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

I haven't been following this discussion closely but one comment may be of
some value. There's a big difference between saying (a) "Scripture teaches
that Christ's return will be soon" & (b) "Scripture shows us that there was
a widespread expectation that Christ would return soon among the first
generation of Christians." A very good case can be made for the 2d
statement but not for the 1st.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 25 15:49:57 2009