Since I am only posting about every 2 weeks, this might be my last
opportunity to wish you all a Blessed Christmas and a Happy New
Year!
Here is an article from our local newspaper. The Australian
arch-sceptic, geology Prof. Ian Plimer (author of "Telling Lies for
God", Random, 1994), is going to sue for misleading advertising, a
group of fundamentalists who claim that the remains of the Ark have
been found on Mt Ararat.
=======================================================
46 THE WEST AUSTRALIAN SATURDAY NOVEMBER 30 1996
Court test for beliefs on ark
SYDNEY
A BIZARRE courtroom battle over whether God or evolution was
responsible for human beings will be played out in the Federal Court in
Sydney following a claim by scientists that Noah's ark was scientifically
impossible.
It will be the first time a scientist has taken legal action against
creationists-fundamentalist Christians who claim to have scientific proof
that the world was destroyed in a flood 4000 years ago and the only
survivors were aboard the ark.
At the heart of the case will be a challenge by scientists that creationism
was "pseudo-scientific nonsense" and had no place in Australian schools,
where anecdotal evidence suggests it is still often referred to.
Prominent Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer has taken action
under the Trade Practices Act against religious organisation Ark Search,
based in Canberra. -It claims to have uncovered debris in Turkey that it
believes are the remains of Noah's ark.
But the Melbourne University academic, who has visited the site, claimed
the debris was merely a lump of wood washed down in a mud slide.
Professor Plimer is using the Act to argue that commercial gains made
from the sale of literature on creation theory is misleading and deceptive
- and therefore breaches the Act.
He will be supported by a US author who is also taking action against
Ark Search for breach of copyright.
Professor Plimer said the organisation was spreading "invalidated junk
science".
The creationists' target is children who don't have the knowledge to
know this is codswallop," he said.
The Anglican rector at Broken Hill Edwin Byford, who will act as a
witness for Professor Plimer, said creationists based their theory on the
first six chapters of Genesis in the Bible.
'But it is an interpretation not shared by the mainstream churches' Dr
Byford said.
'This case will hopefully demonstrate that what the creation scientists and
others purport to be science is in fact not science but is a practical
interpretation of scriptures and it is an interpretation not shared by the
mainline churches."
"Court test for beliefs on ark", The West Australian, Saturday November
30, 1996, p46)
=======================================================
My comment is that if Christians breach the law of the land, they
should not be exempt from prosecution. But where does freedom of
religious belief fit into this? If a fundamentalist group really
believe that they have evidence of the Ark (or of miracles of
healing, etc) and collect money from those who believe it too, is
that a proper subject for the secular Trade Practices Act? Plimer's
claim that "Noah's ark was scientifically impossible" could equally
be applied to the Resurrection.
My guess is that Plimer doesn't care whether he wins or loses. He
hopes the publicity he gains will reinforce in the public's mind that
the Bible is untrustworthy and therefore creationism (and
Christianity) is false.
The clergymen who Plimer manages to get to support his cases (the
Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingsworth wrote the foreword to
"Telling Lies for God"), don't seem to realise that Plimer is
ultimately out to get them too!
God bless.
Steve
PS: Please note that while I do believe in a literal Flood (albeit
local), I do not believe that there would be any evidence of it
(including Ark remains and geological strata), existing today. God
has made sure there are no relics that we can worship instead of Him:
"Hezekiah...did what was right in the eyes of the LORD..He broke into
pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the
Israelites had been burning incense to it." (2Ki 18:1-4)
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:32:49 -0800 (PST), Randy Landrum wrote to
Brian Harper Re: Fish eyes...:
RL>When those who profess to be Christians ignore huge sections of
>scripture to fit the evolution of religion for science, they are
>nothing but a rotting mouth symbol of christianity. They are the
>predator that bites off the face of all those who have died and
>used the symbol of the Fish as their faith in Jesus Christ.
As a creationist, while I can understand Randy's feelings in this
matter, I do not agree with him using such intemperate language.
I have observed a pattern of creationists joining this Reflector,
finding the going tough, and leaving in a pyrotechnic display of
Scripture verses and imprecations. We Creationists, if we want to
persuade, must be calm, patient and courteous with those who disagree
with us. If we believe we are basically right, we should be quietly
confident and rely on the force of our arguments (and the Holy Spirit),
not on ad hominem attacks which are usually counterproductive.
Paul debated with the philosophers of Ephesus "daily in the lecture
hall of Tyrannus...for two years" (Acts 19:9-10), and we creationists
want to prevail, we should be prepared for the long haul.
BH>Randy, I hope you will forgive a slight paraphrase of one
>of Jesus' sayings. See to your own rotting mouth before talking
>about the rotting mouths of others.
OTOH, this seems unnecessarily inflammatory. :-) In view of the
sequel, perhaps it would have been better to have simply quoted Lk
6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
RL>If I did have the power to forgive sins I would but I don't. Only
>God knows your heart. If you truly ask for God's forgiveness I am
>sure he will do so. God's word is clear on paraphrasing though:
>
>Revelation
>22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
>of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
>him the plagues that are written in this book:
>22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
>prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
>of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Apart from the fact that this refers only to "the words of the
prophecy of this book" (ie. the Book of Revelation), and Brian was
paraphrasing one of the Gospels, if this is taken as prohibiting
paraphrases, then all the Bible translators are going to Hell,
because all Bible translation involves some degree of paraphrasing!
For example, a missionary from New Guinea told me that the Pidgin New
Testament translators had to render Jn 1:29 "Behold the Lamb of God..." as
"Behold the Pig of God...", because New Guinea tribespeople had no
idea of what a lamb was.
Beasley-Murray, in his commentary on Revelation in the New Bible
Commentary says:
"John has been harshly judged by many for concluding his prophecy
with the statement contained in these verses, which almost amounts
to a curse. Certainly it was a customary precaution for ancient writers
to protect their works against mutilation and interpolation by adding
such an anathema (cf. 1 Enoch 104:10, 11; 2 Enoch 48:7, 8; Letter of
Aristeas 210-211)...But, like its archetype in Deuteronomy (4:2;
12:32), it has a deeper reference; is no mere lapsus calami, no error of
judgment or merely intellectual fault which is condemned but the
deliberate falsification or misinterpretation of a divine message. It is
not the letter of the Apocalypse, but its spirit which is thus jealously
guarded.'" (Beasley-Murray G.R., "The Revelation", in Guthrie D., et
al. eds., New Bible Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester, Third
Edition, 1970, p1309).
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------