Dave,
Why does it matter if a biblical scholar is a liberal, if the subject of focus is-what type of cosmology does the bible teach? Shouldn't the focus be on their arguement and not whether or not they believe? Which, in most cases that I've seen with liberal arguements, the only thing being denied is the miraculous or the uniqueness of the bible or something along similiar lines of thought. Unless you have someone with -a clear- agenda, such as homosexuals denying the biblical mandate against such practices. But then, we all have our own agendas (right or wrong), don't we?
I suppose you've seen what I wrote on the subject?
Have you also seen what Ed Babinski wrote on the topic here, and here?
Hi Richard,
A liberal can do good research, sure. There are many good scholars of all stripes of belief. You have to look at each individual. But it is common sense to realize that a strong bias against the Bible and supernaturalism and an axe to grind against "conservative" Christians will affect one's work.
I'm not saying ignore people's arguments because of their affiliations (of course not), but to be wary, exercise one's critical faculties, and understand that a liberal Christian scholar does not represent the traditional, orthodox beliefs of Christians. It's sort of a "truth in advertising" situation.
I've always admitted that everyone has a bias; no problem there. But if you are looking for a Bible scholar, it makes eminent sense to me that a person who loves the Bible will -- all things being equal -- approach it with more fairness than one whose goal is to tear it and Christianity down. Chances are, then, that such a person will do more solid research and argue more cogently and consistently.
Hi John,
Welcome to my blog.
No, I haven't seen those things. As I said, I probably don't have time to do a huge debate on this subject; I was willing to do a bit on a limited number of passages. It may be that I have some time to pursue this to some degree. It's tough to say at the momenet. I'm working very hard to generate some additional income. Mainly I was simply curious as to Matthew's reasoning on the flat earth business.
I debated Ed concerning exegesis of the Bible once and was not impressed at all. It was the typical agnostic butchering of the Bible and inability to understand elementary exegetical and hermeneutical principles. He tried to enlist a biblical scholar whom he thought was a sensible, reasonable guy, and the person agreed with me and lambasted Ed for grossly misrepresenting both the Bible and C.S. Lewis's views. See:
Reply to "The Problem of Pain and the Egomania of the Psalms"
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...d-
egomania.html
Second Reply to Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Supposed Irrationality and Immorality of the Psalms and the Christian Worldview
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...d-
babinski.html
How and Why Discussions With Agnostics and Atheists Often (Sadly) Collapse / The Many Logical Fallacies of Ed Babinski and Friends
(Was [and occasionally still touches upon]: Discussion on the Psalms)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ381.HTM
Round III With Ed Babinski On Profound Christian Ignorance, and Every Subject Under the Sun Except the Topic (The Psalms)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...n-
profound.html
Postscript to Dialogue With Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Psalms, Etc.: Ed's Attempt to Enlist an Ancient Near East Scholar in Support Backfires (Dr. James Roger Black)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ156.HTM
Y'all (as a general rule, with notable exceptions) customarily
(cont.)
. . . imply that Christians are gullible idiots in how we interpret the Bible and accept its teachings. So it isn't improper for us to respond that agnostic/atheist "exegesis" has its own glaring shortcomings. I chalk it up simply to bias and false premises, not malice or deliberate dishonesty.
That said, in all likelihood I'll take a peek at those and even make some response, time-permitting. I'm not one to run from any debate (if I know enough to engage in it). Right now, its strictly a matter of available time.
Matthew made a two-part general response, agreeing with a lot of my statements concerning bias on both sides:
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...804084494577320
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...804342490747221
Dave,
I looked again at your links posted regarding biblical cosmology. Despite two of them that go to Robert Turkel's website, there is one that refers to an article written by Chuck Missler. You do know that Mr. Missler recieved his "Ph.D." from the unaccredited Lousiana Baptist University along with "Dr" Carl Baugh and "Dr" Jason Gastrich, right?
I.M.O. "Louisiana Baptist University" is just another diploma mill and anyone who boasts a 'doctorate' from there is simply has no credibility with me whatsoever. As much as I despise and have disdain for Turkel, to his credit, he doesn't boast some fake degree from some unaccredited diploma mill.
My point, Dave, is that folks like Missler have no credibility, whereas people like Robert Price and Stephen Meyer, whose work I refer to, do have legitimate degrees from accredited universities. I seriously ask that you reconsider some of these individuals who you are linking to. If someone does a background check on guys like Missler and Gastrich, they might dismiss you as another crank for linking to these phonies.
With much respect,
Matthew Green
Obviously, I didn't do a full background check (being pressed for time as of late). I said I didn't necessarily agree with everything anyway. I was simply compiling a list of interesting sources: agree or disagree. The Wikipedia article I cited actually agreed with you guys in about half of its material.
In any event, their arguments have to be considered on ther own merits, real degree or no, just as theological liberals' arguments should be considered. If you want to dismiss someone on this basis, then I could easily do the same with your liberal scholars that you may wish to utilize.
Isn't it better to simply stick to the issues? I didn't need any theological degree at all to make mincemeat of Ed Babinski's conclusions regarding the use of "last days." I have a BA in sociology (and he has a BS in science, I believe). But I've studied the Bible intensely for almost 30 years, and know how to properly interpret it. He doesn't.
As for fake degrees, I noted that myself with regard to "Dr." James White. But note that I also refuted his arguments, when he tried to take me on directly. I didn't simply say that he has a fake degree, so to Hades with him, and no discussion!
Now, I don't dialogue with anti-Catholics because I think it is an utter waste of time, but not on the grounds that he has a fake degree.
So, anyway, I will try to look at your source and the ones your friend cited, time-permitting. I was able to reply to Ed Babinski tonight (WAY late), because relatively few Bible passages were involved. The more there are, the more time it takes.
I found this by Galileo which may be of some interest.
The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, the since we have the unshakeable authority of Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives a certainty regarding the stability of the earth, situated in the centre, and the motion of the sun around the earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by the most solid arguments deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence . . . D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I'm writing enclosed letter to Rev. Father Fulgenzio, from whom I have heard no news lately. I entrust it to your Excellency to kindly make sure he receives it.
Le Opera Di Galileo Galilei, Nuova Ristampa Della Edizione Nazionale, Sotto L'Alto Patronato Del Presidente Della Repubblica Italiana, Giuseppe Saragt, directore: Antonio Favaro, Vol XVIII, Firenze, G. Barbera - Editore, 1968, p. 316
Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have recently published Galileo was wrong which presents the biblical, church and scientific reasons for a geocentric universe. I think it presents a compelling case.
thanks
JM
Dave,
My original article addressing some statements in some Psalms--which inspired you to compose replies--should be read before all else. It is HERE.
A description of how we met, and my comments concerning yourself (including compliments I have given you) can be read HERE.
My final comments concerning our debate on the pslams, which are the most essential reading after the origial article itself, can be read HERE.
Cheers,
Ed
Dear Dave,
My two most comprehensive online articles that address the question of the flat earth assumptions of the Biblical authors are the following:
Evolving Interpretations of the Bible's "Cosmological Teachings"--OR--Does the Bible "Teach Science?"
Varieties of Scientific Creationism
I also received the following kudos from scholars concerning the contents of my manuscript, "Does the Bible Teach Scientific Creationism?"
Gonzaga University
May 7, 1985
Dear Mr. Babinski:
I have read over your ms carefully. I am, of course, in complete agreement with your position on Creation and science. As a Biblical scholar I consider the creationism of Henry Morris and others as wrong; far from being scientific it is a camouflage for the religious tenets of a politically active group of Biblical fundamentalists.
Frederick L. Moriarty, S.J.--Visiting Professor in Biblical Studies
(author of Introduction to the Old Testament)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gustavus Adolphus College
May 30, 1984
Dear Ed, Thanks for sending your manuscript on creation myths. I have read it with keen interest and found it profitable. Lots of research, well marshaled.
Best wishes,
Dr. Conrad Hyers--Former Bob Jones University student who continued his religious studies and became Chair of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College (now retired), author of The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Word, 1984). Also author of the online article: "Genesis Knows Nothing of Scientific Creationism: Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Biblical Texts"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
University of Denver / Center for Judaic Studies
November 21 1984
Dear Mr. Babinski,
Enclosed is the manuscript you had sent me that I have now read with great pleasure and benefit. As you mentioned, your approach is somewhat similar to what I had undertaken and, I think, that you have done a very nice job... I congratulate you on a thorough and nicely done job.
Sincerely,
Dr. Frederick E. Greenspahn--Judaic studies professor and ordained rabbi, he has said that the purpose of the Bible’s creation narratives is “to interpret the meaning of the universe rather than to make a scientific statement as to its origin or history.” Also author of the online article, “Biblical Views of Creation”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concord College
Dear Mr. Babinski:
Thanks for sending me your book manuscript, Does the Bible Teach Scientific Creationism? I have read it and am delighted because it seems to do the kind of thing that I have been saying for years needs to be done by someone: detailed critiques of creationist Biblical scholarship that parallel the detailed critiques of creationist scientific scholarship that have been produced by the scientific community. Biblical cosmology, as you describe it, is summarized in a diagram in Th
the insurance shop the insurance shop the insurance shop // current football odds current football odds current football odds
Commenting by HaloScan
