Jonathan Sarfati recently released a commentary on Genesis 1-11. It's titled The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11.
Would like to see this resource on Logos.
[Y][Y][Y]
Jonathan Sarfati recently released a commentary on Genesis 1-11. It's titled The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11. Would like to see this resource on Logos.
I have a couple of this author's older works; I'd certainly purchase any of his stuff made available in Logos. For those that don't know of him, he's an Aussie with a PhD in physical chemistry.
Jonathan Sarfati recently released a commentary on Genesis 1-11. It's titled The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11. Would like to see this resource on Logos. I have a couple of this author's older works; I'd certainly purchase any of his stuff made available in Logos. For those that don't know of him, he's an Aussie with a PhD in physical chemistry.
Physical chemistry? That's an odd combination for a "technical" work on Genesis.
A technical work on Genesis would be something like the Word Biblical Commentary or Anchor Yale Bible Commentary.
Where do you see this being described as a technical work, George?
Physical chemistry? That's an odd combination for a "technical" work on Genesis. A technical work on Genesis would be something like the Word Biblical Commentary or Anchor Yale Bible Commentary. Where do you see this being described as a technical work, George?
Excuse me, it didn't say "technical"; I simply assumed that from your description.
The Bible isn't intended to be a science book by any stretch of the imagination. It simply isn't a Biblical concern. Adding science to the Bible is idolatry, pure and simple. It results in astoundingly bad theology.
Fwiw, I love science.
The Bible isn't intended to be a science book by any stretch of the imagination. It simply isn't a Biblical concern. Adding science to the Bible is idolatry, pure and simple. It results in astoundingly bad theology. Fwiw, I love science.
David, what is wrong with this picture? I AGREE WITH YOU !!!
David (and George),
Two things,
1. Your comments aren't really relevant here. What it boils down to is that you don't agree with Sarfati's approach. So what? Whether or not one agrees with Sarfati's approach it can still be useful to have Sarfati's work in Logos. Logos has plenty of resources that I'm sure you disagree with: the Quran, etc. Logos also has a lot of commentaries from various creationist perspectives. Surely you don't agree with all of those perspectives (I don't), but they are still valuable resources that I've purchased. Jonatan Sarfati is a major contender for a certain reading of the early chapters of Genesis. YEC will probably be relying on this resource for some of their arguments. Thus, it will be helpful for both YEC and non-YEC to be familiar with this resource.
2. Besides not being very relevant, your comments are misguided. I agree with you that the Bible isn't intended to be a science book. But the fact that the Bible isn't intended to be a science book doesn't logically entail that the Bible doesn't contain information relevant to science. Other disciplines take this approach all the time. For instance, J. P. Moreland recently wrote a philosophy book on the soul. In that book J. P. Moreland also consults the Bible. Why? Is the Bible intended to be a philosophy book? No, of course not. But it would be naive to think that just because the Bible wasn't intended to be a philosophy book that, therefore, it contains no data relevant to philosophy. As Moreland put it: "I acknowledge that the New Testament does not attempt to develop a philosophical anthropology as its primary focus. It does not follow from this, however, that New Testament data do not provide sufficient evidence to rule out certain anthropological models such as physicalism, and to justify others, such as some form of substance dualism." (The Soul, p. 55). Is Moreland guilty of idolatry? That's ridiculous.
Logos has plenty of resources that I'm sure you disagree with: the Quran, etc. Logos also has a lot of commentaries from various creationist perspectives.
Allahu Akbar ! [;)] [:D]
Speaking of which, it would be nice if they could add another quality Quran translation. Yusuf Ali is recognized as not being a very good translation. [:)]
The Bible isn't intended to be a science book
Two responses...
1. Your comments aren't really relevant here.
Actually, they are constitutionally relevant, as the reasons you give in attempting to prove otherwise actually prove. If, as you say, the Quran has a place in the Logos universe, and by extension the universe of discussion that proceeds from it, then my comments must also be relevant.
I think what you are trying to get across in what you are saying is that my comments are "beside the point". Maybe...but I'm not in any way suggesting that this book or any others shouldn't be offered in Logos. I'm just making a statement (call it an opinion, if you like) that I think has profound importance for anyone who handles the two subjects of science and Biblical religion, considerations which tend to be widely overlooked or ignored. Call my comments caveat emptor, if you will.
2. Besides not being very relevant, your comments are misguided.
Well, that's a mouthful, considering you are having to cram a trainload of assumptions into your tiny statement. I'm fully aware and in agreement that science and the Bible can "inform" the other (or to be more precise, inform our comprehension of the two), but that is a far cry from drawing the conclusion that science and the Bible have to AGREE on all matters. I realize that the nearly universal assumption of human minds is that because both science and the Bible have a single source, they must necessarily follow the same "rules of engagement". But that assumption not only doesn't necessarily follow, it is in error, and it ought to be obvious given YHWH's ability to bend, distort, or even break the rules of science at will in what the Bible portrays as miracles. Taking this a step further, there is prophetic reason to concede that YHWH may deliberately have constructed two sets of rules, one for the natural creation, and one for the encapsulated literary universe of Scripture. The whole point of this would be to test which set of rules we consider to be our operational field manual. In what do we live and move and have our being? Creation or the Creator? It gives a whole new meaning to the notion of being in the world but not of it.
So I suggest that "misguided" isn't apropos, but rather that I may be guided by matters of which you are unaware.
Again, all I intended to do was provide a caveat to those who might be interested in this book, offering a point worth consideration. This response is more involved than I intended or wanted to get into.
Doc, ever heard of "the fallacy fallacy"?
Here's to occasional agreement!! [B]
We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion; Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us-if at all-not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men.
The Bible isn't intended to be a science book We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion; Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us-if at all-not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men.
Summertime in England
This was the first Van Morrison album I ever bought back in high school (Common One). "It ain't why, it ain't why, it ain't why...it just is" was one of my main memes back then (it still has the same shine!), before memes became a meme. [:)]
This was the first Van Morrison album I ever bought back in high school (Common One). "It ain't why, it ain't why, it ain't why...it just is" was one of my main memes back then (it still has the same shine!), before memes became a meme.
This precedes Van Morrison. It's T. S. Eliot's The Hollow Men. To me it epitomizes scientism without God. Though one cannot prove God (or disprove Him), one can show the results of such belief.
This is the way the world ends;This is the way the world ends;This is the way the world ends—Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Sad.
This precedes Van Morrison. It's T. S. Eliot's The Hollow Men.
Oh, yes...I know. The poem just brought this song to mind. Morrison mentions Eliot a couple of times in this song. At the place near the middle of the song where he riffs on Eliot's name and says "T.S. Eliot published Joyce, published Joyce, published Joyce" on the album he says "T.S. Eliot joined the ministry, joined the ministry, joined the ministry." Brings back lots of memories of cruising the lakefront on the northshore of Lake Pontchartrain in my '74 Lincoln Cougar listening to music.
Brings back lots of memories of cruising the lakefront on the northshore of Lake Pontchartrain in my '74 Lincoln Cougar listening to music.
With whom? [;)]
First, I would appreciate it if people didn't flood this thread with off-topic remarks. It's best to keep the thread dedicated to hearing from those who would also like to see the resources in Logos (or those who think the resource should not be in Logos). That way those associated with Logos can get an idea of how much demand there is for this resource.
Second, I will go ahead and respond to David’s remarks:
Actually, they are constitutionally relevant
What exactly does this mean? Dumb your language down for me, please.
as the reasons you give in attempting to prove otherwise actually prove. If, as you say, the Quran has a place in the Logos universe, and by extension the universe of discussion that proceeds from it, then my comments must also be relevant.
Since I don’t know what you mean by “constitutionally relevant” I don’t see how I’ve proven your comments are constitutionally relevant. But from your second sentence here it appears that you’re trying to say that in the same way that the Quran is a resource relevant to some Logos users and, by extension, discussions about the Quran are relevant to to some Logos users that, therefore, your comments must be relevant to this thread.
Sorry, but that just looks like a non-sequitur (it doesn’t logically follow). There are lots of discussions that are relevant to users of Logos that are not relevant to this thread. For instance, your comments
Maybe...but I'm not in any way suggesting that this book or any others shouldn't be offered in Logos.
That’s what this thread is about: those who would like to see the resource in Logos. Also relevant would be those who think this resource should not be in Logos, and why. It’s not a discussion about your particular view on science and theology integration. In fact since no one in this thread claimed that the Bible is a science book and the resource I suggested (as far as I know) never claims that the Bible is a science book it’s really quite baffling why you’re even here? It’s all well and good that you love science, think treating the Bible as a science book is idolatry etc. Those are all interesting pieces of autobiography. But if this is an issue you want to discuss wouldn’t it just be easier to open a thread in the “General” category?
I'm just making a statement (call it an opinion, if you like) that I think has profound importance for anyone who handles the two subjects of science and Biblical religion, considerations which tend to be widely overlooked or ignored.
Okay, great… I’m just not sure why you felt the need to attach your statement to this thread rather than to some other thread or in your own thread.
that is a far cry from drawing the conclusion that science and the Bible have to AGREE on all matters.
Again, I’m not sure why you’re going down this trail. Did anyone in this thread say that the Bible and science have to agree on all matters? That is most likely an assumption this book makes, but if you want to debate the content of the book it would be better to start a thread on the book and citing the book specifically. This thread isn’t about how all the content in this book is correct. It’s a suggestion that the book be added to Logos. The rest of your paragraph here has no more relevance than the previous sentence.
You can call this mysterious guidance whatever you wish, I just wish you would take it to a separate thread where it wouldn’t drag this one into a debate on the relationship between theology and science.
Yes, boss. [:P]
And while you're at it David, try following the forum rules: no theological debates. This was a mundane discussion about a suggested resource till you jumped on the bad theology bandwagon.
Try looking up at the very top. If you are in the "Suggestions" forum, try to stick with the topic and stay off people's theology.
