A Few Comments- 41

21 Dec

#1. Mark Did Not End Early

He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary is never named in Mark’s gospel at all–and Jesus his called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on the complexities of the family of Jesus here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!…

And there the gospel simply ends!

Tabor has Mark ending at verse 8 in Chapter 16 but my Bible has it going further to verse 20, verses which do record further appearances of Jesus and further instructions to his followers. While Tabor mentions this fact he also calls those passages a forgery. He claims that editors added those few verses because they felt the gospel ended too early. Well if that were so why didn’t they add more chapters instead of only a few more verses? Adding a few verses doesn’t really make the book more comparable to John, Matthew or even Luke. It is still a short gospel.

But that is a minor observation as Tabor fails to provide actual roof that verses 9-20 of chapter 16 were edited in. He says

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark.

The evidence is not clear because why is it that those words were ‘added in’? Why couldn’t they have been edited out? Tabor and other scholars always make Christians and biblical authors out to be dishonest, deceitful and worse than unbelievers while making the unbeliever out to be holier than God.Those ancient mss. may not be as reliable as Tabor thinks.

It is highly possible, and more likely to be probable, that those mss. suffered from editing by unbelievers who did not want to hear those words or had some other agenda in mind. But the scholarly world doe snot like to think that they and their fellow unbelievers are so sinful.

(on a side note and a topic for another time, I do not accept that Mark was the earliest gospel)

#2.More On Wheaton

If this is all we knew of Paul—if  he had posted this on Facebook with no other context—I wonder how we might react.

I do not like the ‘if’ or ‘what if’ questions because they deal with unreality, something that never took place and avoids dealing with what actually happened. We know more of Paul because we have the Bible recording most of what he wrote so we do not need to ask ‘if’, we know. Paul spoke against false teachers

Ultimately, the disease spread by the heretics would result in a kind of spiritual mental illness. Paul makes the same connection in verse 5 between corrupt behavior and rejection of God that he did in Romans 1. There, rejection of the knowledge of God is seen to spawn a corrupt life (Rom 1:28-32). Here, the corrupt mind and being robbed of the truth amount to the same thing. The heretics could no longer apprehend God’s truth because their mind, that organ of rational discernment, had been corrupted by false teaching (2 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:15).

This is the direction Hawkins is traveling in. She needs to be properly disciplined and brought back to the truth through repentance and forgiveness or she needs to be expelled from the Christian community until she sees the error of her ways and also repents. We do not support her move towards false teaching nor call it good academics or Christian thinking.

But that then raises the question of where an evangelical institution’s first loyalties lie.

Is it to maintain an evangelical identity first and foremost, or does it have a more pressing responsibility to speak the gospel sympathetically and creatively (as Paul is doing) into the world around us?

Enns really loses it here as this is not a rocket science question to answer. Our loyalties lie with God and we speak the truth with clarity not confusion. We do not speak the or represent the gospel sympathetically or creatively, there is no biblical teaching to do so. We are to speak the truth with love and love does not endorse or accept contrary teachings nor is it sympathetic to false teachings.

Then many in the modern world think that creativity is criteria to presenting the good news. This is why we are subject to so many different preachers and organizations who adopt more and more secular forms or methods in their worship and other christian activities. Sadly they do not realize that copying the secular world is not a Christian trait or command of God. Creativity can cause confusion which God is not the author but then many people claiming to be Christian forget about God, like Hawkins, and strive to do ‘Christian’ work their own way and following their own ideas.

#3. More On Wheaton 2

Volf appears to be bent on slandering Wheaton College and making stuff up about Wheaton’s leaders since he provides no evidence that this disciplinary action is not about Dr. Hawkins’ theological beliefs but rather “anti-Muslim bigotry.” I expect more from a Christian theologian!

If you want to read a very good blog on this issue, this is it.

#4. Misrepresenting Creationists

Young life creationists, or baraminologists as they prefer to be called, have experienced a paradigm shift over the past three decades. Initially, creationists made a point of identifying every possible characteristic of an organism as the result of special, unique creation. This, however, has changed; they are now increasingly embracing a model of common ancestry and accelerated Darwinism as they seek to explain the vast diversity of life on Earth.

This period of hyper-evolution is hypothesized to have occurred between the time that pairs (or sevens) of animals departed Noah’s ark some 4350 years ago and a singular short-lived Ice Age just a few hundreds years after that global flood event.   During that time at least 95% (probably 99% or more) of all species of mammals and birds that have lived are proposed to have evolved from just a few common ancestors preserved on the Ark.

Those of us who hold to the Bible and side with God know that there was no hyper-evolutionistic process’ that took place. We know that God’s genetic design was in effect and acted according to how it was designed. We also know how genetics work, that diversity depends upon genetic ‘decisions’ not evolution. I do not have the reference at hand right now, but we are told that when the seed of a man connects with the egg of a woman, the combination has billion of options at its disposal. This is why we get albino Africans.

Diversity comes from God’s forethought not some imaginary non-possessing anything process. It is not hard to see God at work  producing diversity when we look at the truth instead of inventing some false alternative to ‘explain’ everything.

#5. Why Expect?

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) tend to view evidences like these as proof of the Flood. That is, given a catastrophic global flood, one would expect that different life forms, all killed together by the flooding of the whole Earth, would be mixed together. Thus, a dinosaur in the middle of what should be sea creatures is alleged to provide evidence for the YEC Flood hypothesis.However, Everhart’s scenario does seem to be more plausible than a young earth account for several reasons.

Expecting something is placing our own predetermined ideas on a biblical event and while the evolutionist condemns the christian for supposedly doing this they are guilty most of all. The evolutionist does not have any idea of what evidence for a global flood would look like nor do they have any idea of what evidence they would want to see to prove the flood. I know, because I asked them on a Christian website this very question and they all tapped danced around and refused to give any answer to the question.

The evolutionist also forgets that the animals were fleeing the rising waters so it is highly possible that they sought shelter in areas that did not allow for their bones to be scattered by the flood waters. Also they forget that we already do have bones mixed with humans and other animals, they are found in caves and fissures ( see the Noah’s Flood Evidence) but the evolutionist ignores this evidence and refuses to talk about it.

The evidence is there but the unbeliever is deceived thus they will not accept it and look for alternative explanations in order to continue in their unbelief.


3 responses to “A Few Comments- 41

  1. J.W. Wartick

    December 22, 2015 at 3:17 am

    As the author of the post on “Age of Rocks” about Oceans of Kansas and dinosaurs, I would like to correct a few misunderstandings. First, I am a devout Christian, and am neither an evolutionist nor an “unbeliever.” Perhaps the author of this post should have taken the time to read about my own beliefs before “placing [his] own predetermined ideas” about who I might be in this post.

    Second, if the YEC is alleging that the Noahic Deluge can account for the fossil record and geologic record, then they are making predictions about what that fossil record should like like. Given that YECs like Andrew Snelling argue that the fossil record is mixed–exactly the expectation I stated YECs should have about the fossil record–my argument was not based on a predetermined idea, but rather on the very arguments that the YEC interlocutor makes. Unfortunately, these arguments do not take into account the full range of evidence.

    Third, supposing a YEC wants to deny that we should have any expectations for the fossil record, they could get around the argument in part by saying that their view has no such predictions. But in that case, their position is one which cannot be tested or confirmed by science, nor can it critique the views of geologists or biologists.

    Therefore, based on the second and third points, this post fails to refute my original post. Based on the first point, I doubt I’ll get a fair reading here, but I wanted to leave a comment in case anyone wanted to see a response.

    • theologyarchaeology

      December 22, 2015 at 6:39 am

      I do not see where you are mentioned at all or where my comments were directly about you. As you can see by the post I was talking about the word ‘expecting’ and dealt with that not your article.

      if I wanted to go through your article, I would not have limited my comments to one quote and one or two paragraphs. You should learn to clarify before leaping to conclusions..

      if you think evolution is the answer to the fossil and geological record then I would also suggest you rethink your spiritual status and claims. Since evolution in any form has never existed it cannot explain those areas under study.

      If one is stating that the Flood caused the fossils or helped alter the geological formation of the planet, there is no prediction there. It is a statement of fact not a product of pseudo-science. If you are a Christian as you claim, then you would be aware that predictions have no part in determining truth. Predictions are a secular scientific criteria not a biblical one.

      The only thing the fossil record really does, for the most part, is provide evidence that certain creatures lived at one point in time. Sometimes it can give indications of the diet of that articular animal or what disease it suffered but at no time can generalizations or extrapolations be made to any other living thing.

      Actually your response fails for it does not first take the time to ask the right questions to clarify any point made and keep you away from misunderstanding. Assumption is never, even in science, a good thing.

  2. theologyarchaeology

    December 22, 2015 at 6:45 am

    We will be gone for a week or so thus if you comment and it does not appear it is only because we have not seen it yet.

%d bloggers like this: