RE: Claiming that "imminent" can mean a million years from now...
I think there is a shell-game being played like this:
1. Jesus return is imminent.
2. Imminent can mean "at any time."
3. "At any time" could be now or a million years from now
4. Therefore- imminent means now or in a million years.
Notice how no one reading the Bible would jump directly from imminent meaning "a million years" as a possibly. I think the NT writers were clear in expecting a return of Christ in their day- almost 2,000 years ago. It takes the trick of using the phrase "at any time" to get there.
The trick was in #2. Imminent can mean "at any time" but so can a million years. Imminent is a subset of "at any time" and is not a synonym. Also, when it equates to "at any time" it means, in further detail, "at any time in the very near future."
I think this whole issue is the key to getting evangelicals interested in the "green business." There's no need to go green if our time here is very short.
John said in a later email (I'm not commenting on most of the rest of his email, because I largely agree):
"2. Your "Mary" example does not compute. Even if I were to say that (I'd more likely use "soon") all words are to be taken in context, and since you and I both know my parties do not extend more than a few hours, 20 years is clearly not an option."
I'd say the same thing with the Bible- the context of the word "imminent" in how it is used seems to mean it is going to happen really soon... within a few years at most.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:41 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Radioactive decay of U-238 is imminent (just wait a few billion years)
Pastor Murray said:
"You actually CAN'T say ANYTHING about when the decay of any particular U-238 atom is going to occur - which is why "imminent" - "likely to happen at any time" is the CORRECT word (check your own citations)."
At play here is the meaning of the phrase "at any time." That can mean one of two things:
1. Literally- at any time- such as in the next second or next million years.
2. Figuratively- meaning very soon.
For example- if we were watching old faithful erupt, and it was about to erupt according to it's schedule, and someone asked when it would erupt, I would say "at any time." Clearly this means within seconds or minutes- not millions of years or even days.
If I ask when a certain atom will decay in a radioactive material, the answer could be "at any time," meaning no one knows. It could be this second, or a million years from now. It would not be correct to say a particular atom will decay "imminently" or "in a million years," because we can't predict it. To say either one, for a particular atom, would be wrong.
If I ask someone when Christ will return, and this person thinks Christ can return now or in a million years, he could say "at any time." However- in this case- he is not thinking the return is "imminent." It might be imminent- it might not. "Very soon" and "a million years" are virtual opposites- so how can one think the return of Christ is both imminent and maybe a million years?
One person could be convinced in the imminent return of Christ, that Christ would return tomorrow (or the next day, or very soon, "at any time" within that time range), and say His return is both "at any time" and "imminent." This is what the Bible teaches, and is at odds with both history and the idea of caring for this Earth (because it may stick around for a few million years if the Lord tarries.) This is the real conflict. It is the elephant in the room- which seems to me that you want to pretend doesn't exist (my observation; I could be wrong).
My claim: it is incoherent to argue for both the imminent return of Christ and also expect a very long "million-year" wait for the return of the Lord.
As ChristianityToday and John Whalley wrote- this idea of imminence is a great drive for the need to be saved. The whole thing about that is imminence- the sense of urgency because of a lack of time. If these people thought "imminence" could mean a million years- it would never have the effect on these people as well as the early church. They knew what "imminent" means... there was no confusion with them.
I hope it is possible to disagree and still be friends.
...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:52 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Radioactive decay of U-238 is imminent (just wait a few billion years)
Bernie,
You should (1) stop being contentious and try to understand the point being made; (2) brush up on your clear lack of familiarity with radioactive decay.
It is simply NOT true to say of any atom of U-238 that it's decay to Th-234 "is going to be an extremely long wait".
You actually CAN'T say ANYTHING about when the decay of any particular U-238 atom is going to occur - which is why "imminent" - "likely to happen at any time" is the CORRECT word (check your own citations).
Blessings,
Murray
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Hi Pastor Murray- you said:
>
>
>
> " ...any atom of Uranium-238 the decay to Thorium-234 is "imminent""
>
> Isn't that */_just as wrong_/* as if you said (which is also true):
>
>
>
> " ...any atom of Uranium-238 the decay to Thorium-234 is going to be an
> extremely long wait"
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:37 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Radioactive decay of U-238 is imminent (just wait a
> few billion years)
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
>
>
> Two remarks;
>
>
>
> 1) Of COURSE you're not sure about the example but that's because it
> conflicts with your inadequate grasp of how the term "imminent" is being
> used in this context.
>
>
>
> What matters is that the example elucidates the usage. And arguing that
> the example doesn't work because the usage is wrong is, as we say in
> Australia, "arse end about".
>
>
>
> What you should be asking is NOT "what does the word mean?" BUT "what
> does Burgy mean?". Unless, of course, your primary concern is to correct
> his linguistic usage rather than to understand his point.
>
>
>
> 2) I chose to make reference to a particular atom rather than multiple
> atoms precisely to avoid the confusion of "partial" decay. So yeah,
> Jesus doesn't return in parts, but neither does any particular atom so
> decay.
>
>
>
> Bottom line: instead of critiquing the example because it doesn't match
> YOUR idea of what is meant by "imminent" - perhaps you might reflect
> upon it in order to come to some understanding of what OTHER people mean
> by the term.
>
>
>
> Blessings,
>
> Murray
>
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Hi Pastor Murray-
>
>>
>
>> That is an interesting example.
>
>>
>
>> I'm not sure it is correct to say that any particular atom would decay
> imminently, because we know some will decay soon (imminently), some much
> later (not imminent at all), and we are unable to predict when it will
> happen for a particular atom.
>
>>
>
>> In the case of the return of Jesus- it is all supposed to be imminent-
> not parts now and other parts millions of years later.
>
>>
>
>> ...Bernie
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:08 AM
>
>> To: ASA
>
>> Subject: [asa] Radioactive decay of U-238 is imminent (just wait a few
> billion years)
>
>>
>
>> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>
>> > I take "imminent" to mean "at any time." No indication in the word as
>
>> > to whether that time is 10 nanoseconds from now -- or 4 million years.
>
>>
>
>> Hi Burgy,
>
>>
>
>> It strikes me that a scientific example illustrating the notion of
> immanence would be radioactive decay.
>
>>
>
>> To take the most extreme instance, there is nothing inconsistent with
> the observation that for any atom of Uranium-238 the decay to
> Thorium-234 is "imminent" AND with the belief that with a half-life of
> about 4.5 billion years it's probably not worth sitting around waiting
> for it to happen!
>
>>
>
>> Blessings,
>
>> Murray
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 23 12:13:52 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 23 2009 - 12:13:52 EST