Yet another lecture by Cumberland Christadelphians attacking John Walton because he recently visited South Australia. This time the presenter was Bruce Gurd. Once more, we don’t agree with everything Walton says. But the misrepresentations and illogical attack on Walton demonstrate the kind of approach literalist zealots (since many literalists are lovely) fall into. Rather than review the entire tragic affair we will focus on two points. Walton apparently “doesn’t actually believe that this Bible is inspired by God” and allegedly says “you must read all this ancient near-eastern culture and if you don’t sort of absorb all this you won’t actually understand the scriptures”. Misrepresentation and strawmen abound! Continue reading
A common cause of Bible believers accepting evolutionary creation is the terrible arguments and misrepresentations made by literalists. So with the prospect of a prominent evangelical evolutionary creationist coming to South Australia to talk about science and Scripture, the Cumberland Christadelphians decided to run a special anti-evolutionary creation lecture. We could spend too much time picking apart the lecture so here’s just a few examples of the poor logic and misrepresentations.
The solid dome of Genesis 1 was THE reading of Gen 1 until the age of Galileo. But then things had to change. Now literalists try hard to read Genesis 1 in any way which avoids the obvious. A detailed review undermines the effort – but more eloquently so did a duck. Birds categorically fly underneath the clouds according to literalists but even ducks dislike their solutions. Continue reading
“they are very good Bible students as well, and they have debated every issue you like under the sun, and they are very clever Bible students… you’re dealing with very very clever people, and don’t ever under-rate them, because they’re no fools” Ron Cowie 2015 – Study 11 [49:40] Continue reading
While the names change, a regular creationist argument is ‘Here is a famous person. They don’t believe in evolution. Therefore my rejection of evolution is rational and my interpretation of the Bible is the only right one.’ Sometimes the famous person is a list of scientists who disagree with evolution (Behe, Sanford and the ‘over 1,000 dissenting scientist list’ are the most famous examples). Whatever. The argument is very flawed for a number of reasons. Ironically it is an appeal to authority. Literalists like painting evolutionary creationists as blinded by authority/science. Yet they roll out these appeals to authority when it suits. Yet it gets worse. Continue reading
It is little wonder some literalists avoid Eccl 7:29 as a proof text of a change in Adam. Some however love it – particularly those close to the Lampstand Magazine. For discussion in detail see here.
On 12.08.18, Neville Clark presented a lecture on the subject of demons in Scripture. The crux of his argument is that demons do not exist, and that every reference to them in Scripture is merely a well-established ancient euphemism for mental illness and/or mental disability. While Neville does make a number of valid points in his talk, he overstates the case considerably and leaves a number of crucial issues unaddressed. This paper will examine these, and present an alternative interpretation. Continue reading