Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, May 09, 2011

Interesting Stuff on the Web

I wanted to get this up last week, but chores both at work and home occupied my time. Better late than never, I guess.


Michael J. Krugger, one of my favorite Reformed Presby writers, has a review up of Bart Ehrman's new book, Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Michael was also interviewed about Ehrman on the STR program April 11th. It's worth a listen. Interview starts the last hour of the program.

A couple of items on Genesis and creation. First, I appreciate this brief post explaining how Genesis is not poetry and it certainly is history. I would even add that it isn't just a theological polemic, either, that being the current vogue explanation among commentators. Emphasis needs to be placed on the significance of Genesis as an historical narrative.

And, I always chuckle when strict Darwinists have to resort to the use of such words as "design" and "purpose" to describe the complexity of life. "Design" and "purpose" being significant no-nos in Evolutionary dogma. Jerry Bergman writes about the move by "book burning" science writers to purge such "ID" friendly talk from their literature: Scientists Urge Censorship of Terms Implying Design and Purpose When Describing Life.

I love urban legends. Christian evangelicals have a ton of them. Former TMS class mate of mine, Todd Bolen, exposes a couple of well known ones. First, the countless messages I have heard on hell always have a reference to gehenna as the city dump outside Jerusalem that had perpetual smoldering rubber tires. Well, smoldering garbage. It's a myth. Also see his follow-up post on the background to gehenna=city dump.

And...I always wondered about the story of the high priest putting bells on his robes and a rope around his ankle so that those outside the holy of holies could hear him moving about and if the jingling stops, pull his dead body out by the rope. It's a myth, too.

And this article isn't so much pointing out a myth as it is attempting to deal with a problem passage: Joshua's Long Day: A Survey and Assessment of Interpretations. I wonder about the author's conclusion that this day was just some extension of the darkness by the hailstorm mentioned in the previous verses. I may have more to say on this passage in a stand alone post, but why is it automatically assumed a miracle of cosmological proportions is problematic?

Did you hear about the radical homosexual community in San Francisco that had a hunky Muhammed contest mocking Islam? Of course you didn't, because it was a hunky Jesus contest on Easter Sunday complete with sexually explicit acts (with children present) designed to mock Christians. The hypocrites in the media would never report on the blasphemous bigotry. But imagine if a SBC mega-church were to put on a play about homosexuals renouncing their lifestyle?

In the meantime, one soul warming item to mention. Radio apologist, Michael Brown, recently did a campus debate with a lawyer on the subject of same-sex marriage. I have only heard excerpts, but Dr. Brown apparently handily defeated his opponent: Brown/Smaw debate on same-sex marriage.

He recently published a book on the radical homosexual agenda that may be worth picking up:
A Queer Thing Happened to America



Blogger Sir Aaron said...

Why do we have to go such convoluted explanations of Joshua 10? It's not as if we don't speak in the same way today. Do we not say the sun set or that the moon seems really big tonight? The fact of the matter is that we are trying to defend with the wrong presumptions. We should argue that the Bible is correct and even in the 21st Century we understand what the passage means, because we speak much the same way ourselves. The passage isn't a scientific treatise on how miracles affect the universe on a cosmological basis. It is simply a historical account of Joshua asked God to freeze the sun in they sky and God did it. The exact means of how God did it, isn't really relevant.

Regarding the homosexual activists who engage in direct blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ. How scary is it to see people know the truth and publically, openly engage in rebellion against it?

10:05 AM, May 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Brown owned that debate.

9:57 PM, May 09, 2011  
Blogger DJP said...

Brown owned the debate because he almost is the only one who showed up for it, was prepared for it, and carried it.

Based on hearing 9+ of the 10 segments so far, Smaw was juvenile, petulant, evasive, posturing, superficial, and insulting. He virtually seemed not to have given the topic any serious thought.

I do wish Brown had answered Smaw's benefits/burdens argument (his only argument) more directly, unless he does in the remaining rebuttal. I also wish he had asked Smaw for the name of the person who "axed" him not to talk about the implications for polygamy and the like.

Smaw did not adorn his institution, to say the least.

5:58 AM, May 11, 2011  
Blogger DJP said...

OK, now I've finished it. No change to what I said. Brown was prepared and on-topic. Smaw was unprepared and unserious to the end.

10:22 AM, May 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home