Category Archives: Objections

Does the Bible use the heart figuratively? (responding to Bro Heavyside)

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

How do OT citations work in the NT? (responding to bro Heavyside)

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

Does the grammar of Matt 19:3-5 link Genesis 1 & 2? (Responding to bro Peter Heavyside)

Bro Peter Heavyside has responded to our critique of his book Gen 1 2.  A copy can be accessed here.  We will review his responses.  His first response claims Jesus (and the grammar) in Matt 19 :3-5 links Gen 1 and 2 because of grammar. He claims the governing pronominal for the whole citation is “the beginning”. Evidence in the Greek is contrary, pointing to the clauses being independent. Plus Jesus argument is “from the beginning” God intended one man one wife, ie the earlier revelation can’t be minimised (the same logic Paul uses in Gal 3:15-18). Jesus is not arguing the unity of Genesis 1 & 2 but that the initial creative purpose of sustained marriage demonstrates a narrow view should apply to later divorce regulations. Continue reading

Is Christ Divided? Responding to difference

In 1987 articles in a liberal Christadelphian Magazine (The Endeavour), caused quite a stir and calls for dramatic action being circulated to many UK ecclesias.  Overseas groups also contributed to the clamour.  In response a large number of believers signed a joint letter published in the Christadelphian Magazine.  The letter pointed out the BASF was a human document with human limitations, exploring Scripture and questioning isn’t wrong and that ecclesias – not groups or associations of ecclesias – should moderate their member’s activities.  Useful counsel today, although our magazines now and Australian ecclesia groups (like the South Australian IEAC) would likely disagree.  The letter is below:

Continue reading

Is Adam as your father essential for salvation? Literalists think so

A reoccurring trope of literalists is a bizarre limitation on God’s plan of salvation.  A classic instance is found in bro Phil Perry’s unfortunate “Theistic Evolution Refuted” (we’re working off version 1.9 – we’re not tempted to pay for the current version).  He says if you’re not literally descended from Adam you can’t be saved by Jesus.  The same Jesus said God could raise up children to Abraham from stones (Luke 3:8).  But in the world of literalists if you don’t have Adam’s blood in your veins God can’t save you.  Here’s the detail:

Continue reading

Literalists defending incest

Mark Allfree and Matt Davies wrote a book in 2017 called “The deception of Theistic Evolution”. We have previously reviewed their attempts to reinterpret the word firmament to mean an empty expanse (or a multi layered heaven). Another issue they tackle is Cain’s wife. Their conclusion – incest was fine for thousands of years. Um… Evolutionary creationists on the other hand suggest Cain (and his brothers) didn’t marry their sisters. However Davies and Allfree, consistent with almost all literalists, conclude that God intended Adam’s sons to marry their sisters. In their own words: Continue reading

Acts 17:26 inserting Adam is incorrect

Acts 17:26 appears to give literalists a wonderful platform to insist all humans descended from Adam.  Further investigation demonstrates this interpretation is very wanting.  We don’t mind if you want to believe this, but don’t put words in Paul’s mouth and then use it to divide.  The AACE discussion paper – which will have unity implications – includes this popular but questionable misreading.  Here’s the passage: Continue reading