Monthly Archives: August 2017

Early Christadelphian approaches to the Bible

Our pioneers and earliest commentators believed we should study Scripture using the best scholarship in science, history, archaeology, textual criticism, lexicography, and Bible study, leaving us an excellent example. They used science and scholarship to combat doctrinal error,[1] [2] believing scientific facts always supports the Bible.[3] [4] [5] [6] They accepted the scientific evidence for the age of the earth[7] [8] [9] [10] and pre-Adamic human beings, [11] [12] [13]  despite rejecting evolution.[14] [15] They wrote articles arguing the Genesis flood was not global, [16] that the days of Genesis 1 were not necessarily literal,[17] that the Bible cannot be understood simply through literal interpretation,[18] [19] and that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.[20]  [21] [22] They supported the most modern Bible available (the Revised Version), and promoted Tischendorf’s New Testament, based on Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, which they regarded as ‘the three most ancient original’ manuscripts.[23] Continue reading


Wilfred Lambert on Genesis 1-3


Bro Wilfred Lambert was an outstanding Assyriologist with a gift for ancient languages.  He translated and published books and papers on various cuneiform tablets and seals.[1]  Bro Lambert also published articles on his understanding of Genesis 1-3.  You can see a number of these articles today at this Endeavour Magazine site.  His work demonstrates that a wider variety of opinions have (and continue) to exist in our community) despite the narrow demands of some. Continue reading

What does Genesis 1 mean?

While there is a fair amount of material on Genesis 1 on this blog, much of it is pointing out limitations in some readings rather than addressing the text as it is.  There is some fantastic material (and not so great stuff as well) around.

Bro David Brown has an interesting and well reasoned series of articles on his blog here.  COD maintains the literality of the serpent (along with the special creation of Adam and Eve), however despite some differences there is a lot of value in David’s well reasoned work.






How do you implement the wheat & tares parable?


The parable of the wheat and tares is exclusive to Matt 13:24-30.  It provides a challenging limitation to those who seek to impose their understanding as the basis of fellowship.  Any practice of disfellowship has to encompass the whole gamut of scripture, rather than pick and choose passages which support our preferred model of operations.  As brother I Collyer noted “an industrious rooting out of tares may be a mistaken zeal” [1], however the Lord goes further commanding such activity NOT occur. Continue reading

Presenting the evidence – The Fourth Conversation

untitledFor a calm and very accessible introduction to the evidence for evolution I recommend the book “The Fourth Conversation”.  Written by a Christadelphian, this presents the evidence for evolution in a simple easy manner.  The book is available on Kindle, hardcopy, as a pdf or on this blog (where all formats are accessed from).

To quote two paragraphs from the book…

“To be clear, I’m not asking or expecting readers to agree with this position, although to be honest, I do hope that these notes might be useful for those who are on that journey of discovery inspired by their passion for the sciences, and who are grounded by a faith and trust in God. I also hope that it will benefit those who are struggling to understand someone else’s point of view who has already made this journey.”

“As Johannes Kepler said, “Praise and celebrate with me the wisdom and magnitude of the Creator, which I lay open before you by means of a deeper explanation of the structure of the world, by the search for its causes…””

The debate has been ongoing, quite exhaustingly, for a long period in our community.  This publication is a positive and calm contribution to the discussion setting out what the evidence is and positively explain the details which have led many believers to accept God’s miracle may have worked differently to how we previously imagined.