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
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
“It was only after a friendly discussion with a SDA who questioned my belief in ‘a real talking snake’ rather than Satan in disguise that I freed myself to read Genesis chapters 2 and 3 as a powerful allegory. Later I learned to read chapter 1 as a grand celebratory poem of creation, suitably positioned at the very beginning of the Bible – and it’s not the only poem about creation in the Bible, either!”
“Now my belief in the Bible has never been stronger and I can reconcile the creation with the world around me.”
“It is precisely here, at the face of Tehom, that the breath of the Divine flutters, we are told, like a nesting dove over her fledgling chicks. Concerned, protective, nurturing, urging her brood into flight, so too the breath/wind/spirit of God returns again and again to the edges of disorder and chaos, unsettling the norms, disrupting the habitual, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, cracking an opening for novelty to emerge. The Hebrew verb, merachefet, to sweep or flutter, is “vibration, movement. … Motion, which is the essential element in change, originates with God’s dynamic presence.” There are physicists who remind us that the components of matter are really vibrations, fluttering packets of energy shimmying the dance of becoming: “the microscopic landscape is suffused with tiny strings whose vibrational patterns orchestrate the evolution of the cosmos.” The divine vibrating resiliently invites chaos toward cosmos, organizing, constraining, enticing, luring. The work of creation is never ending and never static. We are a part of its harvest, and we are, with the cosmos and the Divine, co-creators. The ruach continues to vibrate across the face of tehom, though us, in us, with us: creatio continua, continuous creating.”
Artson, B. S. (n.d.). Vibrating Over the Face of the Deep: God’s creating and ours.
Do yourself a favour and just read the whole article – its not very long 🙂 Yes we know the implication of chaos in Gen 1 is a touch astray (it’s more Psa 104) but still a good read.