Category Archives: Objections

“The Way” was open to facts and new readings of Scripture – are we?

We all imagine we have arrived.  We talk about “The Truth” as if we have arrived.  Yet the Bible shows discipleship means growing and sometimes obtaining new insights into God.  Practical experience, cold hard facts sometimes prompt these insights.  Like we know humans have continually existed longer than 6,000 years.  We see this growth based on fact in Acts.

Continue reading

Phenomenological language (Creation Day 2020)

This mouthful means language describing how things appear to be. It’s a complicated idea used by creationists to avoid uncomfortable truths. Eg the Bible says the sun rises. They will claim the Bible is using phenomenological language – it is correctly recording what is relatively right only in the ill-informed & limited perspective of a human observer who is unfortunately technically wrong. How do they know it is phenomenological? Because science has shown the earth rotates. The Bible never teaches the actual facts about the planet and sun. But that’s ok – it’s phenomenologically absolutely accurate in it’s inaccuracy.

Continue reading

Is your kingdom vision killing evolutionists? Perhaps it should be!

Using a sword on evolutionary creationists in the kingdom featured as just another normal day at Swanwick Bible School 2016.  ECs, according to Jonathan Bowen – Brantford ecclesia, are morally equivalent to Nazis or those who committed religiously motivated atrocities in the reformation.  Inspiring stuff.  Hope the sword is sharp, as blunt ones hurt more apparently. Continue reading

Apocryphal books in the New Testament


Genesis literalists make much of Jesus quoting Genesis 1 & 2 in one incident. This proves much less than they claim.  But let’s run with the ‘logic’ for a second.  Jude quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch in v 14-15 and alludes to it in v6.  Jude also refers to another odd book – the Testament of Moses – in v9 (and probably alludes to it several other times).  Should we then take these odd books as authoritative?  Should we accept they have authority because they are quoted under inspiration?  The use of texts was more nuanced than the literalists realise in their rush to disprove “evilusionists”.

Gen 2:24 – Who is speaking?

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

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