Religion and science

[riverbabe]

IMHO, this is a good read

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/

Wish Karel wasn't on vacation and was here to comment.

River

[Karel]

I would prefer that you do not associate me with any denomination. Suffice it to say I am familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings, and I happen to think they've got an awful lot of stuff right.

Sure, just asking. But what is the rub? And they have of course an awful lot of things wrong too, especially in Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

I would prefer that you do not associate me with any denomination. Suffice it to say I am familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings, and I happen to think they've got an awful lot of stuff right.

[Karel]

I did not say that Jesus died in 29 C.E. but rather that the Messiah appeared in that year.

[snip by Karel]

It's interesting that Daniel 9:25 said prophetically "that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks," i.e. 69 weeks.

The evidence shows that "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" occured in 455 B.C.E. in the twentieth regnal year of Persian King Artaxerxes I. (See Nehemiah 2.) There is (not surprisingly) disagreement among historians as to the year of Artaxerxes' reign, but I believe there is sound reason to place the year of the accession at 475 B.C.E. (This date can be calculted in relation to the death of Themistocles. Also, a Babylonian business document in the form of a clay tablet was found at Borsippa that links Darius II's first year with Artaxerxes 51st accession year.)

Obviously nothing significant regarding the Messiah's appearance took place 483 (7 x 69) days after Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem's walls, so something else must have been meant. It turns out there is a scriptural, prophetic precedent wherein a day represents a year, such as in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. If we apply this formula to the prophecy in Daniel regarding the 69 weeks, we get 455 B.C.E. + 483 years = 29 C.E. because (-455 + 483 = 28 and you must add one more to account for the fact that there is no year zero.) This could explain why in the year 29 C.E. "the people were in expectation," as Luke states at Luke 3:15.

That is interesting. However, it also rang a bell. A quick check on the reign of Artaxerxes I showed remarkable unanimity among modern scholars. I found one dissenting voice: the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, as I already thought I remembered.

The obvious criticism against the WBTS interpretation is that it relies heavily on conflicting reports from a very disturbed time in Greek history to discredit the existing King lists of Persia. Which seems to be a strange way to go about it. The Persian archives are more likely to throw light on the (in that time) confused Greek chronology than the other way around.

I then noted that your translation of Dan 9:25 is from the New World Translation of the WBTS. BTW, I have no opinion on the difference between this unique translation and all other translations I could check. Then I looked up its version of Gen 2:19, and I found "your" translation "was forming" for the wayyiqtol wayyitser. (And I do have an opinion on that translation.)

I also remembered your christology (The Son as subordinate to the Father), which is also a WBTS point of view, and your day-age creationism, which is also shared by the WBTS.

Which raises the question in how far you are guided by the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you a witness yourself, or do you just use their publications for your education?

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

... except with help from God's spirit. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 says (with emphasis added):

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

I think many people mistakenly put too much faith in man's knowledge and abilities, to the exclusion of putting faith in God. That is not to say science and learning are useless, but only that putting too much faith in human wisdom can shipwreck one's faith. I believe that is what Paul warned Timothy about when he wrote: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding [. . .] oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."--1 Tim. 6:20, 21.

And what when we don't agree? How does having the mind of Christ help us then?

Regards,

Karel

[jiesen]

101010 may be construed as 666... ponder THAT as science and religion!!!!!!

Uh oh, let's be careful now! Cosmo's gonna be spinning in his mom's basement with that one.

[peanuts]

101010 may be construed as 666... ponder THAT as science and religion!!!!!!

Interesting thread ya'll 11111111

[Rob]

You come close to presuming to know the mind of Jesus. Most Biblical scholars do their very best to interpret his words and deeds to the best of their ability. We cannot know more.

... except with help from God's spirit. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 says (with emphasis added):

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

I think many people mistakenly put too much faith in man's knowledge and abilities, to the exclusion of putting faith in God. That is not to say science and learning are useless, but only that putting too much faith in human wisdom can shipwreck one's faith. I believe that is what Paul warned Timothy about when he wrote: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding [. . .] oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."--1 Tim. 6:20, 21.

[Rob]

I am not very versed in prophetical calculations, but I can't get the death of the Messiah later than 17 BC. How do you reach 29 AD (and how do you know that is the year Jesus died)?

I did not say that Jesus died in 29 C.E. but rather that the Messiah appeared in that year.

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [. . .] the word of God came unto John ['the Baptist'] the son of Zacharias in the wilderness."--Luke 3:1, 2.

Secular history confirms that Tiberius became Emperor in the latter half of 14 C.E., about a month after the death of Augustus. The fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign, therefore, ran from about mid September 28 C.E. to mid September 29 C.E.

We learn from Luke 1:24-31 that Jesus first cousin, John the Baptist, was about six months older than Jesus was. John was Jesus' forerunner, sent ahead of him to "prepare the way." (See Matt. 3:3 and Isaiah 40:3.) From this and other scriptures we know that John's ministry preceded that of Jesus, presumably by about six months, which places the event of Jesus baptism by John in the fall of 29 C.E. Incidentally, Jesus being "about thirty years of age" at this time (Luke 3:21-23) would indicate the likely year of his birth as 2 B.C.E. (because there is no zero year).

Jesus became the Christ when he was anointed with God's holy spirit at his baptism (the Greek "Christos" and Hebrew "Mashiah" both meaning "anointed one").

It's interesting that Daniel 9:25 said prophetically "that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks," i.e. 69 weeks.

The evidence shows that "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" occured in 455 B.C.E. in the twentieth regnal year of Persian King Artaxerxes I. (See Nehemiah 2.) There is (not surprisingly) disagreement among historians as to the year of Artaxerxes' reign, but I believe there is sound reason to place the year of the accession at 475 B.C.E. (This date can be calculted in relation to the death of Themistocles. Also, a Babylonian business document in the form of a clay tablet was found at Borsippa that links Darius II's first year with Artaxerxes 51st accession year.)

Obviously nothing significant regarding the Messiah's appearance took place 483 (7 x 69) days after Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem's walls, so something else must have been meant. It turns out there is a scriptural, prophetic precedent wherein a day represents a year, such as in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. If we apply this formula to the prophecy in Daniel regarding the 69 weeks, we get 455 B.C.E. + 483 years = 29 C.E. because (-455 + 483 = 28 and you must add one more to account for the fact that there is no year zero.) This could explain why in the year 29 C.E. "the people were in expectation," as Luke states at Luke 3:15.

[riverbabe]

Park, Karel & Rob,

Powerful stuff here! Am very much enjoying and learning from this thread. Am impressed by the level of intellectualism on all fronts. Riverbabe

[Karel]

Hi Park,

I appreciate your contributions, especially the last about creation science, but I am wary of copyright infringements. I think it may be acceptable to copy a part of the article leading up to a main point, but then we need a link. Copying the complete article just isn't allowed. (I know it is being done.) I cleaned up your last two posts, but couldn't find the source for the first one. I hope you don't mind.

I did read the first post without snickering. I think it is a tragedy, a personal one for Ted Haggard (and family and close associates), but also for his Church. We can only hope the conclusion about Ted Haggard's sexuality is correct, because another lie would be too much, but it is too close to what everyone concerned dearly wishes for comfort.

Some people will see things like this as proof of a basic hypocrisy in movements like Ted Haggard's, and there might well be something in that. But we should always be prepared to judge people, movements and ideas by the best they have to offer (while criticizing their faults, of course). In that light your Grand Canyon post looks the more important to me, as it tries to point out a basic flaw in creationism. It wants to make the Bible say something it can not possibly have been meant to say, if only because it is so utterly unimportant to its message. Or, to cite the conclusion of the article you quoted:

No, religion shouldn't be picking this particular fight with mainstream science. Can't the Bible literalists concede matters of empirical evidence and rational inquiry to science and devote themselves to the questions of ultimate meaning — the mighty questions that rightly occupy religion? Their religion doesn't need any scientific proof. Why should their own faith?

Regards,

Karel

Grand Canyon creationism (USA Today)

From USA Today
By Tom Krattenmaker, Mon Feb 5, 6:43 AM ET

Chiseled a mile deep and 10 miles wide through limestone and sandstone, the Grand Canyon cuts an awesome divide into the earth for 277 miles. But it may be nothing compared with the chasm that separates the two camps in the public shouting match going on over the primacy of SCIENCE or RELIGION.

How appropriate, then, that the Grand Canyon - its age, to be precise - has become a big issue in the ongoing argument about creationism and the role it will play in our understanding of the world.

Frustrated by the National Park Service's insistence that the visitors center continue to sell a book with a creationist account of the canyon's formation, a public employees group is accusing the service of invalidating science and promoting fundamentalist religion.

It's not as though the two sides are splitting hairs: Most scientists estimate the canyon's age at about 6 million years. Young-Earth creationists, who believe in the literal account of the world's creation laid out in the Bible's book of Genesis, contend it's closer to 4,500 years.

The protesting group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an alliance of scientists, land managers, environmental advocates and others, calls it distressing that the park service is not sticking to pure, mainstream geology in the information it dispenses at the Grand Canyon.

The stakes seem even higher to some on the creationist side. If their rhetoric is any indication, nothing short of the existence of God hinges on their "proving" that the canyon was not the result of gradual geologic processes, but of Noah's flood. -- Read more --

Was science used to determine that Haggard is fully heterosexual?

Please try to read the following article without snickering.

A perhaps uniquely American phenomenon is how its brand of Protestantism became an entrepreneurial activity. These nondenominational preachers, with a well-developed theology already at hand as the result of hundreds of years of cafeteria Christianity (pick a little of this, a little of that, etc.), can develop a large congregation (and the donations that come with it) simply by being a good actor/monologist (emote, emote, emote) on television, and with zero impediments from an established ecclesiastical hierarchy.

For the man on the street, throughout all of human history, religion is mostly a matter of telling him what he wants to hear. There are different flavors to this basic formula, but that's about it. And if you can make a really good living doing just that, why not?

//
Tue Feb 6, 9:53 AM ET

DENVER - One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

Ralph said the board spoke with people close to Haggard while investigating his claim that his only extramarital sexual contact happened with Mike Jones. The board found no evidence to the contrary.

"If we're going to be proved wrong, somebody else is going to come forward, and that usually happens really quickly," he said. "We're into this thing over 90 days and it hasn't happened."

Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals last year after allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced. He was also forced out from the 14,000 New Life Church that he founded years ago in his basement after Jones alleged Haggard paid him for sex and sometimes used methamphetamine when they were together. Haggard, who is married, has publicly admitted to "sexual immorality."

Haggard said in an e-mail Sunday, his first communication in three months to church members, that he and his wife, Gayle, plan to pursue master's degrees in psychology. The e-mail said the family hasn't decided where to move but that they were considering Missouri and Iowa.

Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town and the Haggards agreed.

"This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed."

It was also the oversight board that strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work.
//

The New York Times
November 19, 2006
Minister’s Own Rules Sealed His Fate
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 15 — The four ministers who assembled here two weeks ago to decide the fate of the Rev. Ted Haggard were facing a painful choice.

A male prostitute had accused Mr. Haggard, one of the nation’s most prominent evangelical ministers, of engaging in a three-year affair with him and of using drugs. Then, in a private emergency meeting, Mr. Haggard promptly confessed to the ministers — his handpicked board of overseers — that he had engaged in sexual immorality.

Now, the question was, what punishment did Mr. Haggard deserve? The board had two options: discipline him or dismiss him as senior pastor of New Life Church. Could he take a leave of absence, repent, receive spiritual counseling and return to ministry?

The answer became clear the next morning, the overseers said, when Mr. Haggard gave an interview to a television news crew as he pulled out of his driveway with his wife and three children in the car. He denied having sex with the male prostitute, and said he had bought methamphetamine but never used it. The overseers said they watched Mr. Haggard, affable as ever, smile grimly into the television camera and lie.

“We saw this other side of Ted that Friday morning,” said the Rev. Michael Ware, one of the overseers. “It helped us to know whether this would be a discipline or a dismissal.”

The Rev. Mark Cowart, another overseer, agreed. “It was a defining moment.” -- Read more --

[Karel]

Well since you seem determined to believe that Moses contradicted himself greatly inside the space of a few sentences, even though I've provided sufficient evidence to the contrary (which you will no doubt deny), I suppose you are going to go your way and I mine, just as I suspect would be the outcome on just about anything wherein we disagree.

If you want to agree to disagree, at least you could try not to misrepresent my position. You find it in this post

With regard to Josephus, I'd say his being in the 1st century C.E. puts him much closer to the event in question than modern critics.

Closer yes. But it is not unreasonable to assume that we now know much more about the time of Alexander than Josephus did.

Higher critics of the Bible scoffed at and denied the existence of the Assyrian King Sargon also (Isaiah chap. 20), until archaeologists unearthed his palace. They denied Pontius Pilate existed until they found an ancient inscription identifying him. The book of Daniel correctly identified Belshazzar as Nabonidus' coregent in that he could only offer Daniel the third place in the Kingdom (Dan. 5:7). Critics claimed no evidence of Belshazzar existed outside the Bible until 1854 and later, when cuneiform tablets came to light that proved them wrong. In that respect, Daniel in fact gives us a clearer understanding of that period in Babylonian history than we could get from just Berossus, Xenophon and Heroditus. This stands to reason considering he was there and was an eyewitness to the events.

All this is of course irrelevant for the dating of the prophecy.

The book of Daniel (in chapter 9) also correctly pinpointed the year 29 C.E. as the year when the Messiah would appear, which is pretty remarkable considering the fact that even its detractors admit to its writing being no later than the 2nd century B.C.E.

I am not very versed in prophetical calculations, but I can't get the death of the Messiah later than 17 BC. How do you reach 29 AD (and how do you know that is the year Jesus died)?

The prophet Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and refers to him in his prophecy as well. (See Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3.) The Maccabean history also refers to Daniel's prophecy.

No, they don't. They refer to Daniël as a just man, and Ezekiël 28 as someone who knows mysteries. It is not clear that this goes beyond the scope of Dan 1-6.

The greatest testimony of all, however, is the fact that Jesus Christ at Matt. 24:15 quoted Daniel's prophecy. If I am to believe the book is not authentic, then I must also believe that Jesus Christ was duped by the clever fraud. And even after Jesus was raised to sit at God's right hand, he must have still labored under the misconception that Daniel's prophecy was was real, because the beasts described in the revelation he gave through an angel to the apostle John remarkably parallel those desribed in Daniel's prophecy. As a matter of fact, I guess Almighty God himself must have been fooled, because Revelation 1:1 says that Jesus got the revelation from God.

This kind of talk goes nowhere. You come close to presuming to know the mind of Jesus. Most Biblical scholars do their very best to interpret his words and deeds to the best of their ability. We cannot know more.

If I have to choose between Jesus Christ and the critics of the Bible, I think I'll take my chances with Jesus Christ, thank you very much.

For putting up false alternatives? Not really. The "critics of the Bible" are better equipped to discern the meaning of the Bible than Biblical inerrantists, for they don't feel the need to disavow reams of Biblical research out of hand.

Regards,

Karel