A new type of pre-pub - it isn't in print yet!

Page 9 of 9 (172 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9
This post has 171 Replies | 9 Followers

Posts 427
Wilson Hines | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 8:56 AM

Matthew C Jones:

David Ames:
why not have ALL views?

ALL the views that present themselves as economically viable to produce. The Gospel According To Peanuts should take lower priority than The Chronicles Of Narnia  imho.

David Ames:
But NOT endorse - just see that all views get shelf space. 

Agreed. I do not endorse all 31 flavors of ice cream at BR. But I would not enjoy going there if they only offered the top three I always seen to settle on.

David Ames:
One poster asked Should I entertain theological viewpoints in my Logos resources that I do not agree with?" I say YES!!! That is the only way we learn!

I think that poster is a really smart guy!  Big Smile

A concern was raised that the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary author for Genesis is a creationist. There are even many differing perspectives among creationist. I was surprised to learn a few new perspectives held by Hugh Ross in the Reasons To Believe Collection. I do not agree with all of Hugh's views as of this date but I find them very worthwhile and will not call him crazy or ignorant. Logos does not need to endorse everyone they publish nor ban everyone they disagree with

 

Concerning the part I have put in bold, italic, and underlined:  I am not trying to throw a grenade in here, and surely not in the other thread that was linked to citing the concern, but I am close to being offended (LOL) at the following statement in this train of thought: "I'm just concerned about the scholarship. if they invite a literalist to write on Genesis, what does that say about the rest of the series."  What is the author, Scott, trying to say about a literalist here?  I am a very conservative evangelical and I have seen extremely scholarly work on both sides of this debate.  I think he wants to define scholarly as being researched and concluded the way he believes; I conclude, probably too quickly, from his short statement that he feels like he is right and everybody else, especially a conservative, is wrong.  

And to help Scott out, while I am a very conservative, fundamentalist evangelical, I still hold my jury sequestered for the Creationist debate, even after reading probably 20 books of varying opinion on the different ideas over 20 years of time.  I do lean to a literal six day event, but quite frankly, neither spectrum bothers me.  

All of this being said, and forgive me if I've missed it, are there authors in the ECC which maintain a moderate to liberal (liberal= over used, hacked word that should be abolished) view on the topic which they are writing for the ECC?

 

Wilson Hines

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 6:19 PM

Wilson Hines:
I am not trying to throw a grenade in here

OK, I'll do it.....Devil     I have to echo MJ's earlier point:

MJ. Smith:
I am also horrified by the assumption that if you know someone's personal beliefs, you know what their writings will say.

Wilson Hines:
What is the author, Scott, trying to say about a literalist here?

I don't know.  I am not trying to prevent the authors of the EEC from writing whatever their scholarship leads them to write. (To suggest the muzzling of a scholar is not liberal, it is fascist, is it not?)       ~BOOM!~

Wilson Hines:
are there authors in the ECC which maintain a moderate to liberal
 

I think they are generally conservative compared to the authors of the Anchor Yale Bible. I already bought that one so I'm not too worried about getting my Logos library out of balance.                                               

         ..............maybe not "fascist",    just intolerant.....  Confused

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 54
(na) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 7:33 PM

So what if the guy's a creationist? I used to be an athiest, now I think the creationist arguments hold more merit than the evolutionist ones do. You can freethink/critique your way to creationism without fundamentalism... and I wouldn't hold that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God as a fundamental, but merely voice the fact that I'm convinced it is. Just saying!

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 8:46 PM

Thomas Yassine Bourega:
So what if the guy's a creationist?

I hope you are just replying to the thread in general and don't think I am against creationists. I very much like creationist, especially the first Creationist.

I look forward to reading the Genesis volume of the EEC with anticipation ( to be written by William Barrick and released around August 1, 2016)

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 54
(na) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 10:07 PM

Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world; between the fact that an arbitrary wavering on what's literal and what's not is logically incoherent, or the fact that a major factor in Christian persecution, past and present, is to have an "ignorant" belief in this creator God, which never fails to run against the consensus view.

/rant

Posts 32963
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 10:26 PM

It is so tempting to fall into an argument here. The reason that the guidelines ask us to refrain from this type of discussion is that "closed minded" "arbitrary wavering" "Logical incoherent" etc. are not terms of attempting to understand someone whose beliefs are well-formed but different from your own. Please don't lead me into temptation but rather, follow the guidelines.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 54
(na) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 19 2011 11:22 PM

So you straw-man me by saying i'm attacking when I'm not?

I was making a general statement about pick-and-choose what's literal/what's not. You need a consistent hermeneutic when approaching scripture - otherwise any attempt at systematic, logical understanding of the Bible is futile. You need logical coherence to build a world-view that isn't contradictory - there cannot be a contradiction in truth. That, by the way, is philosophy, not theology.

I understand evolutionary views perfectly, theistic and atheistic, as I have held them. My comments were from my own experience.

I was not insulting anybody, so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.

Posts 32963
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 20 2011 12:42 AM

Thomas Yassine Bourega:
so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.

My apologies - I was trying to question your language not your beliefs. And, of course, point out that the guidelines ask us not to discuss theology especially with language that can be seen as discourteous.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 20 2011 7:35 AM

Thomas Yassine Bourega:
Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world

Thank you for clarifying that.   I have never had a problem believing God created everything and even did it in 6 days. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He so chose. I believe in the Resurrection too. Big Smile  I also believe someone can be saved without understanding everything about God (-that would encompass all humans in my estimation) and even if they have a different take on the Creation account than I hold.,

But just because I believe something does not in and of itself make it true. People die every day for things they believe in; religions, political systems, economic ideas, and just plain membership in something. Some of those beliefs don't make logical sense. And just because many do not believe God's account does not make God untrue. Romans 3:2-4

Lastly, I will not wait on the rest of the world to come in to agreement with me on the reliability of God's account.  I won't fret or become angry.  I do often wonder how God could be trusted in things important to me like my eternal future if He lied about things in the past of little consequence to me like the Creation process.

I hope I did not stray too far into the theological minefield.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 54
(na) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 20 2011 8:25 AM

MJ. Smith:

Thomas Yassine Bourega:
so please don't stereotype me, as that constitutes an insult in itself.

My apologies - I was trying to question your language not your beliefs. And, of course, point out that the guidelines ask us not to discuss theology especially with language that can be seen as discourteous.

And I apologise too for using language that may have been perceived as inflammatory - It's a shame that such terms are thrown around so often as nothing but a gigantic claim/attack, that one has to be wary of their employment.

Matthew C Jones:

Thomas Yassine Bourega:
Wasn't against you, was indeed generally directed. I just think how ironic how even confessing christians can be so closed minded against a belief that God literally created the world

Thank you for clarifying that.   I have never had a problem believing God created everything and even did it in 6 days. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He so chose. I believe in the Resurrection too. Big Smile  I also believe someone can be saved without understanding everything about God (-that would encompass all humans in my estimation) and even if they have a different take on the Creation account than I hold.,

But just because I believe something does not in and of itself make it true. People die every day for things they believe in; religions, political systems, economic ideas, and just plain membership in something. Some of those beliefs don't make logical sense. And just because many do not believe God's account does not make God untrue. Romans 3:2-4

Lastly, I will not wait on the rest of the world to come in to agreement with me on the reliability of God's account.  I won't fret or become angry.  I do often wonder how God could be trusted in things important to me like my eternal future if He lied about things in the past of little consequence to me like the Creation process.

I hope I did not stray too far into the theological minefield.

Indeed, or he could have triggered a big bang and laid down a few physical base rules that led to life evolving from a floating body in space.  "Dodging the mines" here myself, and going into philosophy - Jesus Christ made the very big claim that he was "the truth". I don't think that one commits the logical fallacy of bifurcation when I say that he was either right or wrong. Therefore, if he was a constitution of "the truth", then, as mentioned before, a "truth" cannot hold a contradiction - and thus, if we are to believe him, then we owe it to ourselves to make sure our own faith and logical foundations were built on the "rock" rather than the "sand". After all, I don't think very few people wilfully hold a worldview that they believe is completely wrong! Indeed, many who hold a faith position may not be stand up to scrutiny when their views come under criticism and attack; and yet to judge one person as representative as an entire body of beliefs is to commit a hasty generalization. People still do this, so I guess that this is a major reason why Paul implores the audiences in his letters to be a good "witness". After all, if someone can't account for their beliefs, why should I accept them for myself? I'm going to shut up now, I could rabbit ten thousand words on this. lol.

Posts 509
Greg | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 7 2011 2:13 AM

While researching a book that William D. Barrick had contributed to, I came across a very thorough review of it. Barricks contribution was also reviewed, and I thought I would post it here since he's been mentioned a bit in this discussion.

The book is called "Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth."

Full Review

One more example deserves mention because it was by far the worst chapter of the volume, which is surprising considering the author is a professor of Old Testament at a well-known seminary. William D. Barrick's handling of Scripture in "Noah's Flood and Its Geological Implications" was the worst in the entire volume and actually meets or exceeds any offenses Hugh Ross commits in his works. (This is ironic considering Ross frequently stands in as a punching bag in Coming to Grips with Genesis due to his handling of Scripture at various points. At least Ross has the excuse of being an astrophysicist trying his hand at scriptural interpretation rather than an Old Testament seminary professor training future pastors how to handle Scripture.)

Barrick starts off by ranting about "so-called `scientific' studies," (p. 252) and indicating that true geologic theories and stratigraphic records should be "derived from the collective impact of the entire [Flood] narrative." (p. 254) He then launches into an assessment of the Flood narrative without any reference to the arguments of people who oppose a global Flood. Rather, he most frequently argues against the arguments of other YEC global Flood theories. He also spends pages (in his footnotes) arguing in great "scientific" detail for his specific understanding of plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and massive subterranean bodies of water. He does all of this insisting it is clearly taught in Scripture based upon a phrase like, "the fountains of the great deep burst open." (p. 261)

After concluding his interpretation of the Flood narrative, Barrick then breaks down the various stages of the Flood with the geologic impact each would have. For example, he concludes that Scripture clearly teaches (based entirely upon the statement in Genesis 8:3 that the Flood waters were "receding" or "going and returning") that the Flood was in a constant ebb and flow that would have completely wiped out and transformed all land masses, including mountain ranges, from the antediluvian landscape. He describes the "scouring and depositional effects" caused by "wave motion of grand proportions... crashing over and against [even the highest mountains], carving them and forming them into a totally new landscape from that which existed prior to the Flood." (p. 272) Again, Barrick asserts all of this is clearly taught by the phrase in Genesis 8:3 which mentions that the Flood waters were "receding" or "going and returning". Interestingly he also claims that the types of terrestrial fossils that were formed during this "scouring and depositional" period of the Flood "include (1) burial while still alive; (2) burial of dead carcasses; and (3) tracks or footprints." (p. 279) One who does not readily accept Barrick's rather freehanded treatment of Scripture would be prompted to ask how he arrives at such an extended interpretation given his starting point in Scripture. Furthermore, is should be asked how the bodies of animals, much less the footprints or tracks they left, would remain intact and be fossilized through a process that Barrick claims was powerful enough to completely scour, reshape, and transform entire mountain ranges and continents.

To make matters worse, Barrick ends by posing a whole series of difficult questions that arise from his very free interpretation of the Flood narrative, but he makes no effort to answer any of them. Instead, Barrick ridiculously concludes his chapter by indicating that there should be no expectations that his interpretation of the Flood narrative will match up with the evidence of the geologic record. Still yet, all differing theories or models (including other YEC ones) regarding the Flood should be revised to align with his model because he has properly interpreted the true meaning of the Flood narrative. Furthermore, someone with geological training needs to find some evidence to support his interpretation because it will then be the only biblically and scientifically correct geologic model.

It is disheartening that a theologically trained evangelical believer, particularly a seminary professor of Old Testament, can stretch and twist Scripture to the extent that Barrick does. Ultimately this chapter ends in utter failure, not due to any actual exegetical merits or difficulties with the global Flood or the Genesis narrative itself, but because Barrick takes such liberties with Scripture that his exegesis is completely called into question. Additionally, he ends the chapter with a number of difficult questions and contradictory ideas he fails to answer, thus defeating or at least calling into serious doubt his own interpretation of the Genesis Flood. This sort of scholarship and hermeneutic does not help inspire confidence in the YEC position as the editors originally intended, though they seem not to notice, as they allowed this chapter to remain.

Posts 10826
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 7 2011 2:59 AM

Greg Masone:
While researching a book that William D. Barrick had contributed to, I came across a very thorough review of it. Barricks contribution was also reviewed, and I thought I would post it here since he's been mentioned a bit in this discussion.

It would be interesting to know the reviewer's qualifications. The Amazon profile told me nothing more than he is from Alaska.

Page 9 of 9 (172 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 | RSS