Re: [asa] Radioactive decay of U-238 is imminent (just wait a few billion years)

Hi Bernie,

Burgy's remark that a dictionary definition is a poor guide when it comes to theological terms struck me as apposite. So I did a quick check of my theological library, and came up with the following. They serve to illustrate the point I've been attempting to make that when used in the context of Christian theology, "imminent" does NOT mean "soon" but rather "at any time" or (as I actually prefer to put it) "suddenly and without warning".

Note that Gudrem has a pretty good response to the claim that the biblical materials teach that Jesus return would be "soon" - like myself he notes that NONE of the texts regarding Jesus return necessarily require such an interpretation.

What's interesting about the below - particularly the passage from Bilezikian - is that it is apparent that there is great possibility for confusion regarding the use of the term. Whereas traditional theological usage (to which I appeal) has used "imminent" to mean "at any time" (now or in a million years) this stand in some tension with the common usage in which "imminent" is taken to mean "soon".

Note that IF one REJECTS (as I do) the claim that scripture teaches Christ's return will be "soon" in favour of the idea that it will be "suddenly and without warning"; and IF one defines "imminent" in accordance with traditional theological usage to mean "at any time" (now OR in a million years), THEN there is no shell-game being played.

Hope the below is helpful in furthering your appreciation of the point being made - that "imminent" when used in the context of Christian eschatology has an particular meaning which is determined by something other than common usage.

Blessings,
Murray

From Stanley Gundry, "Imminence," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 551;

<cite>
"The doctrine that Christ can return at any moment and that no predicted event must intervene before that return."
</cite>

From Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1994.) 1096n7.

<cite>
"In this chapter, it must be made clear that I am not using imminent as a technical term for a pre-tribulational rapture position (explained below), but simply to mean that Christ could return at any day, or even any hour. Furthermore, I am not using the word imminent to mean that Christ certainly will come soon (for then the verses teaching imminence would have been untrue when they were written). I am using the word imminent to mean that Christ could come and might come at any time, and that we are to be prepared for him to come at any day. (Others define imminent more broadly, taking it to mean that Christ could come in any generation. I am not using the term in that way in this chapter.
</cite>

From Bilezikian, Gilbert G. Christianity 101: Your Guide to Eight Basic Christian Beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993. 231-32.

<cite>
Practically every church creed or statement of faith that mentions the Second Coming confesses that no one knows for certain the time of the Parousia, but acknowledges that it will surely happen. It could happen at the present moment or in a million years, but its eventual occurrence is certain. From a human perspective, the time of the event is unknown, but the fact is unquestionably confirmed in Scripture.

Generally, this is the meaning that the word "imminent" is intended to convey when it is used in relation to the Parousia. Strictly speaking, however, the word "imminent" means something else. According to the dictionary an event is imminent when it is just about to happen. For instance, should someone pull the pin off a hand grenade and let go of it, the explosion of the grenade would be imminent, in the sense that it would happen almost [232] immediately. But should the pin have corroded and seem weak enough to let go on its own, we could not say that the explosion is imminent. All we could say is that it is "possibly imminent," with the exact time being unpredictable.

Likewise for our own individual demise, we all know that death is inevitable. Any of us could die at any moment. But people in reasonably good health do not say that their death is "imminent." This can be said only of people whose vital signs are down and who are visibly on their way out of this life. Thus, to speak accurately, the word "imminent" must be qualified when it is applied to the Second Coming. That is why we have placed it in quotation marks in the title above. We are using the term as a concession to tradition and as an attempt to communicate the concept in familiar terms. But we qualify its meaning here to convey the idea of the possible imminence of the Parousia, an event that will happen for sure but at a time that cannot be accurately anticipated by humans. Indeed, the occurrence of the Parousia could be imminent, but it could also be a long time in the making.

Any discussion of the time frame for the Parousia must be grounded in Scripture. Fortunately, the New Testament yields abundant data in this area. The New Testament gives ample evidence that the early Christians believed in the possible imminence of the Parousia and that they lived in a mode of active expectancy for the Lord's return, yet without attempting to seek signs or to set dates.
</cite>

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> 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 Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:25:48 +1100