Much To Talk ABout- 38

Just a wrap up of the different posts completed overnight. This time none come from the Christian Post

#1. Jesus Fragment Update—  there is no main link as this post will provide the many links to different articles on the latest news about that fragment. There is no special order to these links and this is placed here for those who want to read what the scholars have to say.

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/breaking-news-another-jesus-wife-fragment-has-been-found/

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/christian-askelands-response-to-the-jesus-wife-fragment-claim/

http://peterkirby.com/50-blogs-abuzz-for-jesus-wife.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/04/jesus-wife-is-really-old.html

#2. Inerrancy Under Attack Againhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/scripture-is-like-a-cracked-jar-the-glory-of-an-imperfect-bible-michael-hardin-part-4/

The cross is the ultimate place of God’s brokenness. It is in this brokenness that we see most clearly the affection of God for humanity, an affection or love that takes even misjudgment, torture, humiliation and shame and still announces forgiveness.

God’s brokenness? God didn’t break nor doe she need to, he is the Holy, sinless, infallible, incorruptible God. Why would he need to break?  He already knew when he gave the Mosaic law that he would send Jesus to die for all people’s sins so there was no brokenness by God at the cross.

hen people believe alternatives to scripture they come up with all sorts of ideas on how to demote God from his holiness and try to make him less than human. But after 4 parts we finally come to the point of Peter Enns’ guest author. It is found in the following  quote

For me, Scripture is liked a cracked jar, it is because it is cracked that light is able to shine forth. If in our brokenness God shines God’s light in and through us, can we not also assert the same of the prophets and the apostles? Can we not say that we are most like God, not when we are whole, but when we are broken? Does not the Fourth Gospel (John) suggest as much in its view of the relationship between ‘glory’ (doxa) and the cross?

In other words, we do not need to have a theory of Scripture where the Bible must be perfect in order for God to reveal God’s self.

In other words, that author doesn’t believe God and doesn’t want the Bible to be inerrant for he would not be allowed to import his false ideas into scripture. people who follow after alternatives need an errant Bible for that is the only way their alternatives will work.

The Bible is not errant, it was not cobbled together in the 5th or 6th centuries BC nor did the Gospel writers use a hypothetical and mythical book Q to write their works and on it goes. The Bible is the inerrant truth and the inspired work of God.

God uses humans to do his will, that is the way he chooses to act for the most part. To say that the Bible is the result of human hands is to say that Billy Graham and other evangelists preached their own message of salvation.

A human was used by God but that doesn’t make the message human or errant. The same with the Bible. God used humans to pen his words but that doesn’t make the Bible an errant work filled with human ideas and earthly stories.

#3. The Flat Earth Society http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/10/the-principle-geocentrism-is-what-real-biblical-literalism-looks-like.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

But Sungenis’s eccentric project has something important to teach us. Geocentrism 101, like the Young Earth Creationism of Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Al Mohler and so many other evangelicals, is based on the assumption of biblical literalism—except that Sungenis is prepared to go all the way in his commitment to the scientific inerrancy of the Bible. Ham, Mohler and other creationists have found clever ways to escape the geocentric and even flat-earth implications of their biblical literalism. If Ham were truly a biblical literalist he would be endorsing The Principle. Instead we can anticipate him explaining over the next few months why the geocentric verses in the Bible fall outside his commitment to literalism

Let’s set the record straight. Any idea for the sun orbiting the earth and any theory about the earth being flat DID NOT originate with Christians or the OT Hebrew people. If one obtains a copy of Thomas Heath’s book Aristarchus of Samos they would see that those theories originated from ANCIENT SECULAR Greek scientists!

I guess I am a little peeved that journalists keep putting the blame on believers and refuse to acknowledge the truth but then what do you expect from unbelieving writers? What the early religious people and some modern believers are guilty of is accepting secular scientific thought not forcing a literal reading of the Bible upon the world.

A literal reading of the Bible would not make the earth flat or have the sun orbit it. The Bible teaches neither thus that journalist and others need to be mocking their own kind and stop falsely accusing early Christians of teaching something is literal when it is not.

Then that and other journalists need to stop lumping all the people who claim to be a Christian into one category and saying everyone is a Christian even though the majority of them do not follow Christ but pursue alternative teachings.

I would bet 10-1 that we could dig into that journalist’s past and dig up something outrageous his ancestors believed and then accuse him of believing and promoting the same weird belief. I doubt he would like that so he really shouldn’t do it to believers.

We cannot change long dead  people’s minds nor can he change what his ancestors believe so he really should look for the truth with wisdom, understanding and run with the conclusions those attributes lead him to and not with the easy false and unrealistic accusations he is using today.

#4. New Technology Helps Archaeologists http://news.yahoo.com/drone-images-reveal-buried-ancient-village-mexico-201118585.html

Thermal images captured by an small drone allowed archaeologists to peer under the surface of the New Mexican desert floor, revealing never-before-seen structures in an ancient Native American settlement.

Called Blue J, this 1,000-year-old village was first identified by archaeologists in the 1970s. It sits about 43 miles (70 kilometers) south of the famed Chaco Canyon site in northwestern New Mexico and contains nearly 60 ancestral Puebloan houses around what was once a large spring.

It is an interesting read and this technology will help in only outlining and discovery of sites but it won’t replace the old-fashioned back-breaking digging to get to the information held beneath the sand.

This is the thing about a lot of new technology. It doesn’t replace old-fashioned methods. It just makes searching (the easy part) easier. This limitation is not restricted to archaeology or other research sciences. It goes for education and other areas of life as well.

Nothing beats the old-fashioned methods. In fact, in my own teaching, the most technology I use is Powerpoint. My handouts are on paper and I still use the blackboard but other than that I do not use new technology for education.

I find that technology gets in the way, is too time consuming to set up and it can break. I know of many teachers who can’t teach a lesson when the power goes out or their technology breaks down and that is a waste. When you rely upon technology you set yourself up for problems.

Technology can be useful but it is not the ultimate answer. Case in point–spellcheck. When I first started this blog I relied heavily upon the two spellcheck programs I have. One comes with the Firefox program and the other with WordPress.

Soon I discovered that BOTH programs made great errors in their analysis of what was written. They would underline correctly spelt terms, try to change correct words to faulty ones and ignore real mistakes.

They do catch some mistakes but now I question those highlights. They just make too many errors for my tastes. After writing the last thing I want to do is proofread the spellchecks. That is their job.

So if you still find mistakes in these posts you can blame technology and my weariness. I try to catch as many as I can but some mistakes still get through.