7:17, “The water prevailed… and all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.” Why couldn’t the phrase, “everywhere under the heavens,” be another exaggeration to make the Hebrew version of the Flood story (which they stole from the Sumerians/Babylonians) sound more impressive and appeal to the cultural-centrism of the Hebrew’s? After all, they did also change the name of the story’s hero and the name of the mountain upon which the boat eventually rested, just to suit their culture.

Having run across so many instances of cultural-centric exaggerated speech in the Bible one even wonders what is to become of the central Christian boast, the exaggeration par excellence, namely that Jesus died for the sins of “the world?” Believers from every sacred tradition boast that their beliefs affect “the world,” or must be taken utterly seriously by “the world.” Must they? I cannot take seriously many instances in which Biblical authors exaggerate about the extent of a famine, a census, the distance to a queen’s residence, the extent to which a message has been spread, the extent of a flood, etc. And, didn’t “orthodox” Christian doctrines and theology arise via exaggerating the importance of some of the alleged teachings of Jesus above others (as well as by exaggerating the importance of some interpretations of those sayings above rival interpretations)?

E.T.B.
____________________________

AN EXAGGERATION FOUND AT THE END OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The Gospel of John ends with this verse:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
- John 21:25

“The world itself” could not contain the books of “many other things which Jesus did?” The author of the Fourth Gospel was not displaying much prophetic ability when he wrote that line, I guess he wasn’t inspired enough to foresee that we can now store whole libraries in a single laptop computer and accompanying CDs.

Moreover, the books we do have that tell of “things Jesus did,” consist of only four slim “Gospels,” not one of them over forty pages in length. Two of them, Matthew and Luke, even repeat over 90% of what appears in Mark. So the four Gospels minus the overlapping portions would be even slimmer. Not a lot of “books” about what Jesus did I’m afraid. To reiterate the silly last sentence in the fourth Gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Is there a less convincing way for an allegedly “inspired” book to end than with the faltering phrase, “I suppose?”

“I suppose” such a last verse made sense to believers back then, who were being regaled and entertained by ever new and fabulous tales of Jesus’s infancy, youth and adulthood churned out by their fellows and incorporated into additional “Gospels” many of which we only know the titles of today. But ending an inspired book with such a silly exaggeration, followed by the faltering words, “I suppose,” does not make much of an impression, not even strictly literarily speaking.

E.T.B.

____________________________

EXAGGERATED COMMANDS: “CUT AND PLUCK” TO AVOID “HELL”

Take the following verses:

[Jesus said] If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
- Matthew 5:29-30, repeated redundantly in Matthew 18:8

[Jesus said] If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee; it is better for thee to enter life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
- Matthew 18:8

[Jesus also taught] All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs… which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
- Matthew 19:12

The inspired words concerning “cutting off” body parts to avoid being “cast into hell,” along with Jesus’s praise of those who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” made a deep impression on Origin (an early church Father). He castrated himself.

During the sixteenth century both Catholics and Protestants liked to cite the verses about “cutting off body parts” as a justification behind the censoring and execution of heretics in order that heresies might not spread to the rest of the “body of Christ” and the whole of Christendom risk being “cast into hell.”

And in the 1700 to1800s a group of Christians in Russia called the Skoptzies cut off their own testicles and scrotums. Female members mutilated their vulvas, breasts and nipples. (“For the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23:29) Furthermore, they taught that if you also removed your penis (or removed both breasts if you were female) you would be granted the highest honors in heaven. Apparently with the aid of a perfect holy book like the Bible and with the promise of the Holy Spirit to “lead believers into all truth,” this was the truth that the Skoptzies came up with. Bodily sexual temptations could lead to hell, so if mutilating the body aided a person in denying those temptations, it increased one’s chances of avoiding hell and attaining heaven.

Maybe God could have used less emphatic language and not linked the cutting off of body parts with avoiding hell? “Let him who has ears to hear…”

“Whaaat? I can’t hear you, I recently cut my ears off. They ‘offended’ me. And I would rather be in heaven without them than be cast into everlasting fire with them.”

E.T.B.
____________________________

TOO MUCH REVERENCE FOR THE LITERAL WORDS OF THE BIBLE COUPLED WITH TOO MUCH “FEAR OF GOD?”
Construction worker Thomas W. Passmore, 32, filed a lawsuit in April for $3.35 million against Sentara Norfolk, Virginia, General Hospital and four doctors over the loss of his hand. Passmore admits to having cut off the hand because he believed it to be possessed by the devil and to having refused twice to allow doctors to reattach it. However, he claims the hospital was negligent in not asking his family to overrule his poor decision.
- Tulsa World (AP), May 14, 1996

According to the story above, Mr. Passmore thought he saw the number “666” on his right hand, and, “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee, for it is better to enter eternal life maimed than have two hands and be cast into everlasting fire.” Mr. Passmore sued the hospital for not having reattached his hand, but he is an adult and if the hospital had operated against his will he might have sued anyway for violating his wishes, or maybe even for violating his “freedom of religion,” like when Jehovah’s Witnesses deny themselves blood transfusions, and the doctors must comply even if that person is bleeding to death, because the Jehovah’s Witness religion interprets the Biblical passage, “the life is in the blood” to mean that blood transfusions are forbidden.
- E.T.B.

Ivan Henk, of Plattsmouth, Neb., whose son, Brendan Gonzalez, age 4, had been missing since Jan. 6, admitted in a courtroom outburst in April that he killed his son. “The reason I killed Brendan is that he was the Antichrist. He had 666 on his forehead.”
- Lincoln Journal Star, April 30, 2003

A thirty-two-year-old Filipino farmer sliced his genitals off with a machete in a fit of religious fervor because he believed his penis was leading him to sin. In a follow-up to this story: He was right, and it worked.
- Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live News

Jimmy Fallon’s joke was based on a 2002 or 2003 news story, and not that unusual for the Philippines because every Easter a number of fervent Christians in that country publicly act out Jesus’s sufferings: They are whipped, or walk down the road carrying a cross from which they are later suspended with ropes. In a few extraordinary cases, some people have even sought to be crucified, but not to death.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

AN EXAGGERATED COMMAND: “GIVE TO EVERYONE WHO ASKS”

[Jesus commanded] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
- Matthew 5:42

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again… But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
- Luke 6:30,35

Next time an evangelical Christian targets you with their soul-seeking missiles, tell them to look up the above verses and read them aloud. After which, ask them for their Bible. If they do not give you their Bible then ask them to please turn to the end of the same sermon in which Jesus spoke the verses above, and read aloud what Jesus said at the very end of that sermon, emphasizing the word “doeth”:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father...Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man… And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man.
- Matthew 7:21-24,26

Remind your evangelical friend that if they do not “doeth” what Jesus commandeth them, they risk hearing Jesus say unto them, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity!” Is that what they want to hear Jesus say to them? Or do they want to give you their Bible, since you asked them for it?

After they have handed it over, tell them, “Thank you,” and say that you don’t want to keep their Bible forever, nor destroy it. You would just like them to read a few books about the Bible, books that take a more “inquisitive” approach to the Bible and Christianity, like Hitting Below the Bible Belt. And then you will return their Bible to them.

Speaking of “giving to all who ask,” here’s an idea for the IRS to try. They should print Mat. 5:42 and Luke 6:30 on all tax forms. Beneath the verses should be a little note from the IRS that says, “We ask all Bible believing Christians, especially wealthy televangelists and pastors of mega-churches, to not claim religious tax exemptions this year.”

In fact, I invite everyone to ask their “Bible believing Christian” friends for money every day and keep asking, especially any fat cat Christian ministers they might know. Call their TV stations and radio stations, stand up in their mega-churches, etc., and quote the above verses and ask them for money. There is no limit put on the above commands.

E.T.B.
____________________________

AN EXAGGERATED PROMISE: “YOU WON’T BE HURT”

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name… They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.
- Mark 16:17-18

This promise (which does not appear in the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark) has inspired crippling illnesses and fatalities, including the death of the founder of the “serpent-handling” sect of Baptists who died from a poisonous snakebite.

Of course, if any Christians truly believe that “if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them,” why don’t they move their families to homes built on toxic landfills which they could buy for a prayer?

Toxic Acres is the place for me!
Mark 16 lets me live there comfortably.
Land spreadin’ out so cheap and wide.
Keep sin city just gimmie that DI-OXIDE!

E.T.B.
____________________________

EXAGGERATED NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WANDERING IN THE DESERT FOR FORTY YEARS
According to the Bible the number of people who followed Moses out of Egypt during the Exodus was “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men.” (Ex. 12:37) To that number must be added women, children, and a “mixed multitude” of non-Hebrews who followed Moses out of Egypt, raising the total way above the six hundred thousand Hebrew males, and nearer to a grand total of two million men, women and children. That is like the population of New Orleans (or Columbus, Ohio, or San Antonio, Texas), being kept on the move (following “a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night”) every day for forty years. The only day of the week they were not moving was the Sabbath day. That’s a heap of packing and unpacking--of setting up “camp” and breaking it down again. Of course, God miraculously prevented the Israelites’ shoes and clothes from wearing out during the 40 years in the wilderness (Deut. 29:5), and their knee joints too, apparently (though the latter miracle is not mentioned). Plus we are to believe that all the men who were “warriors” walked “outside the camp” (a really huge camp) each time they had to go to the bathroom.

Moreover, there were sacrificial/sacramental duties that also needed to be performed for two million people (must have fit those in at night after they had ceased wandering each day), and the Bible only mentions Aaron and his two sons as being available to conduct all the burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, peace-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, thank-offerings for all of the Israelites. (Num. 3:10) Just the number of pigeons to be brought as sin-offerings for newly born children, would have averaged, based on a “multitude” of nearly two million “wanderers,” more than 250 a day, not counting all the bulls, sheep, lambs, rams, goats, and turtle doves needing to be sacrificed for reasons too numerous to mention--and their carcasses having to be bled ceremonially, the fat removed meticulously, the organs burned as an offering to God, and the carcass dragged “outside the camp” to be burned (a camp of perhaps 16 miles in diameter).

Miraculously, these two million or so Israelites left no traces of their forty-years in the wilderness. No traces of encampments, tent holes, potshards (or other items discarded during their marches), nor traces of their daily sacrifices--no evidence of large charred ash deposits nor blackened stones nor bones. (Oddly enough archeologists have discovered the remains of a small fire in the Sinai wilderness that was carbon-dated back to about that time. But one small fire could not have warmed the alleged two million who marched nearly every day for 40 years up and down the Sinai.)

So staggering are the problems raised by the exaggerated Biblical number of “600,000 males” (an embarrassingly well attested number, repeated three more times in the Bible--on each occasion each separate tribe being numbered, the sum of the results making up the whole), that even conservative Christian scholars have admitted that “600,000 men,” beside children, women, and the mixed multitude, is an exaggeration on par with many others found in ancient Near Eastern lore.

Evangelical Christian, W. M. Flinders Petrie, author of Egypt and Israel (London Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1911) pointed out, “There are… two wholesale checks upon the total numbers. The land of Goshen recently supported 4,000 Bedouin living like the Israelites, or at present holds 12,000 cultivators. To get “600,000 men” with their families out of that district would be utterly impossible. Also on going south the Israelites had almost a drawn battle with the Amalekites of Sinai. The climate of that desert peninsula has not appreciably changed; it will not now support more than a few thousand people, and the former inhabitants cannot have exceeded this amount. How could the Israelites have had any appreciable resistance from a poor desert folk, if they outnumbered them as a hundred to one? Again, we are compelled to suppose that the Israelites were not more than a few thousand altogether. Thus we see that more cannot be got out of Goshen or into Sinai.”

E.T.B.
____________________________

EXAGERRATED SIZES OF ARMIES IN THE BIBLE
In the 18th century, Frederick the Great had an army of 83,000 troops when he became King of Prussia. Other states--Austria, France, and Russia--fielded larger armies, but rarely did they approach 100,000 troops. Frederick’s greatest victories--Rossbach and Leuthen--involved about 75,000 and 115,000 troops respectively on both sides. Napoleon’s greatest victory--Austerlitz--involved about 150,000 troops total. So did Gettysburg, America’s greatest Civil War battle. Alexander the Great, who controlled Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (Southern Yugoslavia), and a little bit of Western Anatolia, was able to raise between 90,000 and 100,000 troops total. Yet the Bible says that Hebrew kings, David and Saul, fielded far larger armies than those. King David had 1.57 million troops (1 Chron. 21:5)...or 340,000 plus the muster of Issacher...or 1.3 million (depending on which verses you read). While King Saul could field 210,000 troops. (1 Sam. 15:4)

Did the dry scrubland of Judea--populated by scattered villages and small settlements--raise up armies larger than the Persian Empire’s when it faced destruction at Alexander’s hand, larger than Frederick the Great’s, larger than Napoleon’s in all his battles save the invasion of Russia, larger than the Union’s and Confederacy’s in their epic struggle? Truly such a feat must constitute one of the least heralded miracles in the Bible.

In the ancient world only the greatest powers, such as the Bronze Age Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and later the Persians, fielded armies upward of 50,000 or more…When Egypt’s king Ramesses II fought the Hittites at Kadesh in about 1285 B.C.E., he recorded their force as 37,000 infantrymen and 3,500 chariots and said that the Hittites mustered much of the military power of their empire, which covered most of Anatolia, Syria, and a bit of Iraq (Sir Alan Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, 1975, p.41-42). Ramesses had possibly the largest army Bronze Age Egypt ever fielded. It is worth noting that in his poetic account of the battle of Kadesh, Ramesses claimed to have personally killed “hundreds of thousands” of Hittites and their allies (Ibid., pp 10-13), and Ramesses probably lost the battle. (Propaganda was invented long before the Israelites appeared.)

William Sierichs, Jr., “Those Amazing Biblical Numbers: Taking Stock of the Armies of Ancient Israel,” The Skeptical Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995
____________________________

EXAGERRATED NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SLAIN
According to the Bible, Abishai & Jashobeam each slew 300 men using only a spear (2 Sam. 23:8 & 1 Chron. 11:11). But that’s nothing, because Shamgar slew 600 men with an ox-goad (Judges 3:31). And Adino slew 800 with a spear (2 Sam. 23:8) Do ya suppose Adino was the inventor of Shish-ka-bob? Last but not least, Samson slew 1000 men with the jaw-bone of an ass (Judges 15:15). If only their techniques in the lethal arts of the “spear,” the “ox-goad” and the “jaw-bone” had been preserved for posterity, imagine what martial arts films Chinese directors could make today, featuring hundreds of deaths in one long (and obscenely bloody) scene!

E.T.B.
____________________________

EXAGERRATED AGES OF THE BIBLICAL PATRIARCHS
It is certain that one cannot build up a chronology on the spans of years attributed to the Patriarchs, nor regard it as factual that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left Harran and a hundred when Isaac was born and that Jacob was a hundred and thirty when he went into Egypt, for the evidence from the skeletons in the Jericho tombs shows that the expectations of life at this period was short. Many individuals seem to have died before they were thirty-five, and few seem to have reached the age of fifty.
- Dr. Kathleen Kenyon (the eminent excavator of the city-mound of Jericho)

EXAGERRATED AGES OF THE SUMERIAN/BABYLONIAN KINGS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS
According to ancient Sumerian/Babylonian “king lists,” their kings could live for tens of thousands of years, but of course the worthies of the kings lists were not merely men, but gods or demigods (“kings from heaven”), whose ages could consequently be recorded astronomically. The Hebrew authors dealt only with men, and therefore the ages they assigned to them are comparatively modest, less than a thousand years, because above one thousand years is a perspective proper to God alone. (Ps. 90:4). (The Hebrews were partial to that number, “1000,” as anyone can see who does a “search” for it throughout the Bible.)

Interestingly, both the ”king lists” and the Hebrew list of the patriarchs are composed of ten kings/patriarchs. And in both lists the number of years that a king reigned (or patriarch lived) dropped after “the Flood.” (The Sumerian/Babylonians had their own “Flood” story that pre-dates the one found in Genesis.) In fact the Babylonian king’s ages dropped after their “Flood story” to ages appropriate to the ages of the Hebrew partriarchs before the Flood, i.e., none of the kings after the Flood reigned longer than 960 years.

Professor Bruce Vawtner in A Path Through Genesis, suggests that “Both the Hebrews and Sumerians/Babylonians knew that many more than ten generations had elapsed during these periods. To bridge over the enormous gaps in time, therefore, both of them assigned tremendous ages to the few names that they possessed. While the Babylonians simply set down astronomical figures, none of them under twenty thousand years, the Hebrew author has been comparatively moderate, and above all, he made his ten generations serve a religious purpose.”

But before discussing the ages of the Biblical patriarchs further, one must note that there are three different sources for the Hebrew Bible, the ancient Masoretic text, the Septuagint text, and the Samaritan text, and they record slightly different ages for the patriarchs, and different totals as well if you added all their ages up in a straight line one after the other. The MT gives a total of 1656 years, the Septuagint gives 2242 years, while the Samaritan text gives 1307 year. The MT is the one used in most modern day Bible translations. According to the MT text, Noah is the first man to be born (in the year 1056) after the death of Adam (in the year 930). Thus the author singles out Noah at birth as the beginning of the new generation of post-Adamic man that will follow after the Flood. This contrivance is further strengthened by the Hebrew author’s choice to have Methuselah, the longest lived man of the old generation (before the Flood) die precisely in the year when the Flood begins. A clean sweep, therefore, is made of all the patriarchs that preceded Noah and the Flood. And this neatly excludes any implication that the patriarchs were linked to the corrupt world that had to be destroyed, since the last, and the most aged of them dies immediately prior to the Flood. At least that’s according to ages given in the MT version of the Old Testament. Secondly, in the MT the age at which the patriarchs “begot,” drops progressively till the beginning of the second half of the list is reached with Jared. Adam, who precedes the first five on the list, and Jared, who precedes the last five of the original ten patriarchs, also lives an identical length of time after “begetting,” i.e., 800 years. Jared also begins his “begetting” 32 years later than Adam, which happens to be 1/2 of the 65 years at which Mahalalel and Enoch (who come directly before and after Jared on the list) begin “begetting.” Enoch, the traditional holy man of the period, who occupies the symbolic 7th place on the list (and whom God “took”) also lived a symbolic number of years (365 being the number of days in the solar year). And simply by doubling Enoch’s year at “begetting,” you arrive at Adam’s. In fact, all of the numbers of the MT for the ages of the patriarchs, aside from the total age of Methuselah, are in multiples of five or in multiples of five with the addition of seven (seven being the most popular number in the Bible, appearing in various capacities at total of over 500 times). The ancient Sumerian/Babylonian kings list employed a similar fancy of “adding seven” to numbers, like when in two places it explicitly stated that the total length of the monarchic period preceding the Babylonian Flood was “a great sar plus seven sar.”

Other aspects also hint of artifice: In Gen. 6:3 God “allows” man 120 years to live. (“120” is “50” plus “70,” much like the way the ages of the patriarchs in the Masoretic Text of Genesis are all divisible by “5” with the addition sometimes of “7.”) Moses, the supposed author of the passage about God “allowing” man to live 120 years, goes on to live exactly 120 years. Yet in Ps. 90:10 we are told that man lives only 70 years (ah, there’s that “7” again). Joseph went to Egypt, and lo, lived to be the ideal Egyptian age of 110 years; then Joshua retrieves Joseph’s bones from Egypt and also lives 110 years. Lastly, compare how awkwardly the author of Gen. 11:10-26 and Gen. 25:8 juxtaposes the scene at Abraham’s death with the age of his distant relative, Shem, as though he had no idea that people still lived so long as Shem. For the author states that Abraham died “at a good old age, an old man, after a full life,” while Shem, Abraham’s 7X great grandfather lived to SEE his 7X great grandson die “at a good old age, an old man, after a full life!” for Shem was, if we take Gen. 11:10-26 literally, alive and 565 years old when Abraham died at a mere 175 years of age.

Vawter’s book in chapter 6 and 7 discusses some of the other artifices. All in all, the ages of the partriarchs like the ages of the Sumerian/Babylonian kings, appear mythically larger than life, growing less so the nearer each king (or patriarch) came to the author’s actual day. “The Flood” was of course a major disjunction in both their mythologies, separating the world of demi-god-kings (or patriarchs whose father was ”born at the creation and walked with God”) with the latter world nearer to the author’s own day.

E.T.B.
____________________________

WHY EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS GRADE GOD’S WRITING ON A CURVE
If I was teaching a class in the art and craft of writing and someone turned in “the Bible” as their writing assignment, then I guess I would have to ask God what message he was trying to convey to his readers. His emotions and sentiments, like those of his characters, are on a constant roller coaster ride.

For example, Job 5:2 says, “For wrath kills the foolish man, and envy slays the silly one.” So “wrath” is connected with “the foolish man” yet compare:

Let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them.
- Exodus 31:10 (See also Numbers 16:46)

The Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.
- Psalm 21:9

And God often angrily loses his temper:

That the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger.
- Deut. 13:17

He made Israel to sin to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger with their vanities.
- 1 Kings 16:26 (See also: Ex. 32:10; Num. 11:1,16:46, 32:13-14; Judges 3:8, 2:20; 1 Kings 14:9,15:30, 16:2, 16:7, 16:13; 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Samuel 24:1; 2 Chron. 34:25; Psalm 18:7 & Jer. 44:6; Nahum 1:2)
____________________________

Or take the story about Moses descending from a mountain holding Ten Commandments, one of which says, “Do not kill.” But Moses saw that some of the people had begun worshipping idols, and he says, “Kill every man your [idol worshipping] neighbor.” (Ex. 32:27)

So, depending on the circumstances, we have either “Love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:18 & the Gospels), or, “Kill every man your neighbor.” (Ex. 32:27)

And the same Moses who taught “Do not kill” also commanded the Israelites to “kill every [Midianite] male among the little ones?” (Num. 31:17)
____________________________

And what about the use of the word “Blessed” to describe two very different sentiments in Matthew 5:9 and Psalm 137:9, respectively:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.”

“Blessed will be the one who dashes your little ones against the rock.”
____________________________

Or take Psalm 34:14, “Seek peace, and pursue it;” and Luke 2:14, “Peace on earth, good will toward men [at Jesus’s birth];” and Jesus’s teaching, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God” (Mat. 5:9), and “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27a).

And compare them with, “Do you suppose that I [Jesus] came to grant peace on earth? I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” (Mat. 10:34); or, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division… I have come to cast fire on the earth and how I wish it were already kindled.” (Luke 12:49,51)
____________________________

Or compare Matthew 5:7, “Blessed are the merciful” with the following verses:

“Leave alive nothing that breathes… show them no mercy.” (Deut. 7:2)

“The Lord hardened their hearts... that they might receive no mercy.” (Joshua 11:20)

“I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them… A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed.” (Jer. 13:14; 48:10--NIV)
____________________________

Or compare Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” with “Chase your enemies and they will fall before you by the sword.” (Lev. 26:7)
____________________________

Or take these two verses that depict the joy of vengeance:
“The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you” (Deut. 28:63)
“The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance, he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10)

And compare such verses with: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles... If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink... He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished.” (Prov. 17:5; 24:17 & 25:21)

God should have slowed down and concentrated more when He wrote the Bible. However, if He had, that would have left theologians with little to do, since it is their job to contrive ingenious explanations that make “perfect” sense out of every verse in the Bible. I suppose English teachers could do the same thing with the papers they grade--they could contrive a host of ingenious explanations to make every exaggerated, contradictory, imprecise statement in a fictional story or research paper appear to make “perfect” sense. But what would be the point in concocting so many ingenious explanations? Simply to spare giving the child a “D” on their writing assignment?

E.T.B.

ADDITIONS TO ABOVE: EDITING REQUIRED

In Deuteronomy 18:20, for instance, Yahweh unceremoniously sentences all followers of other gods to death. For Christians, of course, the Tanakh or “Old Testament” has been superseded by a new collection of texts, many of which are similarly belligerent. In Galatians 1:8 Paul curses any man or angel who dares to proclaim a contrary gospel, and in 2 Peter 2:1 “swift destruction” is prescribed for all false prophets and teachers.

Avalos reminds us, “nowhere in Mein Kampf is there anything as explicit as the policy of killing Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7 and 20 and 1 Samuel 15” (361).

Hector Avalos. 2005. Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst, NY: Promethus Books. 444 pp.

Review of Fighting Words (2006)
Kenneth Krause

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/fighting.html

He says: "Honor thy father and mother," and yet this God, in the person of Christ, offered honors, and glory, and happiness an hundred fold to any who would desert their father, and mother for him. Thou shalt not kill, yet God killed the first-born of Egypt, and he commanded Joshua to kill all his enemies, not sparing old or young, man, woman or child, even an unborn child.

Robert Ingersoll
____________________________

Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible often not meaning what it says.

J. S. Bullion, Jr.
____________________________

WHAT ARE BIBLE BELIEVERS TO DO?

The Bible commands:

Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth
- Exodus 23:13

Keeping in mind such a command, consider someone who eats a bowl of cereal then hops into their Saturn with Atlas tires on a Thursday afternoon in March to go rent the movie, Apollo 13. “Cereal” is named after “Ceres,” the Roman goddess of grain; “Saturn” was a Roman god; “Atlas” a Greek god; “Thursday” means “Thor’s day” and “Thor” was a Norse god; “March” is named after “Mars,” a Roman god; and “Apollo” is another Greek god. As you can see, it is a little difficult in today’s world to cease mentioning “other gods.” Even the membrane that closes off the vagina on virginal females is named after “Hymen,” a god of the Wedding feast. So how do you avoid “the names of other gods being heard out of your mouth?”

To add insult to irony, “Biblical hermeneutics” is the art or science of Biblical interpretation and is taught in every seminary, yet the word “hermeneutics” is based on the name of the Greek god, “Hermes.”

E.T.B.
____________________________
DOES GOD “DO” ALL THE STUFF THE BIBLE SAYS HE DOES?

By His windy breath the heavens are cleared.
- Job 26:13

From the breath of God ice is made, And the expanse of the waters is frozen.
- Job 37:10

He says to the snow, fall to the earth, and to the rain, be strong.
- Job 37:6

He draws up the drops of water which the clouds pour down.
- Job 36:27

Who hath gathered the wind in his fists?
- Proverbs 30:4

[Clouds] turn around by His guidance.
- Job 37:12

He covers His hands with the lightning. And commands it to strike the mark. Its noise declares His presence; The cattle also, concerning what is coming up.
- Job 36:32-33

His thunder is incomprehensible.
- Job 26:14

Listen closely to the thunder of His voice, And the rumbling that goes out from His mouth, Under the whole heaven He lets it loose, And His lightning to the ends of the earth. After it a voice roars; He thunders with His majestic voice; And He does not restrain his lightnings when His voice is heard. God thunders with his voice wondrously.
- Job 37: 1-5 (NASB)

This just in…God breathed on Chicago, and His mighty thunder incomprehensibly shattered several windows in the Sears Tower.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

The very god who, according to those who believe in him, made every last electron spin in its orbit everywhere throughout the universe, cannot write a clear, unmistakable volume of instructions to human beings who are supposed to follow his wishes?

Fred Woodworth
____________________________

If God got a job as an author of technical documentation, he’d be back on the streets within a week.

Overheard on an internet discussion group
____________________________

Odd, isn’t it, that some assume it all to be a divine revelation? If it is all so terribly important, why can we no longer even tell what some of it means?

David Coomler
____________________________

The Bible is like a badly xeroxed chain-letter.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Edward T. Babinski Carnival #2 (Galaxy Evolution Explorer Edition)


Data from NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer has revealed that more "little stars" (many the same size as ours) are out there whose existence had been masked by the light of massive, brighter stars. So in some regions there are four times more stars than astronomers had previously estimated.

Galaxies demand a stellar recount

A look into the hellish cradles of suns and solar systems

Space telescopes find trigger-happy star formation

According to the Bible, God made the stars on the fourth day of creation. But even more remarkable is the fact that He is creating them still, though the latter miracle is considered not worth mentioning by any of the Bible’s authors.

CREATIONISTS ADMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION POSES PROBLEMS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The order of creation in Genesis 1 is farcical from a modern astronomical viewpoint. Our earth is a child of the sun. The offspring could not have existed before the parent.

The sun, moon, and stars were “made and set” in heaven “to give light upon the earth?”

When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras dared to suggest that the sun was as large as the southern part of Greece he startled his Greek contemporaries. What must have been the notions of a grossly unscientific people like the Jews? For them it was easy to regard the sun, moon, and “the stars also,” as mere satellites of the earth, as lanterns for the human race.

George William Foote, “The Creation Story,” Bible Romances

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GIMME THAT EARTH-CENTERED CREATION, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME
Genesis 1:3-5 describes the first act of creation:

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

At this point in the biblical creation process, not only has the sun not yet been “made and set in the firmament,” but the earth is also still “without form.” In other words the Bible depicts the establishment of “Days” (days-nights-evenings-mornings) before anything else, which is about as earth-centered a creation story as one can possibly conceive, and about as far as one can leap in the direction of ancient thought as opposed to modern scientific conceptions of the cosmos.

Daytimes or weekly times (i.e., approximately one quarter of the lunar cycle) experienced by earth dwellers would naturally appear central to them, such as the earth-dwellers who composed the Genesis 1 "creation story." But think of how geocentric the beginning of such a story is, with all of creation revolving right from the beginning around the earth's time schedule. Perhaps creationists do not realize the story fits ancient views of cosmology (with the earth as creation's foundation and heaven above) far better than modern Copernican ones. A day, night, evening or morning, or even numbered days of the week on earth are not of any central cosmic significance since we know the earth is not the foundation of all creation. All creation does not revolve around "earth days." The earth is merely one of nine planets (with many more planets circling distant stars) whose "days" (as they spin on their axis around their respective stars) vary considerably in length.

Yet Genesis and Exodus agree in depicting these as literal days and nights as understood in earth terms:

"God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation" (Genesis 2:3)

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and sanctified it." (Exodus 20:8-11)

The point of dividing the creation process into days, a feature that could easily be omitted without affecting the sense of the story, is to reinforce sabbath observance. These "days of creation" were therefore accepted as normal days of the week by the ancient Hebrews, and illustrate another way in which they viewed the earth as the flat firm base of all creation.

Speaking of God "resting," the priestly author of Exodus 31:17 may have elaborated a bit too much on the meaning of the Sabbath when he wrote, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested AND WAS REFREHSED.” "Rested and was refreshed?" This passage adds that after God had ceased from His labor of creating everything His soul-life [or breath/nephesh] was replenished, refreshed (cf., Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, Fortress Press: 2009, p. 97), or, as translators of a Bible published in 1774, put it, “on the seventh day God rested and fetched breath.”

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AN EVEN GREATER MIRACLE IS HOW GOD TOOK IMMEASURABLE PAINS TO _NOT_ LIGHT THE EARTH WITH THE REST OF THE COSMOS
If the sun, moon, and stars were created “to light the earth,” then why create over a hundred billion galaxies whose light is invisible to the naked eye? (Out of billions of galaxies only two relatively close ones galaxies can be seen with the unaided eye, and they appear no brighter than two dim stars in our sky.) In other words, over a hundred billion galaxies produce light that can only be seen with our most powerful telescopes, and it took telescopes recently mounted in space to detect 99/100ths of those galaxies. And our galaxy is composed of about a billion stars, some of which are far larger than our sun. Therefore, the creation story in Genesis would be even more believable if it told us how much trouble God went through to “NOT light the earth” with the rest of creation.

Astronomers are even hypothesizing that the cosmos may contain “dark” matter and “dark” energy, so much of the stuff in fact, that most of the cosmos might still be invisible to us even with our satellite telescopes surveying it to a depth of thirteen-billion light-years in every direction. Again, that’s a lot of work to do to “NOT light” the earth.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AN EVEN GREATER MIRACLE IS HOW MANY _MORE_ LAMPS RULE THE NIGHTS AND PROVIDE FOR SIGNS AND SEASON ON OTHER PLANETS
Genesis 1:16 depicts the sun and moon as “two great lamps” [literal Hebrew translation]. Those “great lamps” were made to “light” the earth, to “rule” the earth’s days and nights, and, “for signs and seasons” on earth. But a couple thousand years after the Bible was written, astronomers discovered a curious thing about that “great lamp” the moon. They discovered that Mars has two moons. Yet Mars has no people who need their steps “lit” at night, or who need to know the “signs and seasons.” Even more curiously, it was discovered that Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has eighteen moons (one of them, Titan, is even larger than the planet Mercury). The earth was created with just one moon, and it “rules the night” so badly that for three nights out of every twenty-eight it abdicates its rule and doesn’t light the earth at all--at which time creationists bump into each other in the dark.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GALACTIC HABITABLE ZONES IN THE COSMOS
What fraction of stars in our Galaxy might play host to planets that can support multi-cellular life? Lineweaver and others have calculated the probable extent of hospitable space for complex life in the Galaxy, called the “Galactic habitable zone.” The criteria include distance from deadly supernovae, enough heavy elements to form terrestrial planets, and enough time for life to evolve. Based on these criteria, the Galactic habitable zone is an annular region between 7 to 9 kiloparsecs from the Galactic center and contains about 10% of the Milky Way stars with ages between 4 to 8 billion years old. [The Milky Way, like most of the 100 billion other galaxies in the cosmos, contains roughly a billion stars.]
- Science, Vol. 303, Jan. 2, 2004 www.sciencemag.org

Keeping in mind the above “odds,” there may be plenty of possible planets on which life might exist. But what does that imply about the Bible’s understanding of the cosmos when interpreted literally as in Genesis and the New Testament? See the following quotations to understand the questions raised by the notion of “[intelligent] life elsewhere in the galaxy.”

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A NEW HEAVEN?” EVEN FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN DISTANT GALAXIES?
According to the book of Revelation a “new earth” and a “new heaven” will be created after Jesus returns. Occupants of other planets throughout the hundred billion galaxies of our present “heaven” will no doubt be surprised to receive such an unearned favor, all because of what happens on our little world. Or is this simply another example of how the Hebrews viewed the earth as the flat firm foundation of creation with the heavens above created simply for the earth below?

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though it is not a direct article of the Christian faith that the planet we inhabit is the only inhabited one in the cosmos, yet it is so worked up from what is called the Mosaic account of creation, the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit, and the counterpart of that story, the death of the Son of God--that to believe otherwise renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So long as people believed, as St. Paul himself did, in one week of creation and a past of 4,000 years--so long as people thought the stars were satellites of the earth and that animals were there to serve man--there was no difficulty in believing that a single man could have ruined everything, and that another man had saved everything.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “Fall, Redemption, and Geocentrism,”Christianity and Evolution

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did Jesus die uniquely to save the sins of human beings on planet Earth, or is he being strung up somewhere in the universe on every Friday?

Michael Ruse, “Booknotes,” Biology & Philosophy, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan. 1999

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE NEW JERUSALEM
The last book of the Bible mentions a fabulous city called the “New Jerusalem”:

"And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth… twelve thousand furlongs [about 1500 miles according to most commentaries]. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal."
- Revelation 21:16

In other words the New Jerusalem is a gigantic cube and it is depicted as descending out of heaven above and landing on the earth below. The author who wrote about the city may have made it of such gargantuan proportions so that the length of just one of its sides was equal to the distance from Jerusalem to the capital and heart of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the author had in mind that God meant to flatten Rome just as Rome had flattened God’s holy temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

However the author of Revelation does not seem to have paused to consider that a cube that was 1500 miles on all sides would simply see-saw on the earth’s curved surface, since the earth is not flat, but a sphere. Even if it didn’t see-saw and settled onto the surface of the earth gently, such a massive object would probably make the earth’s crust buckle or crack beneath it and initiate earthquakes and eruptions; or cause the rotating earth to wobble (just try gluing a small cafeteria-sized carton of milk to a large bowling ball and spin the bowling ball to see what I mean) How could a cube that was 1,500 miles on each side maintain its cubic shape since much smaller objects in space that are merely 400 miles in diameter collapse into spherical shapes due to the force of their own gravity? And, what would prevent the city, after it landed, from growing as wide and flat as any mountain range due to its mutual attraction with the earth’s own gravity?

This "New Jerusalem" is so depicted as being so tall that it would extend 1,300 miles further out into space than the International Space Station that is situated only about 200 miles above the earth. In fact the New Jerusalem would block jet streams in the upper atmosphere, and be pummeled by natural and man-made objects orbiting the earth, as well as its topmost floors being hit by solar winds and radiation. If you happen to live on any floor higher than merely the first 100 miles above sea level, I wouldn’t suggest opening your windows without first donning a space suit.

The author of the book of Revelation also depicted the “twelve gates” of the New Jerusalem as “twelve pearls; every gate is of one pearl.” (Rev. 21:21) Hence the slang expression for heaven, “The pearly gates.” (I’d pay money to see the oyster that popped those babies out.)

Of course some Evangelical Christian creationist apologists like Grant R. Jeffrey assume that the description of “The New Jerusalem” must be true without a doubt because “what reason would God have for describing such details so precisely unless they were true?” [Apocalypse: The Coming Judgment of the Nations--Bantam Books, Toronto, 1994), p.351] But then, who ever said “God” was the one describing such details? And who ever said that human writers didn’t have imaginations capable of adding details to a story? Maybe the author of the book of Revelation assumed like most people of his day that the earth was flat [see NOTE], so a cube-shaped object would sit securely and squarely on it? He probably also made the New Jerusalem a cube because that’s how the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple was shaped. The author of Revelation, probably had no idea that the enormity and shape of such a city might raise questions in the minds of "latter day" readers, especially since he probably assumed that the heavenly abode of God and angels existed not very far overhead, instead of that region being filled with orbiting bits of matter, solar radiation, and the vacuum of space?

Finally, maybe Grant R. Jeffrey should cease making a career out of trying to anaesthetize the frontal lobes of people’s brains, and embark on an expedition to find that oyster that pops out pearls as big as city gates? And he had better hurry and find that whale-sized oyster before King Kong enjoys it as an appetizer. (But where is Kong going to find a lemon large enough to squeeze on it?)

[NOTE] The author of the book of Revelation wrote completely in accord with a flat earth view of the cosmos: “I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1); and added elsewhere, “There was a great earthquake...and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” (Rev. 6:12,13). “Stars of heaven falling to earth” after the earth below has been “shaken,” mirrors the way that the sun, moon, and the stars are portrayed in the creation story in Genesis, being “made” and “fixed” above the earth. And just as those stars were “fixed” there, they might one day “fall to earth” like “figs” from a tree after the earth below had experienced “a great earthquake,” because to the ancient Hebrews the whole of creation consisted of a cosmos whose two halves were the earth below and the heavens above.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARE THERE CREATIONISTS ON OTHER PLANETS? Do they quote from a book somewhat like our earth-centered book of Genesis? And, supposing that the name of their planet is "Zontar," does their book read something like this...

In the beginning God created the heavens and ZONTAR, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters OF ZONTAR and God said let there be light, and there was the first evening and morning [on ZONTAR]. And God separated the waters and caused dry land to appear, and he called the dry land ZONTAR, and there was a second evening and morning [on ZONTAR]... And God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS, one to rule the day ON ZONTAR, and one to rule the night ON ZONTAR, and he made the stars also, and set them in the sky to light ZONTAR and for signs and seasons [on ZONTAR], and there was a fourth evening and morning. And God made animals ON ZONTAR, and there was a fifth evening and morning. And God made beings IN HIS OWN IMAGE, and he visited them in the garden where He and they left slimy trials as they moved and talked to each other via their antennae, and there was a sixth evening and morning. And on the seventh day God "rested" from creating the heavens and ZONTAR.

Of course, we earthlings, being raised on our Bible, would know that God needed to "rest" after creating ZONTAR, so He could regain enough energy to trek to another part of the cosmos (near one of those stars he'd created "to light ZONTAR") and create a place called "earth."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHAT DO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PROFESSORS OF OLD TESTAMENT THINK ABOUT GENESIS 1?

Several Evangelical Christian professors have recently argued that their fellow Evangelicals ought to relinquish "scientific creationist" interpretations of Genesis 1, and that the creation story in Genesis 1 ought to be interpreted in a mythical/spiritual/analogical or metaphorical fashion. Such figures include:

John Walton, Old Testament professor at Wheaton College (author of The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate ) The blog, Jesus Creed, has devoted separate blog entries to examining all 18 propositions in Walton's book, beginning here.

Peter Enns, Old Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (author of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament)

Kent Sparks (author of God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship)

Not to mention statements by popular bibliobloggers including:

R. Christopher Heard, Old Testament professor at Pepperdine University and lifelong member of Churches of Christ (author of the succinct post, "Why I Am Not A Creationist")

Chris Tilling, post-grad N.T. theology student (author of the post, "From Creationist to Evolutionist - my story")

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

QUOTATION FROM JOHN WALTON'S NEW WORK, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the clouds or high flying birds [able to "fly across the face of the firmament" per Gen. 1]. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of the deity as well as hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CREATION AND THE PSALMISTS

Ancient Hebrew psalmists drew a parallel between the height of the “clouds” and the wondrous height of their Lord’s “truth”: “For Thy loving kindness is great to the heavens, and Thy truth to the clouds.” (Psalm 57:10). The height of clouds appeared so near to the holy heavens that they excitedly strung such phrases together to praise God in a way we do not react to today in the same way because we are able to fly above the clouds and also know how high “the heavens” can be, in light-years, making the height of clouds seem not comparable at all.

A psalmist wrote, “As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalm 103:12) Yet today we know we can walk from east to west and wind up right back where we started.

A psalmist asked, “[Can] the heavens above be measured?” (Jeremiah 31:37) Yes, it’s someone’s job to measure such things—from meteorologists noting the heights of certain clouds, to astronomers measuring distances to the sun and moon, even distances to the furthest galaxies.

A psalmist wrote, “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; But the earth He has given to the sons of men” (Ps. 115:16) One of NASA’s satellites passed Pluto several years ago, not to mention telescopes peering into “the heavens of the Lord.” We have even launched spacecraft named after pagan gods (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) when the Bible forbids mentioning even the names of “other gods” (Exodus 23:13).

A psalmist wrote, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou are mindful of him? (Psalm 8:3-4) The “heavens” referred to the clouds, and to the sun, moon and stars that the psalmist believed did not lie far above the clouds, along with the angelic heavenly realm lying not far above the sun, moon and stars. Any similarities between such ancient verse and modern day cosmic angst are merely relative. Even the clouds felt intangibly high to the ancients, but then, none of them could even guess what lay beyond the horizon. In fact it may be that their cosmos felt more intangibly huge to them than our cosmos does to us because we can fly round the globe, above the clouds, gaze at photos of outer space, and open a book and read the distances to stars and galaxies set down for us in tangible numerical form.

“Those little heaven-encrusted universes of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Hebrews seem quaint enough to us, who have formed, thought by thought from within, the immense modern Cosmos in which we live—planned in such immeasurable proportions, and moved by so pitiless a mechanism... Yet what a splendor dazzles us in these great halls! Anything less limitless would now be a prison.” (Logan Pearsall Smith).

Monday, August 24, 2009

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

"Almighty God and Christianity and the Bible professes 'DO unto others,' not, 'do NOT do unto others."--An Evangelical Christian explaining why he thinks Christianity alone is positive while all other teachings appear negative

I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself." Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis and William Barclay even cited numerous quotations of the negative Golden Rule from ancient sources to make the contrast appear more stark between what Christianity taught and what the rest of the world taught:

"Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.

Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)

"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga, 5.18)

Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." (Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)

Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983)

The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)

Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."

Christian apologists add that it is not (in their opinion) difficult to honor a negative Golden Rule, but it is "exceedingly" difficult to live by the positive Golden Rule Jesus taught. Such apologists seem to forget that a lot of Judeo-Christian morality is based on the "Ten Commandments," which are almost all negative rules, "Thou shalt NOT..." etc. Such apologists even forget that Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have struggled hard to resist temptation and resist sinnning, i.e., to NOT do things they were tempted to do, again a negative task. The whole story of Job is about a man tempted to "curse God," but he resists. So, for Jesus, Paul, Job and other Biblical heros, there appears to be just as much "difficulty" involved in avoiding sinful behaviors as practicing positive ones, (perhaps even greater "difficulty") regardless of what the apologists state.

Indeed, the so-called "negative" Golden Rule is itself a part of Christianity. It is found in pre-Christian Jewish writings as well as in the Catholic Bible and in a textual variant in the Book of Acts, see these examples:

Philo, the great Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, wrote, "What you hate to suffer, do not do to anyone else."

Hillel, a great Jewish rabbi who lived just before Jesus' day, taught, "What is hateful to thee, do not to another. That is the whole law and all else is explanation." (b Shabbatt 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26)

Even earlier than the saying by rabbi Hillel, the negative Golden Rule is found in Tobit, an apocryphal book that is included in the Catholic Bible: "What you hate, do not do to anyone." (Tobit 4: 14-15. 2nd century BCE.)

And in the Book of Acts: "Textual variants in Acts 15 :20,29 & 21:25 are quite involved... various Western texts add the Negative Golden Rule, 'Do not do unto others...' which is first attributed to the first century Jewish rabbi Hillel but also quoted in The Didache (a second century Christian text believed to consist of teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers and used to teach new converts) i.2." [from Tim Hegg and Beit Hallel's online article, "Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council: Did They Conclude the Torah was Not For Gentiles?" copyright 2001 www.torahresource.com]

And what about another claim made by Christian apologists, such as William Barclay, who argued, "The very essence of Christian conduct is that it does not consist in not doing bad things, but in actively doing good things." Was Barclay unaware of the fact that teachings that advocate "actively doing good things" are found in other ancient literature besides the New Testament?

Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before Jesus was born: "Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy." (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as cited in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts)

Buddhist holy teaching: "Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth." (written centuries before Jesus was born)

Buddhist holy teaching: "In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible." (The Dhammapada)

Taoist holy teaching: "Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others." (written centuries before Jesus was born)

The Greek poet Homer: "I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need." (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).

Excerpts from a pagan's prayer: "May I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides...May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good. May I wish for all men's happiness...May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in danger...May I know good men and follow in their footsteps." ("The Prayer of Eusebius," written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murray's book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be "Christian.")

Islamic holy teaching: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)

The Positive Golden Rule is also found in Jewish literature (Mishneh Torah ii: Hilekot Abel xiv.I)

Lastly, there appears to be a flaw in the Golden Rule itself. If you simply try to "do unto other as you would like them to do unto you" then you could wind up doing things to others they might not enjoy as much as you do! Do you like listening to rap music? Then do it to others! Crank up those speakers so others can enjoy it as well! Do you like having sex? Then go out and initiate sex with others! Do you love your particular religious beliefs? Then initiate conversations with others about your favorite beliefs. Worst case scenario is that if someone fears they will be sent to eternal hell for doubting a particular religious belief, they might welcome being coerced and tortured to "correct" their beliefs and assure them eternal heaven, in which case the Golden Rule would imply that other people would be equally appreciative of being "corrected" rather than "risk eternal hellfire." So we need both the Golden Rule and also the "negative" Golden Rule, working together, to avoid the kinds of excesses mentioned above.

An even more "finely tuned" rule might be what some call "The Platinum Rule," namely, "Do Unto Others as They Would Have You Do Unto Them." In other words, take time to learn about your neighbor's tastes, their mood, their nature, and their temperment, before you start "doing" things "unto them." Treat others the way they want to be treated.

In all three cases -- the Golden Rule, the negative Golden Rule (also nicknamed the "Silver Rule"), and the "Platinum Rule" -- our similar biological and social/psychological structures ensure that our desires and fears will also be similar. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each others' inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are. So you can and should look within to sense the truth of what we all share. Hence, "you" have an inner window on what other people would like done to them. Just keep in mind that the exact "scene" that is displayed most prominently inside each person's "inner window" may differ from person to person, and you have to take that into account as well, before you "do unto them" as "they" would like.

Christianity runs the gamet... Giving even Hinduism a run for its money

CHRISTIANITY RUNS THE GAMUT…

From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers -- to hell raisers and serpent-handlers;

From those who believe nearly everyone (excepting themselves and their church) will be damned -- to those who believe everyone may eventually be saved (“Universalist” Christians);

From those who argue that they are predestined to argue in favor of predestination -- to those who argue for free will of their own free will;

From those who argue God is a “Trinity” -- to “Unitarian” Christians (which include not only the “Arian” churches of early Christianity, but also modern day Unitarian-Universalist churches, some modern day Messianic Jewish groups, some primitive Baptist groups, some “cults,” and all of Judaism, since God’s chosen people in the earliest “testament” where taught, “The Lord Your God is One God”);

From those who “hear the Lord” telling them to run for president, seek diamonds and gold (via liaisons with bloody African dictators), or sell “Lake of Galilee” beauty products -- to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata;

From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that -- to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into “invisible” flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with miraculous tales of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass);

From those who believed that priests who delivered communion should never have ever denied their faith in the past even under threat of persecution -- to those who believed it did not matter whether or not priests forsook their faith when threatened with persecution (I am speaking of a major controversy in early Christianity between “Donatist” and “Catholic” Christiians, both of whom presumed they were the true church on the basis of the division cited above, a division that was never healed, and which ceased only after the North African region where most Donatist churches were located was overrun first by Vandals then later by Muslims.);

From the many Christians that once taught (or teach today as Reconstructionist Christians do) that heretics and apostates ought to be executed -- to Albigensian and Cathar Christians who outlawed violence and taught that the shedding of blood and the killing of any living thing, even the slaughtering of a chicken or ensnaring a squirrel, was a mortal sin (a belief they based on the spirituality and metaphors of Christ’s meekness and forgiveness in the Gospel of John). [See The YellowCross: The Story of the Last Cathars’ Rebellion Against the Inquisition 1290-1329 by René Weis];

From Christians who believe in damning their enemies by calling down God’s wrath on them (as in certain imprecatory psalms) and who cite the verse, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” -- to Amish Christians (among others) who believe in helping the families of those who have offended them. (Case in point, in 2006 a man entered an Amish schoolhouse, gunned down several young female students then shot himself. The Amish later asked what they could do to help the family of the shooter. They planned a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts’ family with offers of food and condolences.);

From Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as “Satanic”-- to Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests;

From castrati (boys in Catholic choirs who underwent castration to retain their high voices) -- to Protestant hymns and Gospel quartets--all the way to “Christian rap;”

From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics “what homosexuals do” (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between a husband and wife) -- to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups like the nationwide Metropolitan Baptist Church);

From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies -- to Christian nudists (viz., there was a sect known as the “Adamites,” not to mention modern day Christians in Florida with their own nude Christian churches, campgrounds and even an amusement park), and let’s not forget born-again strippers;

From those who believe that a husband and wife can have sex for pleasure -- to those who believe that sex should be primarily for procreation -- to those who believe celibacy is superior to marriage (i.e., Catholic priests, monks, nuns, and some Protestant groups like the Shakers who denied themselves sexual pleasure and only maintained their membership by adopting abandoned children until the last Shaker finally died out in the late 1900s)--all the way to those who cut off their genitals for the kingdom of God (the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect);

From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential -- to the Anti-Mission Baptists who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of “extra-congregational missionary organizations” is not Biblical;

From those who believe that the King James Bible is the only inspired translation -- to those who believe that no translation is totally inspired, only the original “autographs” were perfect -- to those who believe that “perfection” only lay in the “spirit” that inspired the writing of the Bible’s books, not in the “letter” of the books themselves;

From those who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) -- to those who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox). And, from those who believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholics) -- to those who believe it proceeds from the Father alone (Eastern Orthodox view as taught by the early Church Fathers). Those disagreements, as well as others, sparked the greatest schism of church history (the Schism of 1054) when the uncompromising patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the envoys of the uncompromising Pope Leo IX, excommunicated each other;

From those who worship God on Sunday -- to those who worship God on Saturday (Saturday being the Hebrew “sabbath” that God said to “keep holy” according to one of the Ten Commandments) -- all the way to those who believe their daily walk with God and love of their fellow man is more important than church attendance;

From those who stress “God’s commands” -- to those who stress “God’s love;”

From those who believe that you need only accept Jesus as your “personal savior” to be saved -- to those who believe you must accept Jesus as both savior and “Lord” of your life in order to be saved. (Two major Evangelical Christian seminaries debated this question in the 1970s, and still disagree);

From those who teach that being “baptized with water as an adult believer” is an essential sign of salvation -- to those who deny it is;

From those who believe that unbaptized infants who die go straight to hell -- to those who deny the (once popular) church doctrine known as “infant damnation.”

From those who teach that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” along with “speaking in tongues” are important signs of salvation -- to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in modern day “Spirit baptism” and “tongue-speaking”);

From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, contemporary Christian music, movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important signs of being saved -- to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved;

From Christians who disagree whether the age of the cosmos should be measured in billions or only thousands of year -- whether God pops new creatures into existence or subtly alters old ones -- even some who disagree whether the earth goes round the sun or vice versa;

From pro-slavery Christians (there are some today who still remind us that the Bible never said slavery was a “sin”) -- to anti-slavery Christians;

From Christians who defend the Biblical idea of having a king (and who oppose democracy as “the meanest and worst of all forms of government” to quote John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, with whom some Popes agreed, as well as some of today’s Protestant Reconstructionist Christians)--to Christians who oppose kingships and support democracies;

From “social Gospel” Christians -- to “uncompromised Gospel” Christians;

From Christians who do not believe in sticking their noses in politics -- to coup d’etat Christians;

From “stop the bomb” Christians -- to “drop the bomb” Christians;

From Christians who strongly suspect that the world will end tomorrow -- to those who are equally certain it won’t.

All in all, Christianity gives Hinduism with its infinite variety of sects and practices a run for its money.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Edward T. Babinski Carnival #1

A smorgasbord of annotated weblinks.

Google the word "carnival" and you'll retrieve over 44 million "hits," but the #1 top-ranked "hit" (as of today) was this one: Biblical Studies Carnival. A "carnival" in the blogging world refers to a "best of" collection of links to recent entries at different blogs. I recommend the Biblical Studies Carnival since the entries are from the blogs of biblical studies professors ("bibliobloggers"), and cover an informative and intriguing range of topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I create amazon.com "wish lists" in order to keep track of interesting book titles and bundle them by category. The following two lists feature books written by (or about) those who question Christian religious beliefs:
Testimonies, questioning Protestantism

Testimonies, questioning Catholicism
See also this piece from a creationist website:
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars
And this new book:
When Faith Meets Reason: Religion Scholars Reflect on Their Spiritual Journeys
And this:
People who left Christianity as a direct result of their studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Loftus recently brought up the subject of poisonous plants. Below are related items:
Why We Believe in a Designer
The most provocative things ever said about the way God "designed" the cosmos
God's Cool Designs [video]
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design [video]
Jesus and Mo, "World" [cartoon]
The Evil God Challenge (part 1)
The Evil God Challenge (part 2)
Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Godless Comedy from Mitchell and Web

Monday, February 09, 2009

Rev. Jim Jones was not an evangelical Christian. He was a sworn Communist and Atheist.

To get a little off topic of the normal content posted by Mr. Babinski, I'm taking the liberty to post a little bit of information that's been compiled regarding the "spiritual beliefs" of Jim Jones, leader of the mass suicidal, People's Temple cult from Jonestown (1978).



Jim Jones and Jonestown Sing Soviet Anthem
New audio of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple singing the National Anthem of the Soviet Union, to which they often refer as their "spiritual motherland." Temple members often sang the anthem after nightly meetings.
There's an entirely incorrect misconception from people who don't read about Jonestown that the Temple members were messainic religious nuts. They were most definitely not. They were communists looking for an exodus to the USSR before their final mass suicide. They were also vehement atheists (Jones ridiculed people that believed in "the sky God"). The PT repeatedly explained that they used religion ("religion is an opiate of the masses") to convert people to socialism.
They were mostly politically minded. They also weren't looking to die. Many thought Jones prior discussions of war and suicide were just part of a long line of dramatic proclamations he'd always made but never came remotely close to consummating through action. Until November 18. Note that Jim Jones had met and was friends with Paul Robeson, who happens to sing the most famous English version of the anthem.

He sure was active in seemingly good causes.
Wikipedia states: "Condemnation of Robeson and his beliefs came swiftly, from both....mainstream black organizations including the NAACP."

To make certain this video doesn't end up in file 13 of youtube, it's available here as well:

Jim Jones and Jonestown Sing Soviet Anthem


This video too,
Jim Jones: "I decided how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."




The Peoples Temple and Jim Jones devolve in 1976 from a San Francisco political juggernaut secretly harboring designs of world communist revolution to, in 1978, a paranoid North Korean-style enclave in Jonestown. There, they negotiate with the Soviet Union, North Korea and others for a possible exodus. A Soviet delegation visits Jonestown, showering it with praise. Captured on audio, three weeks before Congressman Ryan, NBC and others visit, they vote to commit Revolutionary Suicide to further the cause of Marxist-Leninism. The day before Congressman Ryan arrives, Jones announced to Jonestown (and recorded on tape) he's not passing up the opportunity to shoot him. Two days later, they do precisely as Jones had claimed: The Temple's "Red Brigade" killed Ryan and four others. The only murder of a Congressman in the line of duty in U.S. history. Popular NBC reporter Don Harris is also murdered. Then, just as the Temple had voted three weeks before, over 900 members commit Revolutionary Suicide -- the largest death toll of American civilians in a non-natural disaster until 9-11. They die in a "White Night" -- an emergency meeting of the Temple to discuss options to prevent takeover by outside forces. Jonestown had 84 White Nights before the final one.
Tags: Jonestown Jim Jones Peoples Temple Kool-Aid Cult Massacre Communist Socialist Marxist Soviet Suicide Carter Moscone Mondale


Jim Jones and Jonestown - Devolution from Political Force to Revolutionary Suicide


Some are already aware of the philosophical ties between Jim Jones and the Atheistic Soviet Union. I'll let the following documentation explain itself, but the question remains in mind, why, for so many years did the liberal media lead the masses to believe Jim Jones was a fanatical "Christian," just as many have accused that Adolf Hitler was a "Christian"? Why do these misconceptions continue to pervade across the web and media. Perhaps until Christians, no longer recognize a Christian. Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones have one thing in common and that is: SOCIALISM. At best, Hitler was a deist, giving benefit of the doubt to the existence of a higher power, but he certainly did not have the makings of a "Christian" in spirit (i.e., the fruits of the spirit mentioned in Galatians). I'm lead to the same conclusion in regard to George W. Bush, who proclaims himself to be "Conservative Christian" in the public eye, but both Sr. and Jr., have been willing participants in the Bohemian Grove's satanic mock sacrifices of humans, at the infamous Bohemian Grove. See video by Alex Jones on YouTube.

Alex Jones - Secrets in Bohemian Grove

People, this is not Christianity!!! and there's nothing at all "conservative" about it. Like Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush is a sworn Socialist, implementing global "marxist economics" in the name of Jesus. Can somebody say amen?

http://music.edwardtbabinski.us/jim_jones.mp3

One evangelical preacher (above) discusses the problem with Jim Jones, there were no bibles ... no place to pray... what else than Communism? Unfortunately, I have only part of that preacher's voice recorded to MP3 format, and welcome others to download. Perhaps somebody can recognize his voice and tell me who he is. The actual text to the entirety of his sermon, went as follows:

SGH said about 1 year ago:
He said 'I was Jim Jones' attorney.' I said 'When did you find out that he was not the man of God that he was billed to be?' He said 'When I visited Jonestown, when I walked in his so-called church. He said there was no bible, there were no holy pictures, there was no cross. Nothing. And I looked him right in the eye and I said to him 'Why is it there's no bible, and there's no place to pray?' He said 'We don't need that anymore,' and he says 'I am no longer your attorney, and you no longer need me.' And he walked out of there when Representative Ryan flew in to Guyana, the first man he called was Sir Lionel Luckhoo, and asked him to fly with him to Jonestown, he said 'God will not let me go'. If he had have gone he wouldn've been massacred with Representative Ryan, are you listening to me? And I'm going to reveal something to you that possibly the public does not know - Sir Lionel Luckhoo told me that the coroner was a close personal friend of his, and he said that he examined every single one of the bodies, this was not a mass-suicide like the world was brainwashed into thinking, but when that coroner examined the bodies, there was a pinhole in ninety-seven percent of all the bodies, they were injected with a poiso*, it was a mass-murder, because men and women were following a man, and I am going to let every one of you that are here under this tent, you that are listening to this radio broadcast, My God don't follow a man, don't follow a church, if you're going to follow somebody, follow Jesus! Follow Jesus! Look unto Jesus who is the author and the finisher of your fate, the devil is out to destroy every child of God that he can find! Can you shout 'Amen' somebody?''


Sir Lionel Luckhoo's Testimony on Jim Jones, 1983 (9:50 duration)

The full audio of Jim Jones attorney is available here in its full one hour+ length entirety (12 megabyte download), where you can find Sir Luckhoo discussing Jim Jones' unbelief in God and Communist views around the 24:50 of 1:08:57 time marker. Luckhoo describes Jones as, "Satanist" and that 85-90% of the people at Jonestown were murdered... he mentions Jim Jones communist ideologue, which is no longer a secret on the web.




Edward T. Babinski wrote: " I have yet to see evidence that Jones started out atheist. I think the lesson of Lenin below also demonstrates how right Machiavelli was in his little book, The Prince, and how useful it is for the ruler to appear religious and use religion to acheive his own selfish ends. I will say that religion is strongly honored in the U.S., and recent presidents have even met with billionaire religionist Reverend Moon, another cult-founding, mind-controlling, money grubbing religionist... That video looks like it opens a whole new can of worms concerning Jim Jones, and how U.S. approval of religion just for religion's sake can go too far, blinding people to charismatic religious leaders and their lies, whether they collection money and followers in the name of greed, or of communism. I think Jones also chose South America since leftist ideas were more common there...Also popular in Latin and South America are things like Liberation Theology, a CATHOLIC VERSION OF SOCIALISM and egalitarian thinking,..."

Sharon: Ed, you're right in regard to what you say about people blindly following a man or churches. As the one evangelist warned about Jim Jones, and it really _does_NOT_matter whether he was Christian or Communist (although its established he was communist) ).... Atheist fanaticism is not the answer to the world's problems, nor is blind faith -- as this preacher stated, (and I speak from experience of being raised in a cult myself), Such a gem of truth for Christians to learn, before its too late :

"...it was a mass-murder, because men and women were following a man, and I am going to let every one of you that are here under this tent, you that are listening to this radio broadcast, My God don't follow a man, don't follow a church, if you're going to follow somebody, follow Jesus! Follow Jesus! Look unto Jesus who is the author and the finisher of your fate, the devil is out to destroy every child of God that he can find! Can you shout 'Amen'somebody?''


**I recall growing up in the Worldwide Church of God (which was carefully followed and researched by Christian cult-tracking groups)... you know what's odd? I can tell you lots about Herbert W. Armstrong, but I can tell you really nothing substantial that he ever taught about Jesus.

Who is this person "Jesus" that these self-proclaimed "one true apostles" do their self-gratification in the name of? Like his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, caught in another garden variety sex scandal... very much like the homosexual evangelist Ted Haggard.

It is written, spoken from the mouth of Jesus himself, that in the end time, they (both male and female, God will pour his spirit out on them) will prophecy and they will be taught by God himself... not a man, and not a church!!! Praise God. The heck with "organized religion" and that all male pedophile priesthood responsible for murdering faith and driving the faithful away in disillusionment from God.

Fresh 30 Year Old Kool-Aid: Jim Jones And Barack Obama’s Evangelical Marxism"
"...November 18, 1978, after he killed 918 people, somehow or another he went from what he was known as especially in his home area of San Francisco, he moved in the eyes of Americans from an American leftist to an evangelical Christian fanatic. It was the Christian in him that did it. We’ve seen this happen over and over and over again, socialist dreams ending in ghoulish nightmares and then conveniently shifted. They shift everything into a commentary on organized religion and how evil organized religion is. It’s important for those who have eyes and those who have ears to hear and eyes to see that they see history beginning to repeat itself. Even the Nation magazine represented at the time, the Temple — Jim Jones’ Temple — was as much of a left wing political crusade as a church. Let me say that again. “The Temple was as much a left wing political crusade as a church.” I want you to see if you can put any of the people that you are currently seeing out in today’s political landscape into any of these characters from 1978. In the course of the 1970s the Jim Jones church social program grew steadily more disaffiliated from what Jim Jones came to regard as fascist America.
Jim Jones was against fascist America and their social programs drifted rapidly towards outspoken communist sympathies, so much that the last will and testament of the people’s temple, the people’s temple and its individual members left notes. They bequeathed millions of dollars in assets to… do you know? The people, 918 of them that were killed by that crazy religious Christian preacher, after they drank the Kool-Aid, who did they leave their millions to? The Soviet Union. As Jones expressed to a Soviet diplomat upon his visit to Jonestown months before the suicides took place, quote: For many years we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known that the United States government is not our mother but the Soviet Union was our spiritual mother land.
I’m trying to get my arms around the spirituality of the former Soviet Union. “Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister only to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary. He knew he could bring the message of socialist redemption to Christians. Quote: I decided how can I demonstrate my Marxism.
This is Jim Jones speaking. “The thought was infiltrate the church.”
Try to think back. Is there anybody that you have heard that is preaching Marxist philosophies in church? Is there anyone who is bringing the Marxist philosophies and doing it with anger and bitterness against the United States? Have you seen anyone like that on the horizon? Have you seen anyone who is influencing others, whoever those others may be? /EXCERPT


Far cry from the misconception that Jim Jones was a "fanatic religious leader," never once did the liberal (leftwing/marxist influenced) media try to correct that misconception that Jim Jones was in fact the opposite, a Communist fanatic... and they will go on saying Jim Jones was a "Christian" along with Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler and George Bush... diluting the truth, until nobody even recognizes what Christianity even means anymore.
I found the Luckhoo speech at the following source: 12 megabyte download
Like Hitler, setting himself as a "Messiah" ... like Lenin and Josef Stalin... murderous socialist messiahs.
The Testimony of Sir Lionel Luckhoo
"Since the thirtieth anniversary of the Jonestown massacre/suicide is coming up on Tuesday, it’s good to rerun a podcast from last year: the testimony of Sir Lionel Luckhoo, Jim Jones’ lawyer and one of the world’s most successful trial attorneys. Sir Lionel talks about his relationship with Jim Jones and how he ultimately came to find his Saviour and Lord."
"The testimony of Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the Guyanese lawyer and diplomat. He held the Guinness Book of World Records place for the largest number of successive murder acquittals (245). He accepted Christ as his Saviour in the midst of his defence of Jim Jones before the Jonestown massacre in 1978. He gave this testimony in August 1983 at a meeting of the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

There are Saints Among Us...

"My God don't follow a man, don't follow a church, if you're going to follow somebody, follow Jesus! Follow Jesus! Look unto Jesus who is the author and the finisher of your fate, the devil is out to destroy every child of God that he can find! Can you shout 'Amen' somebody?"

King James Bible
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
~ John 6:45

http://music.edwardtbabinski.us/jim_jones.mp3



Sinead O'Conner was made infamous for her iconoclastic assault on the Pope and Catholic coverup for the pedophile priesthood. But was Sinead guilty of "ripping God" or merely thier abominable relic worship, as Woolsey Teller notes in Atheism and Jesuit Duplicity on the swindle of Roman Catholic relic worship:

Speaking of Roman Catholic relics, Joseph McCabe remarks:
"There seems to have been enough milk of the Virgin -- some of it was still exhibited in Spanish churches in the nineteenth century -- preserved in Europe to feed a few calves. There was hair enough to make a mattress. There were sufficient pieces of 'the true cross' to make a boat. There were teeth of Christ enough to outfit a dentist (one monastery, at Charroux, had the complete set). There were so many sets of baby-linen of the infant Jesus, in Italy, France, and Spain, that one could have opened a shop with them. One of the great churches in Rome had Christ's manger-cradle. Seven churches had his authentic umbilical cord, and a number of churches had his.foreskin (removed at circumcision and kept as a souvenir by Mary). One church had the miraculous imprint of his little bottom on a stone on which he sat. . . . One church had Aaron's rod. Six churches had the six heads cut off John the Baptist.... Every one of these things was, remember, in its origin, a cynical, blasphemous swindle; and Rome was the great trading center. All the wriggling of all the G. K. Chestertons and all the Jesuits and Paulists in America will not obscure that. Each of those objects was at first launched upon the world with deliberate mendacity." (The Dark Ages, p. 55.)

When men put relics before the worship of God, what is God's view of such unholy relic worship? i.e., a snake on a pole, a piece of paper! --a picture of the pope -- as priority above the ripped anus-flesh of innocents defiled by Priests... such things are done in the name of God??! Unrighteous, wicked priesthood are guilty of driving people away from God, and a loss of faith.

The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole". The Israelites then began worshipping the snake on the pole, and thus God commanded the pole destroyed. (2 Kings 18:4). That's what God thinks of their Catholic relic worship.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me!
Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image!
Thou shalt not take The Name of The Lord in vain!

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
~ (Exodus 20:3-17 (also Deuteronomy 5:7-21)


Why have Catholics failed to know and obey, the first three cardinal commandments of God?

2 Kings 18:4 (King James Version)
He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Such men have proven themselves unworthy to either teach or discern any longer between good and evil.

Therefore,

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45, KJV)

Likewise, be advised...
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
~ Acts 2

Peace to Sinead O'Connor, she merely did the Lord's bidding.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Creationists Admit "Difficulties" in Regard to the Age of the Earth/Cosmos

"Now - let me add this. We're not going to have all the answers. There will be some things like the issue of light from the farthest star in a young universe... we don't have all the answers."
--Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis iTunes Podcast "Sermon: Six Days & The Eisegesis Problem", time into program: 1:09:12

"Ken Ham's answer is consistent with his response on this question from his 'Answers' book. The last question is this and he attempts to offer an explanation for it by saying that some YECs support an 'Appearance of Age' hypothesis but Ham agrees that hypothesis is unsatisfactory since that makes God looks deceptive. Ham concludes in his book with very similar language as his iPod broadcast that we really just don't know, and have to trust. This really was unconvincing to me as this was the first book I read when I was searching out this issue and this lack of response on this issue was instrumental in leading me away from YEC to the RTB position."
--John Walley [a Christian] on the ASA listserv

CREATIONISTS ADMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION POSES PROBLEMS

"Perhaps the most important remaining question [in astronomy] for [young- universe] creationists is the origin of the turnoff points in the H-R diagrams of different clusters. The stars are real physical objects and presumably follow physical laws; we would rather not take the easy way out by saying simply that `God made them that way.' But if creationists take the position of rejecting stellar evolution, they should provide a feasible alternative."
--PAUL STEIDL [young-universe creationist], The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 153 -- as quoted by Howard J. Van Till in The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 239


"...the theory of stellar structure appears to be founded on a good physical basis and...stellar evolution is intimately related to stellar structure...

"If creationists wish to scrap stellar evolution completely, then it is incumbent on us to rework stellar structure and/or physics in a convincing fashion...

"The standard observational tool used in studying stellar structure and evolution is the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram... It consists of a plot of stellar luminosity increasing upward and temperature increasing to the left...Most stars are found on a roughly diagonal band called the main sequence (MS)...

"This agreement is quite impressive and the physical assumptions that go into it are so well founded it is doubtful that many creationists would have much to argue with in main sequence (MS) stellar structure. However, what is generally called post MS evolution is not far removed from the brief outline of stellar structure given above.

"The most massive stars may pass through successive steps of fusing helium nuclei with increasingly more massive nuclei up to iron...Note that these transitions have not actually been observed. However, they are based on physics principles and will naturally occur...

"The upshot is that the most massive stars have MS lifetimes of only a few hundred thousand years (of course, still much longer than young-age creationists would allow), while the lowest mass stars have MS lifetimes approaching 100 billion years...

"And evolutionary assumption concludes that the stars in a star cluster should form from a single cloud so that the members represent...a homogenous group. Different clusters should have different ages, and though they technically have different compositions, even large differences in composition do not seriously affect the overall appearance of an H-R diagram...

"The agreement of the theory [of stellar evolution] is quite impressive...

"[The expected evolutionary] trend between globular and open clusters is observed...

"Evidence [exists] that the formation of planetary nebulae and the evolution of white dwarfs are related...These two ages have a very good correlation...

"A similar relationship holds for neutron stars and supernova remnants. As with planetary nebulae, the expansion velocity and observed size of the remnant can be used to estimate the time since the explosion...Where a pulsar can be identified in a supernova remnant, the ages of the remnant and the pulsar are well correlated.

"Very brief discussions of stellar structure and evolution have been presented. Though it would seem that creationists would not have much with which to quarrel in the former, most would largely dismiss the latter. However, the two are intimately related, and one cannot be rejected without seriously calling into question the other. We are appealing to readers to give much attention to the study of stellar evolution..."
--DANNY R. FAULKNER and DON B. DE YOUNG [young-universe creationists], "Toward a Creationist Astronomy," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 28, Dec. 1991, pp. 87-91

ADMISSIONS BY CREATIONISTS REGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR AN OLD EARTH

Young-earther creation-evangelist Duane T. Gish has refused to debate the age of the earth and has even admitted (much to his fellow creationists' chagrin) that the evidence for fossil succession is a challenge that his fellow young-earthers at ICR have not adequately met:

"When I visited the Institute for Creation Research towards the end of 1978... The associate director is Duane T. Gish, who has a PhD in biochemistry from Berkeley. ... Considering that I believe living things have a common origin and have evolved over a long period of time, and Duane Gish doesn't, there turned out to be a surprising amount of shared ground between us. ... Duane Gish and others of his standing are well aware of this problem [for their young-earth views, i.e., the problem of the age of the earth], but in the end they let their faith over-ride it. When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science the points in a debate which he felt least comfortable in answering - he answered after a moment's thought that it was the apparently great age of Earth as shown by the fairly recent advances in radiometric dating; and that the the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages - the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles, and so on up to the present." [from Hitching F., The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Pan: London, 1982, pp.115-121]

In 1938 Harold Clark (a disciple of the Flood geologist, George Macready Price, whose work also inspired Henry Morris for hypothesis "flood geology" as an explanation for the geological record) was invited by a student to visit the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas, where Mr. Clark saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave Clark a real shock that permanently erased any confidence he had left in Price's vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record. Clark wrote to Price:

"The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago." [Cited by Donald R. Prothero, A Review Essay of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers]

ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM

When dealing with stellar matters it's not simply a question of "apparent age," it's also a question of "apparent HISTORY IN THE MAKING." We see galaxies turning that never really turned, pulsars pulsing that never really pulsed, rings of matter expanding that never really exploded in the first place, stars changing in brightness and frequency but such events are not really taking place, they never took place, not ever. Stars exploding, but no such explosions ever took place. Our galaxy (one of over 50 billion such galaxies) contains about a hundred billion stars and is about 100,000 light-years in width. If you are a young-earth creationist that means all the light beyond 6,000 light years distance is "created light," which means that most of the light from stars in our galaxy is telling us about the changing histories of stars and other matter that is completely fabricated history, such history never took place, but we SEE IT TAKING PLACE as if it had. And that's just for our galaxy, beyond our galaxy lay over 50 billion more galaxies, all far far beyond 6,000 light years away. And all that we see is fabricated history taking place before our eyes.

So why even create the rest of the cosmos, maybe nothing really exists beyond 6,000 light years around the earth but a projection screen and God is showing a movie of things that don't exist and never really happened, but we just see it happening.

Think about it, the young-earth cosmos only presents us with true history from 6,000 light years away, and even THAT history, at the outskirts of 6,000 light years away, only just NOW kicked in. But the cosmos is BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS ACROSS, that's a heck of a lot of false history unfolding before our eyes of things that never ever happened, but we SEE IT HAPPENING, UNFOLDING, BECOMING, PASSING THOUGH STAGES, NONE OF WHICH EVER REALLY HAPPENED?

Supernova 1987A and a 6000 Year Old Universe

Numerous articles on a classic piece of astronomical observation that poses multiple insoluble problems for young-earth astronomy: SUPERNOVA 1987http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html
Scroll down the above web page for info on SN 1987A )http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm( Scroll down the above web page for infor on SN 1987A )
--------

YEC's admitting that SN 1987A poses a problem

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/200101/0168.html
( The above webpage consists of an email thread from a discussion group at the American Scientific Affiliation website, a major national organization consisting of Christian men and women who are professional scientists, most of whom are old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, with some young-earthers. It is older than Henry Morris' ICR and Morris actually quit the ASA to form the ICR after having some of his pet young-earth hypotheses questioned by scientists who were ASA members. )

See also this discussion of SN 1987a
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/marslist12.html

Ed (Edward T. Babinski, editor of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)

Creationist Admits "Problem" -- "The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity" by Todd Charles Wood

Creationists like Todd Wood of Bryan College have admitted that viewing humans and chimps as completely different "kinds" is a "problem" because humans and chimps are nearer to one another genetically than species that creationists view as a single "kind," like "cats" for instance. Wood's technical paper discusses a number of specific "problems" for creationism. Below are edited portions, along with portions of articles by others on the topic, and a suggested reading list.

"The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity" by Todd Charles Wood, creationist [Center for Origins Research, Bryan College, Dayton, TN, USA], 2006

"Abstract. Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome...

"If the entire chimpanzee genome had been sequenced, it would probably reveal 40-45 million nucleotides unique to each species. That difference... may sound profound, but remember that the majority of nucleotides are contained in simple repeats, either of satellites or transposable elements. Further, even a length variation of 90 million nucleotides constitutes only 3% of the entire genome."...

"When comparing the chimpanzee and human genomes, we find a near identity of gene sequences but important differences in transpositional features (including differences in chromosome number, chromosomal inversions, and transposable element content). As noted above, this implies that the important biological differences are not so much in the genes themselves but in how the genes are expressed, which may be related to the substantive differences between the genetic context that arise from transposable or repetitive elements. [See for instance the "60-second science" video, "What is Evo-Devo," in which Christopher Mims, an editor of Scientific American magazine, explains the role that differeing "gene expression" plays in evolution: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/02/what_is_evodevo.html ]

"The high degree of genetic similarity between apes and humans has been repeatedly confirmed since King and Wilson’s (1975) summary. Chromosomal banding patterns revealed a high degree of correspondence between human and chimpanzee chromosomes (Miller 1977, Yunis et al. 1980, Yunis and Prakash 1982). Major chromosomal differences detected were a putative fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 to form human chromosome 2, and pericentromeric inversions on human chromosomes 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, and 16 (Yunis and Prakash 1982)."... "Human chromosome 2 corresponds to two separate chromosomes in chimpanzee. These findings have subsequently been confirmed in studies using fluorescence in situ hybridization (Müller and Wienberg 2001).

"The evolutionary explanation for human chromosome 2 corresponding to two separate chromosomes in the great apes is that two chromosomes in a human ancestor fused at their ends (telomeres), with one of the centromeres becoming inactive. By examining the putative 'fusion' point, researchers have discovered an inverted array of telomeric repeats (TTAGGG)n (Ijdo et al. 1991) and other sequences found in subtelomeric chromosomal regions (Fan et al. 2002). Centromeric alpha satellite sequences have been detected on the long arm of chromosome 2, which seem to correspond to an inactive centromere (Alexandrov et al. 2001)."...

"...it is difficult to imagine a scenario other than chromosomal fusion to explain the inverted array of telomere and subtelomere repeats at the putative fusion site on chromosome 2 (Ijdo et al. 1991)."

"PREVIOUS CREATIONIST RESPONSES -- Since the Bible clearly teaches the special creation of human beings (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-22), what does the similarity of humans and chimpanzees mean for creationists? Creationists have responded to these studies in a variety of ways. A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument.

"Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed. Similarity is not random. Rather, it forms a detectable pattern with some groups of species more similar than others. As an example consider a 200,000 nucleotide region from human chromosome 1 (Figure 2). When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species differ by as little as 1-2%, but when compared to the mouse, the differences are much greater. Comparison to chicken reveals even greater differences. This is exactly the expected pattern of similarity that would result if humans and chimpanzees shared a recent common ancestor and mice and chickens were more distantly related. The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship.

"Evolutionary biologists also appeal to specific similarities that would be predicted by evolutionary descent. Max’s (1986) argument for shared errors in the human and chimpanzee genomes would be an example of a specific similarity expected if evolution were true. [Max's article was updated in 2003, including responses to creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ ]

"This argument could be significantly amplified from recent findings of genomic studies. For example, Gilad et al. (2003) surveyed 50 olfactory receptor genes in humans and apes. They found that the open reading frame of 33 of the human genes were interrupted by nonsense codons or deletions, rendering them pseudogenes. Sixteen of these human pseudogenes were also pseudogenes in chimpanzee, and they all shared the exact same substitution or deletion as the human sequence. Eleven of the human pseudogenes were shared by chimpanzee, gorilla, and human and had the exact same substitution or deletion. While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor.

"Creationists have addressed these more specific arguments in a variety of ways. Batten (1996) makes three arguments: (1) similarity is necessary to reveal a single Creator, since dissimilarity implies multiple creators (also in ReMine 1993, p. 23), (2) biochemical similarity is functionally necessary in order for humans (and other organisms) to obtain food (also in Wise 1992), (3) the anatomical similarity of humans and chimpanzees should imply a molecular similarity as well (also in Wise 1992; Rana 2001; Wieland 2002). The first two arguments are good reasons to create some degree of biological or biochemical similarity but they do not explain degrees of similarity. If there were no nonhuman primates, humans would still be recognizably mammalian and therefore revealed as part of the design of a single Creator, but humans would also stand out as special mammals not closely similar to any other particular group of mammals. The necessity for a common biochemistry for nutrient cycles does not explain why chimpanzees exist. They neither form a major source of dietary nutrients for most humans nor share a significant fraction of the diet of most humans. Further, common biochemistry would not explain shared pseudogenes. The third argument merely shifts the problem to the anatomical level. The question remains as to why God created an animal that is so similar to humans.

"More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005)... Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity.

"AN ALTERNATIVE CREATIONIST RESPONSE -- Having found most popular arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none, I will attempt instead to develop some principles that could guide research into this problem... As mentioned already, the common creationist response... is to appeal to a designer as the source of the similarity. Although this is undoubtedly true, it is trivial. The point Darwin makes is not that similarity alone indicates common ancestry but that the particular pattern or scheme of similarities across all organisms is the same pattern we would expect from common descent. As Darwin noted in the quote above, appealing to the will of the Creator does not explain the particular pattern of similarity that we observe, except in an ad hoc fashion. Creation biology needs an explanation of the pattern of similarities, not merely an ad hoc appeal to a common designer...

"...Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998b) concluded that all extant felids [cats] belong to the same baramin and presumably descended from a single pair of cats on the Ark, but Slattery and O’Brien (1998) found distances greater than 5% among felid Zfy genes and greater than 3% among felid Zfx genes. Certainly if felid sequences can vary by that amount, what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates their cobaraminic status? ["co-baramic" means "belonging to the same 'baramin' or 'kind'"] ... As with the genetic diversity of cats, what is to preclude application of this same argument to chimpanzees and humans with the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with an animal? To put this question another way, how can we maintain that felids share a common ancestor with their genomic differences, and deny that the smaller differences between humans and chimpanzees could not also arise from a common ancestor? The only way to do this is to favor other data in baraminology, and to deny the primacy of the genome in determining true phylogenetic or baraminic relationships.

"THE FUTURE OF CREATIONIST GENOMICS -- The genome revolution, exciting though it is, is not an obvious victory for creationism. Although more data allows for better testing of ideas, the data that we have present significant challenges to creationist theory, particularly in the realm of biological similarity... If we wish to be good stewards of our very limited resources, we should avoid projects that are unlikely to be productive (e.g. overemphasizing potentially insignificant differences or trivializing the striking similarities) and focus instead on one of the most pressing problems in biology, biological similarity."

~~~~~

EVIDENCE OF SIMILARITY THAT THE CREATIONIST ABOVE IS SPEAKING ABOUT

2003 -- New genetic evidence demonstrates that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently [i.e., so closely resemble one another] that chimps should be [reclassified] as Homo troglodytes [i.e., members of the same genus, which is eactly how other species are classified whose genomes resemble one another so closely]. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. 'We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes,' says the study... Within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity. (Some previous DNA work remains controversial. It concentrated on genetic sequences that are not parts of genes and are less functionally important, said Goodman.) ["Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says" John Pickrell in England for National Geographic News May 20, 2003]

2005 -- The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees was reported. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence [with perfect identity].

The typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 10 times LESS than between the mouse and rat. [And just think of how similar a mouse and a rat appear to be, such that some creationists probably are willing to guess that mice and rats arose from the same "kind" via "micro-evolution." Yet humans are 10 times nearer to chimps than rats are to mice, genetically speaking]

On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals.
These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.

The genomic analyses also showed that humans and chimps appear to have accumulated more potentially deleterious mutations in their genomes over the course of evolution than have mice, rats and other rodents. While such mutations can cause diseases that may erode a species' overall fitness, they may have also made primates more adaptable to rapid environmental changes and enabled them to achieve unique evolutionary adaptations, researchers said.

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species... Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set," said the study's lead author, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. ["New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level," The National Human Genome Research Institute, 2005]

~~~~~

The human genome is nearly 99% chimp, which also means that the chimp genome is nearly 99% human. And if you changed base pairs in each -- one base pair at a time --making both human and chimp draw even nearer to one another genetically, you would eventually reach a point where changing just a single base pair in the genome would make that human a chimp or make that chimp a human. Of course by that time the line between human and chimp would have grown very fuzzy indeed.

Ed (Edward T. Babinski, author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, paperback 2003, Prometheus Books)

~~~~~

GENETIC EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOON AFTER THE SPECIES THAT WERE TO BECOME "CHIMPANZEES" AND "HUMANS" DIVERGED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, THEY CONTINUED TO INTERBREED FOR A WHILE

December 10, 2006
Human-Chimp Hybrids
By STEPHEN MIHM

"On hearing of Darwin’s theories, the wife of the bishop of Worcester supposedly exclaimed: “Descended from apes? My dear, let us hope that it is not true.” Now the geneticist David Reich of the Broad Institute at Harvard and M.I.T. has advanced a theory that the bishop’s wife would have found even more disturbing: human and chimp ancestors, after diverging into separate species millions of years ago, came back together and interbred.

"Reich came up with the idea after comparing the genes of humans and chimps. When two species split from a common ancestor, their genes will continue to diverge, or mutate, at a regular clip over time. Reich and his team of researchers, after comparing some 20 million base pairs (the “rungs” of DNA) from humans and chimps, found that different genes began diverging at different times — with genes located on the X chromosome of humans and chimps parting ways most recently.

"Reich’s explanation is that the two populations interbred on repeated occasions over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, producing hybrids of protohumans and protochimps. The male hybrids were likely to be sterile, but Reich posits that the female hybrids (with their two X chromosomes) were able to mate with males of one of the original species. This would explain why genes on the X chromosome of humans and chimps diverged more recently.

"It’s a radical concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the development of separate species happens quickly, most often when populations become separated by a geographical barrier. Even if these groups meet again and manage to mate before diverging too far from one another, their offspring will be unfit and die out. Or so the thinking goes.

"By contrast, Reich argues that hybrids could play an important and positive role in speciation, introducing advantageous traits into a gene pool — including ours. If Reich is correct, the customary image of the human family tree, with its neat and discrete divisions, should be replaced by another metaphor: a dense and impenetrable thicket of branches concealing countless acts of interspecies sex. It’s enough to make a bishop’s wife blush."

~~~~~

NATURE magazine, 2006
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees
Nick Patterson1, Daniel J. Richter1, Sante Gnerre1, Eric S. Lander1,2 & David Reich1,3

"The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently."

~~~~~

READING LIST

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA (Published Dec. 2007)

Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes (Oxford U. Press, July 2007)

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (W.W. Norton, Sept. 2007)

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

~~~~~

AND ON THE FOSSIL FRONT... MORE CREATIONIST ADMISSIONS

"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976."
--MICHAEL J. OARD, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222

"The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date."
--MARVIN L. LUBENOW, author of Bones of Contention--A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70

~~~~~

Ape-Hominid Species In Relative Geological Order Along With Their Cranial Capacities

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Cranium size, 350 cubic centimeters

Australopithecus [= "Southern Ape" in Latin] afarensis
Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc.

Australopithecus africanus Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size)

Australopithecus aethiopicus
The brain size is 410 cc

Australopithecus robustus
The average brain size is about 530 cc.

Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
The brain size is about 530 cc.

Homo habilis
500-800 cc
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.

Homo georgicus
600-780 cc
This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 780 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)

Homo erectus
750-1225 cc
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton (from Africa) indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Archaic Homo sapiens (also Homo heidelbergensis)
1200 cc on average
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)
1450 cc on average
Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis
Ancient extinct dwarf human species
Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

Modern Homo sapiens sapiens
1350 cc on average
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994) HUMAN EVOLUTION DURING THE LAST 100,000 YEARS

Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. About 30,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic the face, jaw and teeth of humans were 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. About 10,000 years ago in the Mesolithic the face, jaw and teeth of humans were about 10% more robust than ours. Today the smallest tooth sizes of modern day homo sapiens are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983). Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes that are larger and more typical of archaic species of homo sapiens.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Billy Graham Now Believes People of All Religions (Or None) May Wind Up in Heaven, Admits He Can't Judge.


Transcript of Rev. Billy Graham's conversation with Rev. Schuller on "The Hour of Power" TV program:

Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

Billy Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven." [So Graham has apparently adopted the "anonymous Christian" view defended by liberal Catholic theologians like Hans Kung. I also suspect that Graham's view may have been influenced by seeing good friends die without becoming born again Evangelical Christians, including lifelong friend and fellow-evangelist-turned-agnostic, Charles Templeton, succumb to Alzheimer's.--E.T.B.]

Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy.

Graham: There is. There definitely is."

[SOURCE: The Hour of Power television program #1426, "Say 'Yes' To Possibility Thinking," aired May 32, 1997]

"When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people... Graham says:

'Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.'"

[SOURCE: Jon Meacham, Pilgrim’s Progress: In the Twilight, Billy Graham Shares What He’s Learned in Reflecting on Politics and Scripture, Old Age and Death, Mysteries and Moderation, Newsweek, Oct. 15, 2007]

Check out these videos concerning Billy Graham on YouTube:
This one provides the above "Hour of Power" video.

On Larry King Live

John MacArthur talking about Billy Graham's stance.

OTHER WAYS IN WHICH GRAHAM'S VIEWS HAVE MELLOWED OVER THE YEARS

Rev. Graham was caught on the “Nixon tapes” complaining to the president about “the Jews” and their “stranglehold” on the media, and blaming them for “all the pornography.” Even after the president replied that he agreed but “you can’t say that” in public, Graham pressed the point: Yes, right, but if you get elected to a second term, then we could do something about the problem. Graham added that while many Jews were friendly to him, “they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country.” [After the Nixon tapes came to light Graham said he had no memory of ever having said such a thing, but none the less he apologized profusely multiple times after hearing them for himself.]

[SOURCE: David Vest, The Rebel Angel, ‘They Don’t Know How I Really Feel’ Billy Graham, Tangled Up in Tape, March 5, 2002, Counterpunch]

In 1965, Billy Graham dismissed demonstrations for peace in Vietnam, saying, “It seems the only way to gain attention today is to organize a march and protest something.”

[SOURCE: Jon Meacham, Pilgrim’s Progress: In the Twilight, Billy Graham Shares What He’s Learned in Reflecting on Politics and Scripture, Old Age and Death, Mysteries and Moderation, Newsweek]

Rev. Graham was caught on the Nixon tapes giving a wholehearted thumbs up to the controversial plan by some of president Nixon’s military advisors to “bomb the damns” in North Vietnam which would have drowned many and starved a million or more North Vietnamese by draining the water used for their rice paddies. (The plan was never carried out.)

[SOURCE: Alexander Cockburn, The Lord’s Avenger: When Billy Graham Wanted to Kill One Million People, March 12, 2002, Counterpunch]