Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Verb bara’: To Create or to Separate?

I have found a very interesting post on Dr. Claude Mariottini's website pointing to Dr. Ellen Van Wolde's (her picture is on the right) contention that Genesis 1:1 was incorrectly translated. Here is how Genesis 1:1 is rendered in English

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here is how Wolde thinks it should be changed:

"in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Her reason for changing it is that she disagrees with the traditional understanding of the word "bara". According to a newspaper article, James White pointed to on his blog, she argues that:

.... the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."

She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.

She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb.

"God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?"

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

"There was already water," she said.

"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."

See problem? If this article is correct she is practicing eisogesis and reading foreign cultures and ideas into the text that was never meant to be there. Genesis 1:1 refers to the beginning of time and the universe but no details are given. Verse 2 tells us what happens on the earth. Saying that the Bible is actually saying the same thing as the other Mesopotamian creation stories ignores the fact that the rest of Bible clearly refutes the idea of other deities.

This is what the LORD says:
       "The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush, ^[b]
       and those tall Sabeans—
       they will come over to you
       and will be yours;
       they will trudge behind you,
       coming over to you in chains.
       They will bow down before you
       and plead with you, saying,
       'Surely God is with you, and there is no other;
       there is no other god.' " - Isaiah 45:14

Some people do not see this as a problem, but I do. Everything follows from Genesis 1:1. If you can accept Genesis 1:1 then everything else in the Bible is possible. and necessarily follows. Wolde's thesis brings up lots of questions. If God did not make the earth, how did it get here? Was it always here? We know that it wasn't always here from current findings in Physics - and that left to itself it will end. Also if you were going to argue that the Genesis account was borrowed from other ancient sources that seem similar like the Sumerian version, why would Moses' version not seem more Egyptian? I would think that Egypt would have had a far greater influence than the Sumerians on Hebrew thought and culture had Moses just been making something up. However, we don't see that.

There is so much pressure in academia to produce something new, that I think Wolde has fallen into that trap. Many heresies start out this way: saying God did not say something that He really did say. This is the trick Eve fell for in the Garden of Evil. We must obey and trust in the word of God. We can show that "bara" really mesans what Jews and Christians  have believed for thousands of years. Could God created everything in the heavens (the universe)  and not created the earth? If he only arranged the matter on the earth, what about the rest of the universe? Sorry, her thesis doesn't make since.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Verb bara’: To Create or to Separate?
Dr James  White - Stunningly Silly

Richard Dawkins - Coward

It's interesting to me that no one who can stand-up to Richard Dawkins on his own terms is being allowed to debate him in the public square? Why?  Is it because he has no peers who disagree with him? No. It's because he refuses to debate them. Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics and Mariano at Atheism is Dead have written great articles with great background information on the fact that Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Dr. Stephen Meyer on the grounds that he doesn't debate creationists. I can't stand that. His attitude seems to be that anyone who believes that God created everything could not possibly  understand science as well as he does. I wanted to add to what Mariano and Chad have published.

Mariano concentrated on how Meyer would be a great foil to Dawkins and gives proof by talking about Meyer's most recent book on the design of the cell. Chad provided a transcript of Dawkins appearance on Michael Medved's show where he basically says that neither Intelligent Design or Creationism have enough respectability for him to debate. That floored me. He has made a career denying their ideas, yet refuses to interact with them directly. I think it's because he knows he can't win.

My addition to this is that although I disagree with much of what Bill O'Reilly thinks but one saving grace is that he disagrees with Richard Dawkins! Here is video I found on video.






O'Reilly has bad theology but at least he stands up to Dawkins.

Will Richard Dawkins Debate Stephen Meyer?
Richard Dawkins turns down Dr. Stephen Meyer's debate Challenge

How To Prove The Immaculate Conception Without Biblical Proof

Here is the link to an article by James Swan. It is about the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived and therefore did not have original sin. He does a great job presenting the Roman Catholic arguments and then refutes it.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3531

Shared via AddThis

Recent Text Critical Innovations

Image via Wikipedia

Alan Kurschner has posted an article running down new software tools to make evaluating New Testament Greek texts more easily than ever before. Here is what he wrote:

Everyday we are introduced to new applications of technology in many scholarly fields. But I cannot become blasé about the recent technological innovations in text critical studies. The most well-known innovation is the Codex Sinaiticus project. Just last year one had to travel to four different libraries around the world just to view different parts of the manuscript. Now you can not only view it from the comfort of your home—for free!—but you can utilize its search and transcription features.

Then there is The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Daniel Wallace is the Executive Director, and their primary mission is to make "digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts so that such images can be preserved, duplicated without deterioration, and accessed by scholars doing textual research."

Another is the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room. Its web-based search and collation features are unprecedented. Previous generations of text critical scholars were limited to libraries that only carried big, expensive text-critical books—in other words, before the real textual critical analysis could even begin, there were the logistics of accessing the material to work with. Not that every text-critical datum is at our finger tips right now, but we are witnessing the vanguard to this goal.

The latest innovation is by Daniel Wallace, which is a Textual Critical Chart Time Saver. I can envision this program becoming a very sophisticated tool in the near future when they add more textual data such as dates, character, and more manuscripts. A program that converts textual data into chart format is amazing, since we all take the time to do it now either in our head or on paper when working on a particular variant.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3545

Shared via AddThis

Father Alberto's wife talks about their scandal

 I wrote about this story before.  A famous Catholic priest was caught a few months ago on a date, kissing his girlfriend in public. The truth is the media is reporting that Father Alberto Cutié broke his vow of celibacy but I have never heard him say that. What is news to me now is that he has married this woman and he is now serving in the Episcopal church. This article I have linked has excerpts from an interview with the woman, named Ruhama Canellis. I agree that forbidding priests to marry is unbiblical and not right. However the Anglican church is accepting homosexuality which is also unbiblical. She said in the article that people should read their Bibles, but you can't just point a finger at the Catholic church and accuse them of heresy while practicing it yourself. I wish the couple only the best, but all Christians should follow the Bible and not cherry-pick what they will and will not follow.

Father Alberto's wife talks about their scandal

Shared via AddThis

An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10 "...who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Alan Kurschner has written a great article on 1 Timothy 4:10.  It is often used as a proof text for Arminians who believe that Jesus died for every single human being  and a person is lost only by the exercise of their free will in rejecting Jesus. Calvinists believe that Jesus died only for those people who have been chosen to belong to God.  The scripture reads:

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

I've had a problem with this verse for years now because it seems to say that Jesus is the savior of all  people, not the elect. Both sides have offered various interpretations. One thing I am sure of is that it is not teaching that every person is saved regardless of what they believe. I have thought about it and realized the problem was is that it may seem to be saying that those who believe are a subset of those who Jesus is the savior of. Until now, I just thought it was saying that Jesus is the savior of all people because it is only through him we can be saved. I'm just not happy with that interpretation. Something is missing.

 Instead, I really like the exegesis Alan goes through in his post. He advances an interpretation that I have never seen before. He suggests that the verse has been mistranslated. He wrote:

The term for "especially" is malista. George W. Knight III argues that this term here should be rendered, "that is," thereby functioning as an explanation or further clarification of the preceding statement. The translation would be as follows: "who is the Savior of all people, that is, of those who believe." So this interpretation does not view "those who believe" as a subset of "all people"; instead, "those who believe" identifies who the "all people" are.

I think this is viable and would fit with the rest of scripture. Only those who believe are saved.





http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3523

Shared via AddThis

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Revisionist History and Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Visitor Center

 Mariano has written a great article showing how silly it is to try to sanitize American Institution of their Christian roots. If you strip out Christianity out of American culture you are left with quite a bit of silliness. For example Mariano wrote:

Perhaps someday a Neo-Declaration of Independence will be written and include these words:

We hold these relative preferences to be self-evident, that all non-gender specific personages evolve equally, that they are endowed by random chance with certain unalienable rights, that among these are abortion, liberalism and the pursuit of hedonism. That to invent these rights, governments are instituted among aforementioned personages.

It's scary but people like Dan Barker are serious. They truly think that ignoring God and forgetting God will make our lives better. They need prayer.

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Revisionist History and Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Visitor Center

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox Debate the Existence of God

I found this debate on YouTube between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.

Oxford biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins debates Oxford mathematician and Christian apologist John Lennox on the existence of God.

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox

Shared via AddThis

Mike Licona vs Richard Carrier Debate: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Image via Wikipedia

This was a great debate. Although I disagree with Richard Carrier, I think he is a good debater and better than Dan Barker. Fortunately, Carrier was facing off with Mike Licona who could more than challenge him on his on ground. I was particularly upset when Carrier tried to argue that Paul did not believe in a bodily resurrection while 1 Corinthians 15 plainly and says he did believe in  bodily resurrection. Another argument Carrier advanced was that the Bible says that Jesus appeared post resurrection to only a hand full of people. However, this is not true.  In the same passage, Paul tells us that 500 people saw Jesus at once and many of them were still alive while he was writing 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8:

 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

UCLA Student's Throat Slashed in Chemistry Lab

Image via Wikipedia

I read the following:

Damon Thompson, 20, was arrested in the same chemistry building shortly after the stabbing Thursday. He was booked Thursday night on suspicion of attempted murder and was being held on $1 million bail, said Los Angeles police Officer Sara Faden.

Apparently he just flipped out and slashed the throat of a classmate! I'm aware of how Organic Chemistry is taught at major universities. At Berkeley, it was a running joke that Organic Chemistry could drive someone to kill. I never thought that it would actually happen. I'm praying the young lady's speedy recovery!

UCLA Student's Throat Slashed in Chemistry Lab

Shared via AddThis

Obama Won the What? -- Politics Daily

I dropped my daughter off at daycare this morning and I was informed that Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize  for Peace.  I almost fell out. I'm in shock.  My only question: Why?  Well the Oslo group that chose him saying:

The citation issued this morning said that the committee chose Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." It went on to say, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

Here is the announcement:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDygJXC4OFM


I'm amazed because while I disagree that it makes sense to attack Obama for not accomplishing much  - it's only been 10 months - I don't think that getting the peace prize makes sense at this time. Everyone else who has earned the award has profoundly changed the world. I'm not saying that Obama will not change anything,  only he needs time and the support of others to do it. Fortunately, Obama seems as shocked as anyone. He said:

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled,'' he went on, adding, "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievements; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes, and this is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.''

I think we have a problem. The world looks to America to leadership. A lot of people are putting a  lot of confidence in Obama and have expressed profound disappointment with the previous administration. It almost seems like Obama is getting the award for not being like George W. Bush,.

Here is Obama's speech concerning the award.





The thing that amazes me the most is that the President's critics have been accusing him of failure for the past week. They are still suggesting that he doesn't deserve the award and they took pleasure when the Olympics was awarded to Brazil instead of Chicago. It's personal. They don't like him. It's got to grate them that they denounced him so thoroughly and yet he gets a world honor! I'm glad for that. Honoring the President honors our nation. I'm unwilling to say that Obama does not deserve it. He has given people all over the world hope.  I just did not know or see how much faith people all over the world is putting into Obama. The problem is we need to put that faith in Jesus and in ourselves and certainly not in one man.

Here is a video of what some pundits are saying about it.








Obama Won the What? -- Politics Daily
President Obama Wins Nobel Prize (WTF!)

Shared via AddThis

In Defense of the Faith Apologetic Ministry » Blog Archive » An Evening of Eschatology

This is awesome!

After this year’s Desiring God Conference, the Bethlehem College and Seminary put on an excellent ’round-table’ discussion and debate moderated by John Piper. The three major eschatological viewpoints were represented: Premillennialism (Jim Hamilton), Amillennialism (Sam Storms), and Postmillennialism (Doug Wilson). The representative speakers for each view are in parentheses. For more information about the debate, go here.

But getting to the good part… they have posted the audio and video on the desiring God web site and offered it for free viewing to all of us!

So, with no further ado, I give you “An Evening of Eschatology”!!!

In Defense of the Faith Apologetic Ministry » Blog Archive » An Evening of Eschatology

Shared via AddThis

Roots - Coffee,Lucas

I read a great article on the Black Snob website called The First Lady's Slavery Roots Published In NYT
by Danielle Belton. It is reported that people have gone through Michelle Obama's family history and turned out to be the descendant of a biracial man, Dolphus T. Shields who was born just after Emancipation. The NYT states:

...for the first time [finding Mr. Shields)] fully connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency.

Um, this is news?! I thought everyone knew that most African-Americans have both African and European ancestry, as well as Native American ancestry. I do. So does every black person I know who has been born in the United States share these things in common. I found Ms Belton's post extremely interesting, including her brief outline of her own family. I think every black family, because of slavery, has had family member who could have passed for being white and some who did pass for white. Belton is correct. I was also amazed that she desired for readers to send her information about our own families and how slavery affected us.

I don't have a complete picture because maternally I have the best information. From my mother, her mother, and on back to slavery down the female lineages, I know each of my fore mothers' names going back. By that count, I'm 6 generations removed from slavery. My parents pictures are at the top of the post. At the bottom is a picture of all of my Parent's descendants and our spouses except the oldest and youngest grandsons.

As for my father, his maternal line is much more of an open book. I know something about both his mother's parents. They were from Georgia where my dad grew up. But not much is known about my father's father before his own parents. My paternal grandmother's mother was named Nancy Alberta Coffee. She was the daughter of Isaiah Coffee and Cynthia Lucas - number 10 in a family of 18 children. She was born in 1904 and died in 1998.

Nancy's father, Isaiah, was born in 1863 and died about 1936 or 1937. My father was fortunate enough to spend enough time around him to remember him a little although my dad was really young when he died. He was a mulatto. I remember my grandmother telling me that he could have passed had he wanted to. His mother was a slave and his father was the master of the plantation she lived on. His name was J.W. Coffee Jr, son of General G.W. Coffee (yeah, I know he was on the Confederate side, but what can ya do.) Isaiah at one point owned a lot of land that he was able to buy for cheap during the Reconstruction years. To this day, there is a county in south Georgia named after the family. I've been there. So through Nancy and Isaiah, I'm only 4 generations removed from slavery.

Nancy's mother's family is really interesting. Her name was Cynthia Lucas and both her parents were slaves. I don't know if either of them were mulattoes, but what I have learned is that her mother's name was Mary . Because slaves could not be taught to read, he learned to read from his master's daughter in exchange for training his horse. They had many, many children. Some were born before the Civil War and some after. One noteworthy things that bear mentioning is that before the Civil War they were sold away from each other, but after the war they found each other again and continued their lives together. Good thing for me because Cynthia, my great-grandmother, was born after that. I'm well-aware that had God not blessed them to find each other, unlike so many other families that were not ever restored, I would not be here today. Another thing is that it is reported in our family that Mary Lucas admired Abraham Lincoln and credited God for using him to free her from her bondage. My great-great-grandparents helped to found a church that is still in operation today. It's nice to go visit. I've only been twice.Through them down through Nancy, and then through my father. I am only 5 generations removed from slavery.

I want to use this post to focus on my father's family, I'll use another post to write about my mothers sometime down the line.

He Lives: Venn Diagrams are your Friend

 I admit it, I'm hooked on David Heddle's blog. In this one he uses Venn diagrams to explain the difference between people who are really Christians and people who claim to be Christians. It's really insightful. Take a look.

He Lives: Venn Diagrams are your Friend

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Barack Obama: The New Joseph

Image via Wikipedia

 Here is an interesting article. It's about how some Catholic Bishops who happen to be African, are comparing Obama to the patriarch Joseph. I have some serious problems that Dr. Mariottini has been chronicling - Obama has been compared to many things no man should be identified with. It frightens me. The African bishops said that:

Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra, Ghana said Wednesday that there was "a divine plan behind" Obama's election.

"It's like the biblical story repeating itself," he told reporters, citing the Old Testament figure Joseph, who after being sold into slavery in Egypt ends up becoming a top official.

"We believe God has his own plans. God directs history."

I don't believe that  Obama's life mirrors Joseph closely. Joseph was a slave in Egypt and he was not born in Egypt, and while Obama did endure the problems that come with being a black man in the United States - a member of a persecuted minority in a larger society, it does not exactly match up with Joseph.

Dr. Mariottini aslo has posts discussing other things that Obama has been equated to: God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Messiah, and pope.

I'm concerned.I don't think Obama is claiming anything like these things for himself but people are putting these things on him. I don't think he is the Anti-Christ but if people are used to seeing a man described this way, they will more easily accept the Anti-Christ  when he does show up for real.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Barack Obama: The New Joseph

CNN Fact-Checks SNL's Spoof on Obama

Last Saturday on Saturday Night Live, there was a scathing parody on Barack Obama. I did not see all of it last Saturday, but CNN did a story on it showing what they got right and what they got wrong. What has Obama accompilshed and what he hasn't. Take a look at first at the skit and then is the CNN commentary.

Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity

Alan Kurschner has written a great article on defending the Trinity against two different charges.

1. How can there be three and one at the same time?
2. The assumption that if Jesus has a lesser role than the Father, he must therefore have a lesser nature.

I think Kurschner does an  awesome job of explaining why these points only show the one who uses such arguments does not understand what the Bible says about the nature of God. This is a must read.

 
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3536

Shared via AddThis

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Holding the Bible Hostage

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Claude Mariottni has posted information that I did not know. The Portuguese Bible is not being made freely available digitally. Personally, I believe the Bible should be freely available in all languages in every single format via any media that information can be used to translate information. I think that those scholars who do translations should be compensated but I think (and I could be wrong) that they are making comfortable livings writing and lecturing. Personally, I would love to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic so I could read God's Word without viewing it through someone else's eyes.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Holding the Bible Hostage

Be Careful With Whom You Pick a Fight

Image via Wikipedia

I found the following video on YouTube. Apparently a man berates and curses a man on his own front porch, not realizing the man is a martial artist!

GOOD.is | What We Believe (Raw Image)

Click on the link below to see the picture in detail. The statistics given in the picture is designed to show that the number of atheists in America has increased by 2008 when compared to 2000. I think that the statistics has huge problems with who is a Christian and who isn't. Look at the definitions used:

The United Church of Christ has major doctrinal differences with the Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist denominations. And what's with the "Generic Christian" designation? They mean nothing. I would rather see the Mainline Christian designation be defined  by born-again, spirit-filled, Bible-believing; holding onto the essentials of historic Christianity - namely that Jesus is the only way to God. Did they go by people who just say they belong to those groups or actually participate? They don't say. How many people just switched to denominations and not just left church altogethe? Again it doesn't say. Therefore I would not put much stock into the results.

GOOD.is | What We Believe (Raw Image)

Shared via AddThis