Archaeologists in the Czech republic have uncovered the oldest wooden structure ever found – an old wooden well. Built in the Neolithic period the age of the artefact was confirmed generally by the pottery styles and specifically by dendrochronology (tree rings) and carbon dating. The tree ring record enabled the scientists to estimate the season in which the wood was cut.
B death (12b);
B all die (12c)
A because all sin (12d).
Archaeologists in the Middle East (including sites in Israel), keep digging up evidence of the ancient relationship between people and dogs. Genetics suggest the domestication started around 15,000 years ago. Where this first happened (and how many times) remains an open question. But archaeology is finding evidence of co-habitation, including multiple sites in the Middle East around 11,500 years ago. The archaeological and genetic evidence all point to the same continuous record which doesn’t work for any literal reading of Genesis 1.
We objected to Bro Heavyside’s assertion that Adam prophetically spoke Gen 2:24, on the basis that critique was invited of the exposition in the book. Bro Heavyside acknowledges the Hebrew (“therefore”) introducing Gen 2:24 is often used as a narrator’s interjection to explain the events as the basis of ongoing custom/practice. His counter arguments aren’t contextual. In Gen 2:23 Adam is clearly speaking. Gen 2:25 it is clearly God/narrator. Bro Heavyside is claiming v24 is still Adam under inspiration as a prophet. He has the burden of proof yet doesn’t attempt to prove his claim, let alone the contrary pointers. Continue reading
Bro Heavyside objects to our critique that he “omits to present a unified framework in which Jesus can make biologically incorrect remarks and yet be historically accurate about another aspect of God’s creation”. In response he points to an instant of clear figurative use (God having a heart)to declare ALL uses are figurative. Claiming ‘because one therefore all’ isn’t proof. Plus the figurative use of the heart in scripture (like God having one) is still rooted in an incorrect understanding of the heart’s function. The claim flies in the face of the known common beliefs of the times. Actually bro Heavyside declares such physiological misstatements as figurative because of science. His approach to statements on creation is to maintain scripture is literal despite science (how does he know they are not also figurative?!). Hence we maintain Genesis literalists lack a unified/consistent interpretive framework. Continue reading
We have demonstrated composite Old Testament uses are thematic (using Mark 1:2 and Acts 13:22 as examples). Bro Heavyside responds claiming Matt 19/Mark 10 is a different type of citation because it is introduced (slightly) differently. But composite citations don’t work as bro Heavyside claimed and his response is to propose a new taxonomy without any evidence. His argument pushes the idea (inadvertently) that less precisely introduced citations reveal more about the underlying passages than precise citations. Continue reading