On Creationism

I have been reading Robert Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" recently. He makes the case that James was the leader of the Christian church after Jesus died, until his own death in AD 62. Since that time, however, his role got downplayed, as Jesus became ever more divine. It was awkward for God incarnate to have a brother, so James was redacted from the narrative. Eisenman draws on the Dead Sea Scrolls to a large degree, and this is generally regards as suspect, as he has to ignore the dating of the documents to make it work. Nevertheless, the rest of his argument seems to be well regarded, and I found it pretty convincing. Five years later (Jul/24): I now think Eisenman has it wrong. A better explanation: We have James, the Brother of John, who was an original disciple, and became leader of the church. Then we have James, the Brother of Jesus, a pious man who rejected Jesus claims when Jesus was alive, but became convinced later, perhaps after having a vision, and...

As I look at the account in the gospels, I see a process of embellishment. It is not a simple progression, I suspect the authors of Luke and Matthew were working separately, so embellished in different directions. Here are some examples, in no particular order. The Resurrection Mark's account is clearly the least elaborate. In the later gospels, we can see bits that look to have been added to counter specific objections: Jesus was merely a ghost: Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,[b] 43 and he took it and ate before them. The disciples stole the body: Matthew 27:64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disci...

Where did all the water come from to make the flood? One creationist theory is that it came from a comet. When you pick a rock off the ground you have to expend energy to lift it, and the rock gains gravitational potential energy (GPE). Let go of the rock, and it falls; it loses GPE, but gains kinetic energy because it is moving. It will also warm up due to air resistence. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us energy is conserved, so as the rock drops and loses GPE, all that energy must be converted to kinetic energy and heat, and when the rock lands ultimately all the kinetic energy will be converted to heat too. GPE can be calculated from: GPE = m x g x h ... where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the height. If the rock weighs 1 kg (m=1), and falls 1 m (h=1), and at the Earth's surface the acceleration due to gravity is approximately 10 m/s/s (g=10) then it must lose this much energy: GPE = m x g x h = 1 x 1 x 10 = 10 kJ Ultim...

This is something I have never seen creationists address. For science, the geological column represents a progression over deep time. Fossils found at the bottom will be older than those at the top, and evolution explains how those fossils are different. It is worth noting that the geological column is to some degree a construct of man. It is a synthesis of numerous partial columns across the world. However, there is a consistency to them that allows them to be merged into one complete geological column. Many creationists accept this and provide various rationales for the sorting of fossils, for example here , here and here - usually based on gross simplifications of what fossils are there, and ignoring that plant fossils are seen all through the column, for example. However, what this page is about is how isotopes are distributed. Scientists use radiometric dating to determine the age of rocks, one such method uses potassium-40, which decays to argon-40. When the rock is fo...

The Gospel of John is complicated, as it seems to have more than one author. The most obvious illustration of this is the final chapter, which is clearly a later addition. Though it is possible it is a later addition by the same author, I would have expected such an author to have felt free to change the previous chapter to make it fit; another author is likely to have considered the extant writing to be sacrosanct. See also John 21:24, which further indicates the author of this chapter was not written by the principle author: John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. It is quite dissimilar to the other gospels, being more spiritual in its approach, but also in the story it relates. For example, John has Jesus' ministry lasting for two to three years (three pass-overs), compared to only one in the synoptic gospels. John has Jesus crucified on the day of the passover (i.e., the passover was that even...

The author of the Gospel of Luke gives the story of Jesus in a way that links him to Elijah, rather than Moses as is done in Matthew. http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4422/ The author of the Gospel of Luke makes it clear that he was not a witness to any part of Jesus' life: Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Opinion seems divided on the author, with scholars approximately evenly split between Luke and some anonymous, Hellenised Christian. As for the date, this seems likely to be 80-100 AD. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and th...

The author of Matthew draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, the most striking example being the flight to Egypt in the nativity. The evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew is poor indeed. This seems to be: It has consistently been accredited to Matthew from around the middle of the second century The testament of Papias The fact that only this gospel mentions that Matthew was a tax collector and details his call to discipleship In fact, the testament of Papias argues against Matthew as the author. He is cited by Euebius: " Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could ." As discussed later, modern scholars recognise that the Gospel of Matthew we have was originally written in Greek, and therefore is not the text that Papias talked about. The supposed prophesy about a virgin birth is due to a mistranslation of Isaiah in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew B...

The question of who wrote the gospels is a fascinating, and one I would like to briefly dip into. Let us start with Mark, as it is generally thought to be written first. Around 300 AD, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea quotes Papias: This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ.  For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them.  For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. Eusebius also cites Clement of Alexandria: And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they...

Christian apologists have made several attempts to explain away references to the firmament, and many modern Bibles now use the term "expanse" to try to sweep the issue under the carpet. This post looks at some Christian apologist web pages that attempt to deal with the issue. Answering Islam Web page here .They look at this verse: Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? Note that in those times mirrors were made of molten bronze or copper, which was then polished, so "molten looking glass" presumably meant a metal mirror. They quote Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties , 1992, and so shall I. It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word 'board' referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board memb...

Does the Bible promote a flat Earth cosmology or a modern cosmology? Part 1 looked at the cosmology set out in Genesis chapter 1, part 2 looked at the many other references to a flat earth cosmology (FEC) in the Bible. This part will now look at verses that Christians have said suggest a modern cosmology. The Circle of the Earth The one usually cited is this: Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,      and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,      and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; For example here , here and here . It is curious because I also cited in in part 2 as a verse supporting a flat Earth cosmology. The claim is that the ancient Hebrews had no word for sphere, so when they said " circle of the earth" they meant sphere. Well, maybe. But maybe not. Maybe they really meant circle. The Hebrews did have a word דּוּר or "dur", which can mean ball ,...

Does the Bible promote a flat Earth cosmology or a modern cosmology? Part 1 looked at the cosmology set out in Genesis chapter 1, this post will look at the many other references to a flat earth cosmology (FEC) in the Bible. Part 3 will then look at verses that Christians have said suggest a modern cosmology. By the way, the Skeptics Annotated Bible was a great help compiling this list. Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; In the Hebrew it says the rain stopped when God closed the "arubbah" - a lattice, window or sluice. Makes sense if the sky is a solid structure. The fountains of the deep were supplied by the "waters below". Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun...

Does the Bible promote a flat Earth cosmology or a modern cosmology? This is the first of three posts that will address that question. First let us think about what a flat Earth cosmology actually means. In this view the earth is stationary. Stretched out over it is a solid dome-like structure, the firmament. The stars, moon and sun are relatively small (much smaller than the Earth), and travel across the firmament. Above the firmament are the waters above, and below the earth are the waters of the deep. The ancient Greeks first proposed a spherical world as early as the sixth century BC, but it was not until the third century BC that it was accepted by Greek astronomers, and it took a long time to spread. Many notable Christians continued to believe in a flat Earth until around the fourth century AD - and used the Bible to support that position. It was, of course, much later that geocentrism was abandoned. In this first post of three I will be looking at Genesis 1, and seeing h...