Arrived safely back in Oregon after 'vacation' in Romania. Easier to adjust to the time difference when going east to west than the other way. Had kinda a baptism by fire, as I had to resume field work right away and the temps are near 100 every day.
Finally going to relax this weekend, as we're heading to the woods and Antioch (third annual) Family Camp. Looking forward to just taking it easy, doing a little trout fishing, reading, lying around. About the most exercise I expect is maybe a bit of volleyball or frisbee golf, but if it's hotter there than usual, I may even pass on those.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Ciao, Romania
It's 3 am in Bucharest, and we're headed for the airport. Going to Portland via Frankfurt.
Our team from Antioch has already diverged, with Nate, Jason, and Megan staying behind with Emi and Vio. They'll travel to Budapest, Hungary, then Vienna and Prague before Nate and Jason go to Athens. We'll leave Kesh in Frankfurt, as he'll be flying to Paris to visit his sister for a couple of weeks.
It's been a great trip; we learned a good deal, taught quite a bit, had loads of fun, and made some lasting (even some eternal) relationships. It'll be good to get back to home and family, however.
Ciao, Romania
Our team from Antioch has already diverged, with Nate, Jason, and Megan staying behind with Emi and Vio. They'll travel to Budapest, Hungary, then Vienna and Prague before Nate and Jason go to Athens. We'll leave Kesh in Frankfurt, as he'll be flying to Paris to visit his sister for a couple of weeks.
It's been a great trip; we learned a good deal, taught quite a bit, had loads of fun, and made some lasting (even some eternal) relationships. It'll be good to get back to home and family, however.
Ciao, Romania
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Camp Romania-Style
We're winding down our week of putting on a youth evangelistic camp near Lake Surduc in Timis, Romania. There are 140 campers, and our American team is participating alongside the Romanians. Kristin is singing with the worship team, with Kesh and Collin playing bongoes and digital drums and Nate playing some guitar. Collin heads up the sports events, Megan and some of the girls offer crafts, and most of us lead small discussion groups morning and evening. I delivered the messages each evening.
It was, apparently, a rather diverse group of Romanian churches and pastors, and I've come to realize that there was a good deal of skepticism--as to whether camp would even work with the Americanos so involved and about my different (apologetic) approach to the talks.
And then, if I'd have told them beforehand about the theme skit, they'd have certainly said 'no way!' The theme of the camp--The Quest for Truth--was carried to extremes of absurdity by Louisiana Jones (my son Nate) and Georgia Jones (Kesh Phillips) and their enemies Count Vladimir (Alex Hardin) and his apprentice vampire Fido (my son Jasper). Their antics had everyone in stitches, but did serve to set up each of my talks, which tackled (in turn) the existence of truth, what science and reason really tell us about the universe (that only the three monotheistic faiths come close to describing it accurately), how fulfilled prophecy and the reliability of the New Testament separate Christianity from Judaism and Islam, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and its implications, and, finally, what occurred at the crucifixion (what it means to us and what should be our response).
In the end, it all came together in a powerful, supernatural way, and everyone at camp was deeply affected. I know that our team will remember this week for years to come, and I trust that the Holy Spirit is still moving in the lives of many from both of the cultures that shared this exciting week at camp.
It was, apparently, a rather diverse group of Romanian churches and pastors, and I've come to realize that there was a good deal of skepticism--as to whether camp would even work with the Americanos so involved and about my different (apologetic) approach to the talks.
And then, if I'd have told them beforehand about the theme skit, they'd have certainly said 'no way!' The theme of the camp--The Quest for Truth--was carried to extremes of absurdity by Louisiana Jones (my son Nate) and Georgia Jones (Kesh Phillips) and their enemies Count Vladimir (Alex Hardin) and his apprentice vampire Fido (my son Jasper). Their antics had everyone in stitches, but did serve to set up each of my talks, which tackled (in turn) the existence of truth, what science and reason really tell us about the universe (that only the three monotheistic faiths come close to describing it accurately), how fulfilled prophecy and the reliability of the New Testament separate Christianity from Judaism and Islam, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and its implications, and, finally, what occurred at the crucifixion (what it means to us and what should be our response).
In the end, it all came together in a powerful, supernatural way, and everyone at camp was deeply affected. I know that our team will remember this week for years to come, and I trust that the Holy Spirit is still moving in the lives of many from both of the cultures that shared this exciting week at camp.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Apologetics Conference
Well, I wore out 3 different interpreters, but I survived 5 lectures and a Q&A session over two days here in Arad. I spoke on postmodernism, the credibility of miracles, worldview thinking, a critique of naturalism, and the problem of evil and suffering. The conference was attended by folks from much of western Romania, and I received some great questions and had some interesting discussions. I ate meals with the attendees rather than with my team from Antioch.
That team, meanwhile, was doing a variety of things... street ministry with gypsy kids, visits to the orphanage sponsored by our host church, and completely tearing down and rebuilding the play structure at the church. Some of them really have a gift with kids.
We'll participate in the church services tomorrow (one in the morning and one in the evening); in each, our whole team will sing one song (with Nate and Jazz on guitar and keyboard) and then Kristin Jones will sing a solo (accompanied by Nate on guitar). I'll preach, and that means two different sermons, as if I haven't had enough trouble keeping ahead of the game so far. When Emi asked me to do these things, it was all in the nearly-hypothetical future; if I had known then what I know now... well, I'd still have probably said yes.
We went to a nearby farm tonight for a barbecue. There we celebrated Jim Kone's birthday, and Nate caught a fish ("Crappe Grindo"?) in one of the ponds. That was all cut short by thundershowers, which caused us to scurry back to the church in a variety of vehicles (some barely road-worthy). The storm continues a couple hours later as I type this.
Sounds like we may have internet access even at the camp next week, so I'll try to keep posting.
That team, meanwhile, was doing a variety of things... street ministry with gypsy kids, visits to the orphanage sponsored by our host church, and completely tearing down and rebuilding the play structure at the church. Some of them really have a gift with kids.
We'll participate in the church services tomorrow (one in the morning and one in the evening); in each, our whole team will sing one song (with Nate and Jazz on guitar and keyboard) and then Kristin Jones will sing a solo (accompanied by Nate on guitar). I'll preach, and that means two different sermons, as if I haven't had enough trouble keeping ahead of the game so far. When Emi asked me to do these things, it was all in the nearly-hypothetical future; if I had known then what I know now... well, I'd still have probably said yes.
We went to a nearby farm tonight for a barbecue. There we celebrated Jim Kone's birthday, and Nate caught a fish ("Crappe Grindo"?) in one of the ponds. That was all cut short by thundershowers, which caused us to scurry back to the church in a variety of vehicles (some barely road-worthy). The storm continues a couple hours later as I type this.
Sounds like we may have internet access even at the camp next week, so I'll try to keep posting.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
This and That, Romania-Style
Much to report from our trip to Romania, and too full a schedule to find time to report it all... In addition, my schedule separates me from the rest of the team at times, so what I have to share is biased towards my own doings.
Tuesday, I had opportunity to speak to the department heads at the University in Arad. This was conducted entirely in English (that is, without translation), as these professors were all proficient in it (despite this talk being the most technical of all those that I will share on this trip). The topic was a critique of naturalism within science. In it, I made several points...
1) The university system and nearly all universities were established by Christians. The term itself means "from many, one." The diversity refers to the various areas of human endeavor, from poetry and music, to economics and politics, to chemistry and philosophy. And the unifying principle that held all these diverse disciplines together was the lordship of Jesus Christ. On this understanding of the history of the university system, it is a contradiction in terms (an oxymoron) to talk about a 'secular university,' though that is what we now have all around us.
2) The reason the university has come to teach without reference to God or to Jesus is the mistaken belief that modern science has somehow disproved His existence.
3) Like the university system, modern science uniquely arose within a Christian worldview. It was Christian men and women, studying the pages of Scripture, that came to believe that the study of the universe in which we live was a worthwhile endeavor. Thus there is no historical justification for approaching science from a naturalist worldview (which says that the universe is the whole show and that there is no God behind it).
4) That science was uniquely birthed by Christians is because the many assumptions that make science feasible come from a Christian worldview. Though there are some twenty such assumptions that could be discussed (such as that the laws of logic and mathematics really apply to the universe in which we live), a couple of the most important ones are these...
5) If we do not artificially constrain ourselves to strictly natural explanations, then all of the latest scientific discoveries are rightly seen as supporting a theistic--not a naturalistic--understanding of the world in which we live. For example, the discovery that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago provides powerful scientific confirmation of the cosmological argument for God's existence (as well as for the Biblical statements--many of them made 5,000 years ago--that the eternal God created the universe transcendentally). Likewise, the teleological (design) argument for God's existence (and care) has received stunning scientific confirmation from astrophysics (the discoveries that led to the 'anthropic principle,' the recognition that the universe, galaxy, solar system, and earth exhibit incredibly fine tuning that has as its goal intelligent life in this one place in the universe), biochemistry (the discovery of the awesome complexity of living cells and the consequent recognition of the vastness of the gap between non-living chemicals and the simplest life), and genetics (the discovery of the universal genetic code, the information contained therein and the incredible efficiency of it), to name just a few.
To put it another way, although Darwin provided a hypothetical naturalistic explanation for one thing--the diversity of life on earth (an explanation which itself fails the test of evidential support, but that's an entirely different series of posts)--all of the other big things that science ought to be able to explain--the origin of the universe, the order in the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life on Earth, the origin of the first life, the Cambrian explosion (the 'big bang of biology'), the information in the genetic code, the origin of consciousness) are amenable to explanation within a theistic, but not within a naturalistic, worldview.
6) Thus, it's high time we abandon the naturalistic approach by which science is currently operating and return to the more powerful and objective approach that characterized the first several centuries of scientific progress.
--------
My new friend, Vlad Criznic, who is the Eastern European staff for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, was so impressed by the argument I shared with this faculty that yesterday morning he interviewed me about this topic for his weekly half-hour apologetics-oriented radio program.
The team and I spent most of the day yesterday sight-seeing; we visited Timisoara, a city of 400,000 about 30 miles from here, where the 1989 revolution against communism began. We were guided by Doru Popa, Emi's father and one who was involved in the events of that historic week when the revolution spilled over into Arad. It was thrilling to me to hear the accounts of these events while standing where they took place. It reached a humid 100 degrees there yesterday.
We ended the day with two hours of indoor soccer, our American team playing short games (10 minutes or to two goals) against (alternately) a team of Romanian pastors and leaders (Emi's team) and another team of local fellows. Suffice it to say for this report that we easily held our own, and shattered any local idea that Americans are inferior at the 'world's game.'
Tuesday, I had opportunity to speak to the department heads at the University in Arad. This was conducted entirely in English (that is, without translation), as these professors were all proficient in it (despite this talk being the most technical of all those that I will share on this trip). The topic was a critique of naturalism within science. In it, I made several points...
1) The university system and nearly all universities were established by Christians. The term itself means "from many, one." The diversity refers to the various areas of human endeavor, from poetry and music, to economics and politics, to chemistry and philosophy. And the unifying principle that held all these diverse disciplines together was the lordship of Jesus Christ. On this understanding of the history of the university system, it is a contradiction in terms (an oxymoron) to talk about a 'secular university,' though that is what we now have all around us.
2) The reason the university has come to teach without reference to God or to Jesus is the mistaken belief that modern science has somehow disproved His existence.
3) Like the university system, modern science uniquely arose within a Christian worldview. It was Christian men and women, studying the pages of Scripture, that came to believe that the study of the universe in which we live was a worthwhile endeavor. Thus there is no historical justification for approaching science from a naturalist worldview (which says that the universe is the whole show and that there is no God behind it).
4) That science was uniquely birthed by Christians is because the many assumptions that make science feasible come from a Christian worldview. Though there are some twenty such assumptions that could be discussed (such as that the laws of logic and mathematics really apply to the universe in which we live), a couple of the most important ones are these...
Since the universe is created (as opposed to illusory or eternal), we expect to find design and order in it, as it is a reflection of the rational mind of God.These and others of the necessary assumptions of science remain either contrary to a naturalist metaphysic or at the least unexplained by naturalism. The naturalist scientist depends upon the order in the universe (reflected in predictable, law-like processes) but cannot account for where that order comes from. Thus, there is no logical justification for--and a whole lot of logical justification against--taking a naturalistic approach to science.
Since we are created in the image of God, our reasoning and senses are reliable for discerning that order and design.
5) If we do not artificially constrain ourselves to strictly natural explanations, then all of the latest scientific discoveries are rightly seen as supporting a theistic--not a naturalistic--understanding of the world in which we live. For example, the discovery that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago provides powerful scientific confirmation of the cosmological argument for God's existence (as well as for the Biblical statements--many of them made 5,000 years ago--that the eternal God created the universe transcendentally). Likewise, the teleological (design) argument for God's existence (and care) has received stunning scientific confirmation from astrophysics (the discoveries that led to the 'anthropic principle,' the recognition that the universe, galaxy, solar system, and earth exhibit incredibly fine tuning that has as its goal intelligent life in this one place in the universe), biochemistry (the discovery of the awesome complexity of living cells and the consequent recognition of the vastness of the gap between non-living chemicals and the simplest life), and genetics (the discovery of the universal genetic code, the information contained therein and the incredible efficiency of it), to name just a few.
To put it another way, although Darwin provided a hypothetical naturalistic explanation for one thing--the diversity of life on earth (an explanation which itself fails the test of evidential support, but that's an entirely different series of posts)--all of the other big things that science ought to be able to explain--the origin of the universe, the order in the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life on Earth, the origin of the first life, the Cambrian explosion (the 'big bang of biology'), the information in the genetic code, the origin of consciousness) are amenable to explanation within a theistic, but not within a naturalistic, worldview.
6) Thus, it's high time we abandon the naturalistic approach by which science is currently operating and return to the more powerful and objective approach that characterized the first several centuries of scientific progress.
--------
My new friend, Vlad Criznic, who is the Eastern European staff for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, was so impressed by the argument I shared with this faculty that yesterday morning he interviewed me about this topic for his weekly half-hour apologetics-oriented radio program.
The team and I spent most of the day yesterday sight-seeing; we visited Timisoara, a city of 400,000 about 30 miles from here, where the 1989 revolution against communism began. We were guided by Doru Popa, Emi's father and one who was involved in the events of that historic week when the revolution spilled over into Arad. It was thrilling to me to hear the accounts of these events while standing where they took place. It reached a humid 100 degrees there yesterday.
We ended the day with two hours of indoor soccer, our American team playing short games (10 minutes or to two goals) against (alternately) a team of Romanian pastors and leaders (Emi's team) and another team of local fellows. Suffice it to say for this report that we easily held our own, and shattered any local idea that Americans are inferior at the 'world's game.'
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Romania
Delivered the sermon Saturday evening at an exciting church plant in Bucharest (pictured below is Adiel Bonescu translating for me). They meet for their regular service on Saturday evening because of the availability and reasonable cost of the place they rent for that. They meet in 4 smaller, regional missional communities on Sunday mornings.
It rained all night Saturday and most all day Sunday. While most of our team took a day trip into the mountains, Nate, Jazz, Kesh, and I relaxed most of the day, I preparing my talk for the science faculty at the university in Arad. From 5 to 7 pm, during a break in the rain, we played 6 v 6 soccer on a small, wet, concrete field. We held our own against the Romanians, were leading by two late, and when they tied it up and the rains returned, the game was called. We spent the evening with our entire and extended host family, part of the time singing while Nate played guitar and Kesh played bongos. Dinner and much of the family time were by candlelight, as the electricity was out.
We leave early today (Monday) for a 10-hour van trip to Arad, where we will remain for the rest of our stay. Tuesday, I will speak to the science faculty at the university there (from 10 to 1); feel free to pray for that event.
It rained all night Saturday and most all day Sunday. While most of our team took a day trip into the mountains, Nate, Jazz, Kesh, and I relaxed most of the day, I preparing my talk for the science faculty at the university in Arad. From 5 to 7 pm, during a break in the rain, we played 6 v 6 soccer on a small, wet, concrete field. We held our own against the Romanians, were leading by two late, and when they tied it up and the rains returned, the game was called. We spent the evening with our entire and extended host family, part of the time singing while Nate played guitar and Kesh played bongos. Dinner and much of the family time were by candlelight, as the electricity was out.
We leave early today (Monday) for a 10-hour van trip to Arad, where we will remain for the rest of our stay. Tuesday, I will speak to the science faculty at the university there (from 10 to 1); feel free to pray for that event.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Bucuresti
So, we're in Bucharest, each of us living with a host family and enjoying Romanian meals. We're experiencing a late-afternoon summer storm right now, though the weather has been delightful otherwise (quite warm during the day, but cooling each evening).
We have been spending time with the young people who make up a church plant (of less than a year) here in the capitol city, and it has been great to see that they are experiencing some of the same blessings and difficulties as we at Antioch. I have so far shared with the guys about three apologetics issues--postmodernism, the reliability of the gospel accounts, and the problem of evil and suffering. This evening I will preach on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the centrality of these events to church history, to human history, and to cosmic history.
Having a great time, wish you were here...
We have been spending time with the young people who make up a church plant (of less than a year) here in the capitol city, and it has been great to see that they are experiencing some of the same blessings and difficulties as we at Antioch. I have so far shared with the guys about three apologetics issues--postmodernism, the reliability of the gospel accounts, and the problem of evil and suffering. This evening I will preach on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the centrality of these events to church history, to human history, and to cosmic history.
Having a great time, wish you were here...
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Romania Bound
Tomorrow's the big day! With a team of 17 from Antioch, my boys and I are headed to Romania. It will be a varied experience; we'll hope to serve and love and help and teach and share, but I expect we'll learn a great deal as well.
As for me, I'm scheduled to teach and preach, to be involved in an apologetics conference (that's my main gig after all) and to share the good news at a youth camp. I'll also have an opportunity to speak to the science faculty of a Romanian university. I'd appreciate your prayers throughout.
As for blogging, we'll have to see. I expect to have the time (moreso than of late), but am uncertain of the availability of internet access in the places we'll be staying. By all means, though, keep checking!
As for me, I'm scheduled to teach and preach, to be involved in an apologetics conference (that's my main gig after all) and to share the good news at a youth camp. I'll also have an opportunity to speak to the science faculty of a Romanian university. I'd appreciate your prayers throughout.
As for blogging, we'll have to see. I expect to have the time (moreso than of late), but am uncertain of the availability of internet access in the places we'll be staying. By all means, though, keep checking!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wright on the Spirit
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense is a relatively recent book by N.T. (Tom) Wright. It's one of the current all-church reads at my home church, Antioch. Billed as a modern Mere Christianity, this book succeeds in offering what C.S. Lewis' classic did--a sensible articulation of basic Christianity free of church-speak and accessible to the man or woman on the street.
I highly recommend it (though I'm not yet finished). For now, though, let me just offer a paragraph on the Holy Spirit...
I highly recommend it (though I'm not yet finished). For now, though, let me just offer a paragraph on the Holy Spirit...
The Holy Spirit and the task of the church. The two walk together, hand in hand. We can't talk about them apart. Despite what you might think from some excitement in the previous generation about new spiritual experiences, God doesn't give people the Holy Spirit in order to let them enjoy the spiritual equivalent of a day at Disneyland. Of course, if you're downcast and gloomy, the fresh wind of God's Spirit can and often does give you a new perspective on everything, and above all grants a sense of God's presence, love, comfort, and even joy. But the point of the Spirit is to enble those who follow Jesus to take into all the world the news that he is Lord, that he has won the victory over the forces of evil, that a new world has opened up, and that we are to help make it happen.
Monday, June 22, 2009
On Sharing Christianity
I'm too busy to blog most days. This is the main season for most of the field work I do, and I'm burning the candle at both ends to keep up. Add to that the fact that I have to get it all done before heading to Romania for three weeks in July. And then there's the little matter of preparing for the speaking engagements for which I'm slated once in Romania...
I'm scheduled to preach, speak, or hold a Q & A session a total of 22 times in Romania. That includes being the keynote speaker at an Apologetics Conference and the main speaker at a week-long evangelism camp for youth. I also have one engagement with the science faculty at a Romanian university--I'm looking forward to that one!
Much of the goal will be to strengthen the faith of Romanians who already follow Christ--helping them to realize how reason and evidence combine to make the Christian worldview the uniquely accurate understanding of the universe in which we live. But some of my time (at the university and the youth camp) will involve sharing the Christian message with those who are currently skeptical about it. I'll be "sharing the gospel" or "evangelizing."
Which reminds me of a claim made several years back by an elderly lady friend of mine, someone whose opinions and thoughts on most other subjects I had come to respect...
We were in a small group, and another gal was talking favorably (apparently as a fellow-believer) of some missionary friends who were helping members of a South American tribe leave their superstition and animism and embrace Christianity. My elderly friend remarked,
The first is that my friend could only say this because she didn't take Christianity seriously or believe it to be true. If, as the Bible claims, the only hope for human beings--for this life and for eternity--is being made right with their Creator through the work on the Cross of His eternal Son Jesus, then we who know this should be sharing it with those who don't at every opportunity. My friend was not able to fairly enter into the discussion by assuming for the moment that the missionaries' worldview might be true.
But there's a more basic problem with my friend's claim--a logical flaw, an error in thinking. And that is that her claim is....
[At this point, regular readers of my blog ought to be able to supply the hyphenated word that completes my sentence.]
That's right! Her statement is SELF-REFUTING, or self-referentially absurd.
To anyone who truly seeks to follow Christ, the call to share the good news about the reconciliation available only through Him is itself one of the most fundamental "religious" convictions. So when she said that it is wrong to seek to change another person's religious convictions, my friend was guilty of trying to do just that. She was sawing off the branch upon which she was sitting, disqualified by her own criterion, run through by her own spear. Her making the statement put her at odds with the content of the proposition she was seeking to convey. And she, of course, didn't realize it.
But you, dear reader, have by now learned to avoid making self-refuting statements yourself (they are, after all, necessarily false) and have finely-tuned your baloney detector to spot such absurdity from a mile off. Keep up the good work!
I'm scheduled to preach, speak, or hold a Q & A session a total of 22 times in Romania. That includes being the keynote speaker at an Apologetics Conference and the main speaker at a week-long evangelism camp for youth. I also have one engagement with the science faculty at a Romanian university--I'm looking forward to that one!
Much of the goal will be to strengthen the faith of Romanians who already follow Christ--helping them to realize how reason and evidence combine to make the Christian worldview the uniquely accurate understanding of the universe in which we live. But some of my time (at the university and the youth camp) will involve sharing the Christian message with those who are currently skeptical about it. I'll be "sharing the gospel" or "evangelizing."
Which reminds me of a claim made several years back by an elderly lady friend of mine, someone whose opinions and thoughts on most other subjects I had come to respect...
We were in a small group, and another gal was talking favorably (apparently as a fellow-believer) of some missionary friends who were helping members of a South American tribe leave their superstition and animism and embrace Christianity. My elderly friend remarked,
I would never do that. It's wrong to try to change someone else's religious convictions.Now, there are several problems with this claim, of which I'll mention just two.
The first is that my friend could only say this because she didn't take Christianity seriously or believe it to be true. If, as the Bible claims, the only hope for human beings--for this life and for eternity--is being made right with their Creator through the work on the Cross of His eternal Son Jesus, then we who know this should be sharing it with those who don't at every opportunity. My friend was not able to fairly enter into the discussion by assuming for the moment that the missionaries' worldview might be true.
But there's a more basic problem with my friend's claim--a logical flaw, an error in thinking. And that is that her claim is....
[At this point, regular readers of my blog ought to be able to supply the hyphenated word that completes my sentence.]
That's right! Her statement is SELF-REFUTING, or self-referentially absurd.
To anyone who truly seeks to follow Christ, the call to share the good news about the reconciliation available only through Him is itself one of the most fundamental "religious" convictions. So when she said that it is wrong to seek to change another person's religious convictions, my friend was guilty of trying to do just that. She was sawing off the branch upon which she was sitting, disqualified by her own criterion, run through by her own spear. Her making the statement put her at odds with the content of the proposition she was seeking to convey. And she, of course, didn't realize it.
But you, dear reader, have by now learned to avoid making self-refuting statements yourself (they are, after all, necessarily false) and have finely-tuned your baloney detector to spot such absurdity from a mile off. Keep up the good work!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Variants in the NT
In a few weeks from now, I'll teach a couple of classes (Sunday mornings at Antioch) on New Testament textual criticism, the science that allows us to ascertain what the original New Testament writings said. As I began to think about that issue, I thought it might be a good idea to post a bit of what I'll cover.
I'll begin by asserting that there is overwhelming reason to conclude that the New Testament was reliably transmitted from the original writings to the copies (the Greek manuscripts) that still exist. I will be quick to acknowledge, however, that the thousands of manuscripts available to us do contain variants, places where they disagree with one another. Indeed, there are literally tens of thousands of such variants among these copies. That being the case, isn't the charge of tainted transmission a valid one?
No, not at all. For one thing, the vast majority of these variants are completely insignificant. They amount to nothing more than an alternate spelling or the fact that a single place or person was known by two different names. So the issue of the reliability of the copying comes down to approximately 2,000 places where variant readings that are not insignificant can be found among the manuscripts. Most of these will be identified (by footnotes or marginal notes) in any good study Bible.
Let me share two examples of significant variants, one accidental and one likely intentional. In Romans 5:1, the Greek word εχομεν or εχωμεν appears in the different ancient copies. The difference is the third letter--did the original contain an omega or an omicron (the two different Greek 'o's)? In English, the verse reads
There's an example of an intentional error in the second verse of Mark's gospel. Some copies read, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." This is followed by an Old Testament quote, a quote which can be found not only in Isaiah but also in Malachi. So other copies read, "As it is written in the prophets..." It would seem that some first or second century scribe, in copying Mark's written account of the events of Jesus' life, decided that Mark hadn't been on his game when he wrote "in Isaiah the prophet." The scribe 'improved' the text by changing it to "the prophets." Both variants, of course, are correct, but the first is likely what Mark actually wrote.
There is, therefore, an entire field of scholarship called New Testament textual criticism that seeks to recover the autographs by careful scrutiny of the wealth of copies in existence. Scholars in this field examine external evidence (including the dates and locations of the variants in the Greek manuscripts, in the early Latin, Coptic, and Syriac translations, and in the citations from the early church fathers) and internal evidence (such as 'which variant best explains how the other arose?'). The result is a level of certainty about the originals that exceeds 99% accuracy.
It is important to note that no Christian doctrine is undermined by any of the variant readings. If we were to ignore all of the passages in which variants are found--and use only those passages in which all the relevant copies agree completely--what would be the result? We would have the very same picture of Jesus--a miracle-working, divine Son of God who died by crucifixion and three days later was raised in a glorified physical body.
The existence of errors in copying--some of them significant--should cause us no concern with regard to the reliability of the New Testament. We do need to recognize, though, that the referent of the biblical doctrine of inspiration (and of the implied doctrine of inerrancy) is not a particular set of copies--much less a particular English translation--but the autographs. These we don't have, but--through the reasoned application of New Testament textual criticism--we have a great deal of certainty about what these originals contained.
I'll begin by asserting that there is overwhelming reason to conclude that the New Testament was reliably transmitted from the original writings to the copies (the Greek manuscripts) that still exist. I will be quick to acknowledge, however, that the thousands of manuscripts available to us do contain variants, places where they disagree with one another. Indeed, there are literally tens of thousands of such variants among these copies. That being the case, isn't the charge of tainted transmission a valid one?
No, not at all. For one thing, the vast majority of these variants are completely insignificant. They amount to nothing more than an alternate spelling or the fact that a single place or person was known by two different names. So the issue of the reliability of the copying comes down to approximately 2,000 places where variant readings that are not insignificant can be found among the manuscripts. Most of these will be identified (by footnotes or marginal notes) in any good study Bible.
Let me share two examples of significant variants, one accidental and one likely intentional. In Romans 5:1, the Greek word εχομεν or εχωμεν appears in the different ancient copies. The difference is the third letter--did the original contain an omega or an omicron (the two different Greek 'o's)? In English, the verse reads
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.Or..
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.Is Paul telling us that peace is an accomplished fact or something that we should be striving to appropriate? In this case we have a very minor alteration that leads to a rather significant difference in meaning. The incorrect insertion of the wrong 'o' would have been an easy mistake to make, especially if the scribe were listening to someone else dictate the letter.
There's an example of an intentional error in the second verse of Mark's gospel. Some copies read, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." This is followed by an Old Testament quote, a quote which can be found not only in Isaiah but also in Malachi. So other copies read, "As it is written in the prophets..." It would seem that some first or second century scribe, in copying Mark's written account of the events of Jesus' life, decided that Mark hadn't been on his game when he wrote "in Isaiah the prophet." The scribe 'improved' the text by changing it to "the prophets." Both variants, of course, are correct, but the first is likely what Mark actually wrote.
There is, therefore, an entire field of scholarship called New Testament textual criticism that seeks to recover the autographs by careful scrutiny of the wealth of copies in existence. Scholars in this field examine external evidence (including the dates and locations of the variants in the Greek manuscripts, in the early Latin, Coptic, and Syriac translations, and in the citations from the early church fathers) and internal evidence (such as 'which variant best explains how the other arose?'). The result is a level of certainty about the originals that exceeds 99% accuracy.
It is important to note that no Christian doctrine is undermined by any of the variant readings. If we were to ignore all of the passages in which variants are found--and use only those passages in which all the relevant copies agree completely--what would be the result? We would have the very same picture of Jesus--a miracle-working, divine Son of God who died by crucifixion and three days later was raised in a glorified physical body.
The existence of errors in copying--some of them significant--should cause us no concern with regard to the reliability of the New Testament. We do need to recognize, though, that the referent of the biblical doctrine of inspiration (and of the implied doctrine of inerrancy) is not a particular set of copies--much less a particular English translation--but the autographs. These we don't have, but--through the reasoned application of New Testament textual criticism--we have a great deal of certainty about what these originals contained.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
High Intrigue
Last week, there was high intrigue in a little commune near our house. Indeed, what occurred was the culmination of days and weeks of mutinous plotting, the carrying out of a betrayal that left a kingdom (queendom, actually) divided.
It seems that some of the ladies-in-waiting, the monarch's most trusted and loyal subjects, grew tired of her ladyship or of the size of the castle (or whatever, I hadn't the chance to ask any of them). At any rate, they elected, secreted away, and groomed a replacement. Then one day last week, they revolted, openly declaring their change of allegiance.
Fortunately, it was all very non-violent. No blood was shed; in fact, the reigning queen was allowed to keep not only her life and wealth (mostly gold) but also her castle. Her only loss was half of her former subjects and army, as they chose to flee the castle altogether. The mutineers with their new queen were discovered (as pictured below) by our next-door neighbor. I called a friend who agreed to offer them amnesty, and toward nightfall we installed them in a new castle and drove them across town to his place.
It was undoubtedly a traumatic event for all concerned, but by nightfall peace reigned in both castles and everyone could look back on a good day's work.
It seems that some of the ladies-in-waiting, the monarch's most trusted and loyal subjects, grew tired of her ladyship or of the size of the castle (or whatever, I hadn't the chance to ask any of them). At any rate, they elected, secreted away, and groomed a replacement. Then one day last week, they revolted, openly declaring their change of allegiance.
Fortunately, it was all very non-violent. No blood was shed; in fact, the reigning queen was allowed to keep not only her life and wealth (mostly gold) but also her castle. Her only loss was half of her former subjects and army, as they chose to flee the castle altogether. The mutineers with their new queen were discovered (as pictured below) by our next-door neighbor. I called a friend who agreed to offer them amnesty, and toward nightfall we installed them in a new castle and drove them across town to his place.
It was undoubtedly a traumatic event for all concerned, but by nightfall peace reigned in both castles and everyone could look back on a good day's work.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Nate in Mexico
Our oldest son, Nathan, is in Mexico, playing in soccer tournaments with the Southern California Seahorses. The Seahorses are a Christian ministry that uses sport--specifically the "beautiful game"--as a vehicle for sharing Christ. Nate's giftedness in and passion for soccer will be put to good use, and he's also to lead worship (they realized at the last minute--and after he'd flown to L.A. without his--that he was the only one on the team who plays guitar).
Their tournaments are in fairly remote villages; as a consequence, he's been totally incommunicado since he left LAX.
It's not an apologetics mission per se, but it is an opportunity to share the central reality about the world in which we live... that God loves us and has provided reconciliation for us through His eternal Son, Jesus Christ. If a guy has to go to warmer climes to score a few goals or get kicked in the shins a couple of times to earn the right to share that wonderful truth, well then, Nate's the guy that's willing to do it. Pray for him if you have a moment.
Their tournaments are in fairly remote villages; as a consequence, he's been totally incommunicado since he left LAX.
It's not an apologetics mission per se, but it is an opportunity to share the central reality about the world in which we live... that God loves us and has provided reconciliation for us through His eternal Son, Jesus Christ. If a guy has to go to warmer climes to score a few goals or get kicked in the shins a couple of times to earn the right to share that wonderful truth, well then, Nate's the guy that's willing to do it. Pray for him if you have a moment.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
de Tocqueville
I again came across a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville, written in the 1850's. This Frenchman was arguably the most objective observer of America and its experiment in democracy, and so his conclusions are well worth considering and remembering...
(This is a repost from almost two years ago; I'm that busy these days that I'm having difficulty finding time to post something new. Sorry.)
I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
(This is a repost from almost two years ago; I'm that busy these days that I'm having difficulty finding time to post something new. Sorry.)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Great Gray Day
Yesterday, my family took our annual daytrip to the Winema National Forest, where we monitor several nests of Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa), banding babies when found. This year, 4 of the 7 nests we checked were active, and we banded 3 young (shown above) at the first and 2 at the second.
I didn't have to do any of the climbing this year, and it was Jasper who felt the wrath--and the talons--of the defensive female at the second nest. After we banded them, Nate volunteered to take them back up to the nest, but he was spared any bloodshed or bruises when I caught the big female (below).
The third nest had just a single nestling, too young to band yet. And at the last nest we checked, the female was still incubating her three eggs, one of which was hatching at the time! (see below) It was a great day (no one was carried off by the ubiquitous mosquitos), and we'll long remember this year's trip.
Friday, May 22, 2009
A Couple of Thoughts on Moral Evil
[In this post, I share a response I made to a friend about the problem of evil...]
Dear S.
Obviously, I'm not going to satisfactorily address the whole problem of evil in a single email, but let me offer some suggestions that might further the discussion. It seems that you're asking a variation of the common question "Did God create evil?", and that you're specifically interested in the sin of pride with regard to Satan.
From at least the time of Augustine, an important part of the Christian answer to this question has been that evil is not a thing of itself. Rather, it is the privation or lack of good. Just as darkness is not a created stuff (but the absence of light), so, too, with evil, which is the absence of good.
The particular evil (or sin) of pride is likewise the absence (or twisting) of proper character or sentiment. For created beings (whether angels or humans), right character (righteousness) would be humility based on an accurate understanding of the glory, wisdom, and majesty of the Creator in relationship to the created. The lack of this proper humility and understanding is what we call pride, an elevating of self in one's own eyes. This sin came about as a result of a choice by Satan (and by Adam, as well as by each one of us). Thus pride (like other evil) was not created by God but came about as a result of the choices of created beings.
This leads naturally to the question of whether God couldn't/shouldn't have created a world in which creatures do not make sinful/evil choices. Today, philosophers of all stripes (that is, across the religious spectrum) acknowledge the credibility of the "free-will argument" offered by Alvin Plantinga (Dutch Reformed philosopher teaching at Notre Dame). He claimed that the existence of created beings with free will (and most agree that freedom of choice is a generally good thing, that a universe of puppets would be a dull one) necessarily entails the possibility that those free-will beings will make wrong choices (or "instantiate evil," as the philosophers would say).
So, God did not create pride or other evil, but He did create a universe in which pride and other sins would take place as a result of the choices of the sentient beings He made. For many, this still leaves God to be blamed for the pain and suffering of this world. And this complaint might be legitimate if this world were all there is. The other important part of the Christian answer is that there is another, better world waiting, one in which there will be no sin or evil. Passing through this world, then, is merely the necessary route to that eternal one. And Scripture repeatedly says that the suffering of this world will be as nothing compared to the joy, peace, and glory of that one.
Of course, another part of the Christian answer is that the only solution to the problem of evil that is both just and holy is the substitutionary suffering and death of Christ on the cross at Calvary. In a world of pain and suffering, God took his own medicine (as C.S. Lweis has it). What's more, the Bible makes clear that God had this solution planned from "before the foundation of the world," which I take to mean before the earth was created and before Adam sinned.
As a side note, there's seems to be a significant difference between angels and humans with regard to choosing sin. We sin, but God offers us redemption. For the angels who rebelled, there does not seem to be a possibility of redemption. Moreover, it seems that angels are all by now confirmed either in their obedience or their rebellion to God (there does not seem to be any more potential for good angels to choose evil). Thus, all of the angels (both good and fallen) are spectators to rather than participants in the events by which God has redeemed and is redeeming fallen humans.
I hope some of this moves the discussion along a bit. I'd be glad to continue the dialogue.
Rick
Dear S.
Obviously, I'm not going to satisfactorily address the whole problem of evil in a single email, but let me offer some suggestions that might further the discussion. It seems that you're asking a variation of the common question "Did God create evil?", and that you're specifically interested in the sin of pride with regard to Satan.
From at least the time of Augustine, an important part of the Christian answer to this question has been that evil is not a thing of itself. Rather, it is the privation or lack of good. Just as darkness is not a created stuff (but the absence of light), so, too, with evil, which is the absence of good.
The particular evil (or sin) of pride is likewise the absence (or twisting) of proper character or sentiment. For created beings (whether angels or humans), right character (righteousness) would be humility based on an accurate understanding of the glory, wisdom, and majesty of the Creator in relationship to the created. The lack of this proper humility and understanding is what we call pride, an elevating of self in one's own eyes. This sin came about as a result of a choice by Satan (and by Adam, as well as by each one of us). Thus pride (like other evil) was not created by God but came about as a result of the choices of created beings.
This leads naturally to the question of whether God couldn't/shouldn't have created a world in which creatures do not make sinful/evil choices. Today, philosophers of all stripes (that is, across the religious spectrum) acknowledge the credibility of the "free-will argument" offered by Alvin Plantinga (Dutch Reformed philosopher teaching at Notre Dame). He claimed that the existence of created beings with free will (and most agree that freedom of choice is a generally good thing, that a universe of puppets would be a dull one) necessarily entails the possibility that those free-will beings will make wrong choices (or "instantiate evil," as the philosophers would say).
So, God did not create pride or other evil, but He did create a universe in which pride and other sins would take place as a result of the choices of the sentient beings He made. For many, this still leaves God to be blamed for the pain and suffering of this world. And this complaint might be legitimate if this world were all there is. The other important part of the Christian answer is that there is another, better world waiting, one in which there will be no sin or evil. Passing through this world, then, is merely the necessary route to that eternal one. And Scripture repeatedly says that the suffering of this world will be as nothing compared to the joy, peace, and glory of that one.
Of course, another part of the Christian answer is that the only solution to the problem of evil that is both just and holy is the substitutionary suffering and death of Christ on the cross at Calvary. In a world of pain and suffering, God took his own medicine (as C.S. Lweis has it). What's more, the Bible makes clear that God had this solution planned from "before the foundation of the world," which I take to mean before the earth was created and before Adam sinned.
As a side note, there's seems to be a significant difference between angels and humans with regard to choosing sin. We sin, but God offers us redemption. For the angels who rebelled, there does not seem to be a possibility of redemption. Moreover, it seems that angels are all by now confirmed either in their obedience or their rebellion to God (there does not seem to be any more potential for good angels to choose evil). Thus, all of the angels (both good and fallen) are spectators to rather than participants in the events by which God has redeemed and is redeeming fallen humans.
I hope some of this moves the discussion along a bit. I'd be glad to continue the dialogue.
Rick
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Apologetics Lineup
The second weekend in July, I'll have the privilege of speaking at an Apologetics Conference in Bucharest. The topics list is nearing its final form, and I'm pretty excited about the way it's shaping up.
I'll begin by talking about why it is reasonable to believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible. (This one is first primarily because it sets up a talk--delivered by a Romanian apologist--about the particular miracle of the resurrection of Jesus.)
Next I'll speak on Postmodernism, showing (among other things) that its epistemology (its view of truth and our ability to know it) is self-refuting, its moral relativism unliveable, and its religious pluralism logically absurd.
Then I'm asked to talk about worldview thinking, unpacking the important components and tests of any good worldview, and then comparing Christianity to other worldview systems.
The fourth talk I've been asked to give will be a critique of naturalism in science. I'll hope to show that there is no historical precedence for seeing science as constrained by a naturalistic worldview, that in fact naturalism cannot justify or account for the very assumptions that make science a worthwhile endeavor, and that with regard to the biggest questions for science the evidence leads verwhelmingly to theistic--not naturalistic--explanations. (I'm looking forward to this one.)
The subject for a fifth talk is still under consideration (and a professor from Moody will be tackling the Reliability of the Gospels), but my weekend will conclude with an entire hour (or a bit more) of Q & A.
It should be great stuff, and I'm really looking forward to it. I've a lot to get done, however, before I leave with the team from Antioch. I'd appreciate your prayers for this event, and you can start on that anytime now.
I'll begin by talking about why it is reasonable to believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible. (This one is first primarily because it sets up a talk--delivered by a Romanian apologist--about the particular miracle of the resurrection of Jesus.)
Next I'll speak on Postmodernism, showing (among other things) that its epistemology (its view of truth and our ability to know it) is self-refuting, its moral relativism unliveable, and its religious pluralism logically absurd.
Then I'm asked to talk about worldview thinking, unpacking the important components and tests of any good worldview, and then comparing Christianity to other worldview systems.
The fourth talk I've been asked to give will be a critique of naturalism in science. I'll hope to show that there is no historical precedence for seeing science as constrained by a naturalistic worldview, that in fact naturalism cannot justify or account for the very assumptions that make science a worthwhile endeavor, and that with regard to the biggest questions for science the evidence leads verwhelmingly to theistic--not naturalistic--explanations. (I'm looking forward to this one.)
The subject for a fifth talk is still under consideration (and a professor from Moody will be tackling the Reliability of the Gospels), but my weekend will conclude with an entire hour (or a bit more) of Q & A.
It should be great stuff, and I'm really looking forward to it. I've a lot to get done, however, before I leave with the team from Antioch. I'd appreciate your prayers for this event, and you can start on that anytime now.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Nate to State
Our son Nathan capped off his high school golf season with an impressive round yesterday that earned him the number two spot in the Intermountain Conference tournament and a trip next week to the Oregon state championships.
In the 36-hole tournament that began on Monday, Nathan spotted most of his competitors several strokes by shooting a 45 on the front nine. He rallied with a 2-under 34 on the back, and his 79 left him six strokes back of the leader but with several golfers ahead of him.
The weather was a big factor on Tuesday, with howling winds making the Meadow Lakes course much more difficult and causing scores to balloon. The eventual winner, Damien Telles of The Dalles, led all scorers with a 78. Nathan matched his first-day score, but this 79 was stellar given the conditions, and his 158 total left him 4 shots clear of the third-place finishers.
Nathan's qualifying was a popular outcome--he is well-liked within the area's high school golfing community--and he received a host of hive-fives, "atta-boy"s, and even hugs prior to and during the awards ceremony. Several of his fans were on hand, including his mom, sister Aurora, his brother (and constant golfing companion) Jasper, his youth pastor Kip Jones, and his current swing coach, Spud Miller. Said Nathan,
In the 36-hole tournament that began on Monday, Nathan spotted most of his competitors several strokes by shooting a 45 on the front nine. He rallied with a 2-under 34 on the back, and his 79 left him six strokes back of the leader but with several golfers ahead of him.
The weather was a big factor on Tuesday, with howling winds making the Meadow Lakes course much more difficult and causing scores to balloon. The eventual winner, Damien Telles of The Dalles, led all scorers with a 78. Nathan matched his first-day score, but this 79 was stellar given the conditions, and his 158 total left him 4 shots clear of the third-place finishers.
Nathan's qualifying was a popular outcome--he is well-liked within the area's high school golfing community--and he received a host of hive-fives, "atta-boy"s, and even hugs prior to and during the awards ceremony. Several of his fans were on hand, including his mom, sister Aurora, his brother (and constant golfing companion) Jasper, his youth pastor Kip Jones, and his current swing coach, Spud Miller. Said Nathan,
Golf's an individual sport, but you also hope for success for all those who have helped you along the way. I've been fortunate to have the support of alot of people--Dan Hiatt, Dean Ditmore, Mike Mitchell, and Spud Miller to name a few. My teammates, Nick and Kasey, have been fun to play with, and Jasper's been a brick.The state tournament is next Monday and Tuesday at Emerald Valley in Creswell.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Christians and the News
I'm somewhat amused by the media's fascination with swine flu-related panic promotion. It's hard to see what gain there is to be had by journalists for blowing such concerns out of all proportion.
Chuck Colson offers the suggestion that the secular worldview, in which science protects us from disease and capitalism ensures our economic stability, has taken a double whammy in recent months. It's only natural, he says, that this leads to a form of real uncertainty and panic among those most committed to this view.
More generally, I used to wonder why the media tends to be so opposed to Christians and their worldview. I think the answer is a related one. It used to be (some time ago now) that news was that information that was potentially life-changing, knowledge necessary to rightly ordering one's life. Announcement of such news was infrequent and sporadic--it only occurred when real newsworthy events took place.
Today, of course, the news is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and its success depends upon convincing us that we need to tune in hourly, subscribe to the daily paper, check our internet news source at every opportunity.
And this premise, in turn, is contrary to consistent Christianity. That is, we Christians serve a Lord who transcends time, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is not surprised by swine flu, by financial down-turns, or even by horrendous terrorist attacks, much less by the sorts of things that fill the headlines most days. The God of Christianity is in sovereign control of all that goes on.
That being the case, we who follow Christ should be above the panic and the sensationalism that are used by journalists to sell their offerings. I'm not sure at what level of consciousness this understanding is held among jounalists. But I suspect that at some level, most journalists realize that if culture were filled with Christians who consistently lived with assurance of God's sovereignty over all things, it would be a whole lot tougher to find buyers for most of what passes for news these days.
Chuck Colson offers the suggestion that the secular worldview, in which science protects us from disease and capitalism ensures our economic stability, has taken a double whammy in recent months. It's only natural, he says, that this leads to a form of real uncertainty and panic among those most committed to this view.
More generally, I used to wonder why the media tends to be so opposed to Christians and their worldview. I think the answer is a related one. It used to be (some time ago now) that news was that information that was potentially life-changing, knowledge necessary to rightly ordering one's life. Announcement of such news was infrequent and sporadic--it only occurred when real newsworthy events took place.
Today, of course, the news is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and its success depends upon convincing us that we need to tune in hourly, subscribe to the daily paper, check our internet news source at every opportunity.
And this premise, in turn, is contrary to consistent Christianity. That is, we Christians serve a Lord who transcends time, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is not surprised by swine flu, by financial down-turns, or even by horrendous terrorist attacks, much less by the sorts of things that fill the headlines most days. The God of Christianity is in sovereign control of all that goes on.
That being the case, we who follow Christ should be above the panic and the sensationalism that are used by journalists to sell their offerings. I'm not sure at what level of consciousness this understanding is held among jounalists. But I suspect that at some level, most journalists realize that if culture were filled with Christians who consistently lived with assurance of God's sovereignty over all things, it would be a whole lot tougher to find buyers for most of what passes for news these days.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Last Class
This week we put the wraps on a semester of discussing "Science and the Bible." It was a varied group of interested and enthusiastic folks, and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience. As a small sample of the great subjects we covered over the 14 weeks, here's the three (or so) topics with which we wrestled in the last 2-hour class...
The origin of human beings--We compared the evolutionary and biblical ideas about how to explain humanity, and assessed each idea with regard to the paleontological, archaeological, and genetic evidence.
Hebrew genealogies, with special attention to those in Genesis 5 and 11 and whether they can be used to arrive at a date for the creation of Adam.
The origin of consciousness and the mind/body problem--We looked at the materialist and the dualist understandings of consciousness, and examined the evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind and the existence and immortality of human souls.
Just a typical class, and the students hung with me all the way. I can't wait to teach this course again in a year or two.
The origin of human beings--We compared the evolutionary and biblical ideas about how to explain humanity, and assessed each idea with regard to the paleontological, archaeological, and genetic evidence.
Hebrew genealogies, with special attention to those in Genesis 5 and 11 and whether they can be used to arrive at a date for the creation of Adam.
The origin of consciousness and the mind/body problem--We looked at the materialist and the dualist understandings of consciousness, and examined the evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind and the existence and immortality of human souls.
Just a typical class, and the students hung with me all the way. I can't wait to teach this course again in a year or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)