Adam and Eve and Bryan College: BioLogos strikes

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 11, 2014

Christian Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some say 20% of faculty are leaving.

Students and faculty at Bryan are upset at a move last month by the school’s board of trustees to “clarify” that the college believes Adam and Eve were historical figures created directly by God. The board says the clarification does not change the school’s historical position on origins. But some at Bryan believe the board’s action was intended to force out professors who may be sympathetic to evolution, and think it was unfair to do so at a time when faculty contracts are due for renewal. …

An English professor at the school, Whit Jones, said the timing of the clarification had been a “puzzle” to many on faculty, but might have been sparked by recent writings from two of his colleagues: Kenneth Turner, a Bible professor, and Brian Eisenback, an associate professor of biology who graduated from Bryan College in 2002. Together, Turner and Eisenback are writing science education materials under a grant from The BioLogos Foundation, an organization in Grand Rapids, Mich., that promotes theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution, also called “evolutionary creation,” posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans. Bryan’s original belief statement would seem to preclude theistic evolution for humans because it says mankind’s sin “incurred physical … death”—death being a necessary component for evolution.

Though some proponents of creationism or intelligent design would argue the case for evolution is flimsy, Turner and Eisenback wrote otherwise in a two-part article that appeared on the BioLogos website in December: “Macroevolution is robust and has multiple lines of evidence in support of it, including the fossil record and molecular biology. … The reality is that evolution is not a theory teetering on the edge of collapse. More.

The obvious problem, for a person who has been following the news stream, is that the fossil record and molecular biology so often do not agree. And “evolution” is not so much “a theory teetering on the edge of collapse” as a theory that doesn’t explain anything. That is, we say “evolved to do” when we really mean “does.”

Darwin’s followers, including BioLogians, get marks for their Darwinian piety, talking this way.

But Laszlo Bencze comments:

Apparently some former graduates of Bryan College are writing a science curriculum that will cover the full spectrum of views from hard core evolution to hard core creation. As best I can tell, the authors favor “theistic evolution” although they prefer the term “evolutionary creationism” which is the same thing. Here’s a definition from the article: “Theistic evolution, also called ‘evolutionary creation,’ posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans.”

Let’s translate that into straightforward English. “God used a process which works perfectly without any intelligent agent to create biological life.” Another way of saying it is “God used a completely self-contained process which is not accessible to any agent to create life.”

We start to see the problem with these statements. The problem is God. The statements work so much better if we simply eliminate God, whose role seems limited to creating a contradiction.

“A process which works perfectly without any intelligent agency created life.” There. Now there’s no contradiction and the statement makes sense.

Or, if you prefer, “God, an agent of unlimited intelligence and act, created life.” That statement, too, is shorn of contradiction and makes sense.

But there’s no way to combine these two statements into a coherent and logical proposition.

Like a figure which is both a circle and a square at the same time in the same way, theistic evolution is a flat out contradiction and makes no sense.

Maybe that’s what makes it somehow feel so right to so many people these days. 😉
Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

What do scholars think of how Christ was crucified? Perhaps a look at some book covers. The Death of the Messiah Jesus RememberedMung_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Okay, so if you were TWELVE in 1914 how old would you be in 2014? If you answered 112 years old then you are a JW math genius. Do you know anybody that old? I don’t. Obviously this is another failure on the part of the not so “faithful slave” and this pattern has continued to repeat itself through the history of their organization. I think that 2014 will mark a mass departure from the organization by millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are fed up and tired of being lied to. 1914 – 2014 What Will The Watchtower Do Now?
Mung_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

At least in E. W. Bullinger the Witnesses had someone they could have cited as justification for their new "torture stake" doctrine, but they didn't. So once again we can see that the doctrine had nothing to do with scholarship and the modern insistence on trying to make it appear like an issue of scholarship is just a red herring. I've known for some time in this debate that quoting this or that source was not going to convince Barb or get her to change her mind, but I enjoy doing the research and am enjoying how the more I look the more evidence there is that the orthodox Christian view is completely reasonable and is highly likely even the correct view and there was no need to change it. And Barb has yet to deal with the fact that early Christians (and yes even pagans) thought of the cross of Christ as having two pieces in the form of a T or t.Mung_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Barb, because stauros can mean an upright pale or stake, which no one here denies, how does it follow that it can only mean an upright pale or stake, as you and the watchtower society claim? Please explain the logic.Mung_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Barb: Sadly, there you go again. There is sufficient lexical and historical record that Cross, Crux, Stauros, in the context of executions could mean any of a T, t, X, Y (a handy forked tree), or I. So the attempt to impose just the I on language claims fails. Second, by Metonymy, something that primarily denotes a part or an associated entity, can stand for the whole. So, there is a way to understand how stauros would be used in that wider sense. Next, on eyewitness textual evidence, we have Jesus having NAILS, plural making holes in his HANDS. This is consistent with T,t,X or Y. He carried the patibulum [until he had to be helped by Simon the Cyrene], which immediately points to T or t, as we know what that was historically. A simple density and reasonable size calc will show this weighed easily 40 - 60+ lbs, barely feasible for a badly whipped man. The upright easily would be 150 lbs, not feasible for the known march of humiliation practice. And not consistent with the known practice. Known. Then, we see that a signboard of significant size (that part, the Watchtower materials I have seen, seem to get right, much moreso than the INRI's I remember seeing) was over his head. That makes t most likely. In addition, the reference to the thieves on either hand is supportive. As are experiments that point to loss of consciousness in about six minutes for people suspended from arms together above their heads; Jesus survived at least three hours, and crucifixion victims were known to live for much longer. In short the accumulation of evidence is clear, and it points decisively away from I. beyond, the already cited from 1 Cor 1 suffices to show that preaching the cross and preaching the gospel were synonymous within eyewitness lifetime. Going on, the recovered Christian ossuaries from Jerusalem from the 40's on, show the Cross as an early definitively Christian symbol. Likewise references from the fathers in the relevant ante-Nicene period, point to the general shape being a T ot t. There are even indicators from how letters in key words were stylised in manuscripts. So, as a matter of general historical accuracy, understanding t is best warranted, with T also possible. To say that is not to import a pagan symbol, it is simply to state that the evidence supports a conclusion. Where, we see Paul's turnabout implying just what both Jews and Gentiles thought of crosses in his day: an object of shame and being accursed in a shame-honour culture. I have said enough, and resummarised enough for record. In that this is not a theology blog, the best we can say here, is this at least helps us focus our minds on how we handle evidence and how we reason inductively per inference to best explanation. If this is dragged out in endless circles, all it will do is give ammunition to those who wish only to find occasion to further propagate the rationalist myth of a war of religion against science and sound scholarship. And indeed that is the crux of the issues over [William Jennings] Bryan College and its attempt to secure its doctrinal stance. As, I commented on above. KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

ope there should now be enough to stand for record, and to show that the accusation that the cross is a pagan imposition on the genuine Christian tradition, emblematic of a mass falling away from truth, is ill-grounded. Sorry, but that's not the case at all. KF:
Barb: endlessly repeating a mantra does not make it so. I will simply note that Gospel preaching is an act of worship and that the cross is pivotal to it, as the AD 55 1 Cor 1 shows. The ossuaries I mentioned, from the 40?s Ad are a fact.
The ossuaries do not prove that Christ was crucified on a cross. That has been borne out by multiple scholars cited in this thread.
As to the Ankh, again, it is a simple thing: it is quite plainly a stylised womb and birth canal, just look carefully. That is not inherently pagan, but was used in pagan rituals which corrupted motherhood into evil…
It is a pagan symbol. It is defined as a type of cross. Are you simply going to ignore what scholar say because you don’t agree with them? That is willful ignorance.
PPS: On translation, we already have shown evidence that the meaning was broader than you are willing to acknowledge. Just, on presenting you with such, you refused to recognise the breadth of an envelope of meaning, where if a word has senses 1, 2, . . . we seek the appropriate one for the context. Which was given, just ignored.
Vine explained this already: “Stauros denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo “to fasten to a stake or pole” are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.” [Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words] I don’t think the definition is hard to understand. As far as what Jesus carried, we do not know how much it weighed, nor its length, nor what kind of wood was used, nor the diameter of the pole. What we do know is that it was too heavy for Jesus to carry, so he had to have help from Simon of Cyrene. If it were a stake with a crossbeam, the cross would be heavier than a simple stake and much more uneven and difficult to carry. Either Simon carried the stake or a piece of wood used as a crossbeam. If it was just a crossbeam, then it’s remarkable that all four Gospel writers said it was the “stauros”.
I still don’t grasp Barb’s logic though. Does she think that Christians must believe that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross, and since there’s some doubt that can be raised as to whether he was, he must not have been crucified on a two-beamed cross? How is that logical?
You are truly ignorant, then. Christians believe that Jesus was executed on an upright pole or stake. That you have had evidence presented to you of this point and you are still confused tells me that your reading comprehension level is very low.
Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a “cross” made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole. – Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), p. 824 Simply. False.
Yawn. See above. Tell that to W. E. Vine and the other scholars cited that define it as “stake.”
I haven’t been keeping count. Should I be keeping count? To what end? She/He who cites the most scholars wins? If you really want to engage in a “battle of the Greek lexicons/dictionaries/scholars” please do say so. But please also define how the winner will be determined. Shall we toss in commentaries as well, for good measure?
The point is that you are completely ignoring information from scholars that contradicts your view. This is willful ignorance. Can you at least explain why you don’t believe those scholars have the right idea about stauros?
The difference is, Barb, that your organization has turned the physical shape of the cross into a doctrine. You can’t deny the “torture stake” doctrine and hope to remain a JW.
Could I deny the cross and be an orthodox Christian? No? We’re even, then.
At least one.
More than one. This tells me that you aren’t bothering to read any information I’ve posted. Willful ignorance.
No, he didn’t. That is false.
From Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1996): “Stauros denotes primarily an upright pale or stake.” He then goes on to note that “The latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as a symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the majestic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands including Egypt. “By the middle of the 3rd century AD the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.” There you have it. A pagan symbol adopted into Christianity. And what sharing does paganism have with Christianity? None.
Greek Word of the Day: skolops a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake, a sharp stake, splinter
Great, except for the fact that the gospel writers used the terms “stauros” and “xylon”, not “skolops”.
Simply. False.
See above.
Really?
Yes, really. See what the other scholars have said. Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a crosspiece attached either at the top to give the shape of a “T” (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam (patibulum) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam. – The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1208
Sorry. I admit I failed to first read the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation of how the text should be understood before actually reading it. But since I am not a Jehovah’s Witness and do not adhere to their doctrines, nor do I accept their authority to explain how I ought to interpret Scripture, can you blame me?
So, in other words, you’re interpreting the scriptures the way you want to? And not the way the writers intended for them to be interpreted and understood? Well, good for you, then. Don’t be surprised if others call you out on your mistakes.
Jesus was using figurative speech, referring to “the temple of his body.” Sez who?
What other meaning could there be? Care to give your interpretion of the scriptures, or should we see what the Greek words used were? Or do you even care?
Are the JW’s also using “figurative speech” when they deliver teachings about what JW’s should allow into their bodies, or are they hypocrites?
Strawman fallacy.
Jesus said to the Jews: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Joh 2:19) But he was a false prophet, because by the JW’s own doctrines he did not raise it up. Or, alternatively, the JW’s doctrines could be false.
No, he wasn’t. If he was using figurative language to describe his body, then he was correct. He was killed and resurrected three days later. The religious leaders took it to mean that he was speaking about the literal temple, but contextually he was not. Is this truly too hard for you to understand? Or do you have another interpretation?
Nonsense. God burned Jesus’ body? Were the ashes there in the tomb and they just got missed?
Non sequitur. I didn’t say he burned it. He removed it. You’re simply making things up now. And it doesn’t work.
In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, “on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground.”[7]
Yes. Before the 4th century, you know, when Jesus and the apostles and early Christians were writing what would become the New Testament?
In the literature of that time, which ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8]
So, if it never meant two pieces of timber, THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR CRUCIFIXION? This quote proves my point, thanks for posting! kairosfocusMay 31, 2014 at 7:37 am In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated: “The “???????” (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, ???????, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. Again, proving my point for me.Barb_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Doug Shields -- a former JW -- is worth noting, including on how our telephone poles illustrate the same tendency of metronymy. We speak of pole, though a cross-bar is quite common. F/N 3: McFall's note is helpful on clips of lexicons: >> Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states: "...a stake sunk into the earth in an upright position; a cross-piece was often attached to its upper part, so that it was shaped like a T or thus +2. Let’s look at a few more Lexicon entries for "cross" (Stauros): Friberg AGNT Lexicon: "Stauros" lit. cross, an instrument of capital punishment, an upright pointed stake, oft. w. a crossbeam above it, or intersected by a crossbeam3. Louw-Nida Lexicon: ["Stauros"] a pole stuck into the ground in an upright position with a crosspiece attached to its upper part so that it was shaped like a 'cross.'.....reference is probably to the crosspiece of the cross, which normally would have been carried by a man condemned to die4. Barclay Newman Greek Dictionary and Thayer’s Lexicon both read simply: "Stauros" Cross5, 6. >> I hope there should now be enough to stand for record, and to show that the accusation that the cross is a pagan imposition on the genuine Christian tradition, emblematic of a mass falling away from truth, is ill-grounded. Yes, there have been serious errors in churches, sects and groups, but the cross is not one of them, and the way the text and language have been resorted to in an attempt to indict the cross does not commend itself for soundness. If one seeks to correct, a better approach is needed. (At 101 Bible study level, here may be a start. Here on and the associated course may help as well.) So, now, I trust that we can return to main focus for this blog. KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

A very interesting post, nice read. If God used evolution then Genesis narration of the origins would have used this term. Since the narration clearly states God created man in His image, there is no room left for confusion as to the origins of mankind. Question around origins Is a settled fact, based on the narrative in Genesis. Great posts by KF and BA, always a compelling read. :) Christians are followers of Christ, to be a Christian one has to believe in the divinity of Christ, since JW's don't believe in the divinity of Christ, they are not Christians and without Christ redemptive sacrifice for the sins of mankind there is NO hope for eternal life. John 3:16,17 Chalciss_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

PS: Worth pondering carefully, especially the pictures and scans of books . . . including the older Watchtower materials.kairosfocus_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

F/N: FWIW, Wiki on Stauros: >> Homeric and classical Greek In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, "on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."[7] In the literature of that time, which ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8] Koine Greek In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 BC and AD 300, the word ??????? was already used to refer to a cross, as when Justin Martyr said the ??????? of Christ was prefigured in the Jewish paschal lamb: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross (???????) which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross (???????). For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."[9] The word ??????? was used[10] to refer to the instrument of execution by crucifixion, which at that time involved binding the victim with outstretched arms to a crossbeam, or nailing him firmly to it through the wrists; the crossbeam was then raised against an upright shaft and made fast to it about 3 metres from the ground, and the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft.[11] In the writings of the Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), Plutarch and Lucian, the word stauros is generally translated as "cross",[5] although the passages quoted from the former two do not contain any specifics about the form of the device. In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated: "The "???????" (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, ???????, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. The initial letter ?, (chi) of ???????, (Christ) was anciently used for His name, until it was displaced by the T, the initial letter of the Pagan God Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv."[12] Bullinger's 1877 statement, written before the discovery of thousands of manuscripts in Koine Greek at Oxyrhyncus in Egypt revolutionised understanding of the language of the New Testament, conflicts with the documented fact that, long before the end of the fourth century, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135,[13] and may have been of the 1st century AD.,[14] the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened the ??????? to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300),[15] and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11-12.[16] The shape of the ??????? is likened to that of the letter T also in the final words of Trial in the Court of Vowels among the works of 2nd-century Lucian, and other 2nd-century witnesses to the fact that at that time the ??????? was envisaged as being cross-shaped and not in the form of a simple pole are given in Dispute about Jesus' execution method. >>kairosfocus_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Just a few clips: International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia >>Cross: (stauros, "a cross," "the crucifixion"; skolops, "a stake," "a pole"): The name is not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language it is stauros, but sometimes we find the word skolops used as its Greek equivalent. The historical writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word. 1. Forms of the Cross: The cross occurs in at least four different forms: (1) the form usually seen in pictures --> i.e. the t], the crux immissa, in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece; this is most likely the type of cross on which the Saviour died, as may be inferred from the inscription which was nailed above His head; (2) the crux commissa, or Anthony's cross, which has the shape of the letter T; (3) the Greek cross of later date, in which the pieces are equally long; (4) the crux decussata, or Andrew's cross, which has the shape of the letter X. [--> Y is of course the fork of a handy tree.] >> Smith's Bible Dictionary >>Cross: As the emblem of a slave's death and a murderer's punishment, the cross was naturally looked upon with the profoundest horror. But after the celebrated vision of Constantine, he ordered his friends to make a cross of gold and gems, such as he had seen, and "the towering eagles resigned the flags unto the cross," and "the tree of cursing and shame" "sat upon the sceptres and was engraved and signed on the foreheads of kings." (Jer. Taylor,"Life of Christ," iii., xv. 1.). The new standards were called by the name Labarum, and may be seen on the coins of Constantine the Great and his nearer successors. The Latin cross on which our Lord suffered, was in the form of the letter T, and had an upright above the cross?bar, on which the "title" was placed. There was a projection from the central stem, on which the body of the sufferer rested. This was to prevent the weight of the body from tearing away the hands. Whether there was also a support to the feet (as we see in pictures) is doubtful. An inscription was generally placed above the criminal's head, briefly expressing his guilt, and generally was carried before him. It was covered with white gypsum, and the letter were black.>> Michelson's update to Strong's: >> G4716 ??????? stauros (stau-ros') n. 1. a stake or post (as set upright) 2. (specially) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment) 3. (figuratively) exposure to death, i.e. self-denial 4. (by implication) the atonement of Christ >> Thayer's Lexicon: >> - Original: ???????? - Transliteration: Stauros - Phonetic: stow-ros' - Definition: 1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one 2. a cross a. a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves b. the crucifixion which Christ underwent - Origin: from the base of G2476 - TDNT entry: 16:32,1 - Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine >> The point is, the LANGUAGE allowed the variety of shapes . . . and we should again recall metonymy where a part or associated thing stands for the whole or main (the crown, all hands on deck, Holland vs Her Majesty, Sailors and The Netherlands as already given more than once) . . . and the context described by NT eyewitnesses points to T or t, with t most likely. Repeated failure to engage the range of relevant factors and especially context, does not speak well. KFkairosfocus_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Is it any wonder why a JW cannot quote Wikipedia?
In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, "on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."[7] In the literature of that time, which ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8]
Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Barb appears to be confused about why the Jehovah's Witnesses would attach any special significance to 1914. So, let's set aside for now their false teaching about the presence of Christ in 1894.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

stauros: The Lexical Challenge Barb seems to think that a comparison of Greek Lexicons will demonstrate her position to be true and all other positions to be false. But what is Barb's position? It's not all that clear. Some JW publications state that there is only one meaning of stauros while others acknowledge that meanings can change over time and that a single Greek word might have more than one meaning, and that meaning must be determined by context. Barb seems to want to keep score, and to be able to declare winners and losers. But how shall we decide? Shall we examine the word stauros in available Greek lexicons? Should we also consult dictionaries and commentaries? If, for example, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament fails to validate the JW's doctrine should we ignore it, simply because it is a dissenting voice? So how shall we keep score, Barb? Please feel free to add to this list of lexicons that we should consult: War of the Lexicons: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Interlinear Greek-English New Testament With Greek-English Lexicon Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100 Part One Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic DomainsMung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Barb asks if I am in agreement with Acts 2:24. Of course I am. So what? Barb asks if I am in agreement with 1 Peter 3:18. Of course I am. So what? How do either of those texts support the false doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses or refute the doctrines of orthodox Christianity? Acts 2:24, according to the JW's, appears to accord "the quickening" to God. 1 Peter 3:18, otoh, according to the JW's, appears to accord "the quickening" to the Spirit. John 2:19 Jesus asserted he would raise himself. Yet JW's deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Go figure. And still, which of these texts deny that it was a body that would be quickened? Now, if you are a JW, you must believe that it was not Jesus' actual body, the one laid to rest in the tomb. that was "quickened." But what other sort of body could Jesus have had that required "quickening" after having died?Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Barb, can you please post what the JW's have to say about the burning of he body of the passover lamb?Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Barb:
Congratulations on (again) completely missing the point of the scriptures cited.
Sorry. I admit I failed to first read the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of how the text should be understood before actually reading it. But since I am not a Jehovah's Witness and do not adhere to their doctrines, nor do I accept their authority to explain how I ought to interpret Scripture, can you blame me? So I've failed to interpret the Scripture the way JW's are instructed to interpret it. So what? Barb:
Jesus was using figurative speech, referring to “the temple of his body.”
Sez who? Are the JW's also using "figurative speech" when they deliver teachings about what JW's should allow into their bodies, or are they hypocrites?
Jesus said to the Jews: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Joh 2:19)
But he was a false prophet, because by the JW's own doctrines he did not raise it up. Or, alternatively, the JW's doctrines could be false.
He was resurrected, but not in his fleshly body, which was given as a ransom sacrifice; yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar.
Nonsense. God burned Jesus' body? Were the ashes there in the tomb and they just got missed? Yet more false doctrine of the JW's. The Paschal Lamb was eaten. The blood was sprinkled on the doorposts, yet another sign of THE CROSS.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Contra the JW's "torture stake" doctrine:
The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pole, a single one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. - New World Translation (1950), p. 769
Really?
Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a crosspiece attached either at the top to give the shape of a "T" (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam (patibulum) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam. - The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1208
For you shroud fanatics: Did Jesus carry the Cross or the patibulum?Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Greek Word of the Day: skolops
a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake, a sharp stake, splinter
The point, dear readers is this. If the New Testament writers and later Christian authors had wished to convey the teaching that Christ was crucified on a cross they would have used the Greek word stauros. On the other hand, if they wished to convey the teaching that Christ was crucified on a stake, as the JW's doctrine maintains, they could have used the Greek word skolops.
No Biblical evidence even intimates that Jesus died on a cross. - Awake!, 8 November 1972, p. 28
Simply. False.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Barb:
How much more evidence would you like?
Evidence for what? I have no idea what you mean. Do you propose to provide the evidence that the Watchtower Society claims is "completely lacking"? Barb:
How many scholars have I cited? How many have you refuted?
I haven't been keeping count. Should I be keeping count? To what end? She/He who cites the most scholars wins? If you really want to engage in a "battle of the Greek lexicons/dictionaries/scholars" please do say so. But please also define how the winner will be determined. Shall we toss in commentaries as well, for good measure? The difference is, Barb, that your organization has turned the physical shape of the cross into a doctrine. You can't deny the "torture stake" doctrine and hope to remain a JW. Barb:
How many scholars have I cited? How many have you refuted?
At least one. Barb:
Yes, and W. E. Vine also wrote a concordance that explained that the true meaning of the word stauros is “upright stake or pole.”
No, he didn't. That is false. Barb:
He’s contradicting himself here.
No, he isn't. Barb:
How is that a victory for you?
Don't think of it as a victory for me, think of it as a victory for you. There's an alternative to your conclusion that Vine has contradicted himself. You've committed a common fallacy.
In classical Greek, this word [stauros] meant merely an upright stake or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. - Reasoning From the Scriptures (1987), p. 89
Ah, more new light? You have to keep up, Barb. As you can see, the organization has changed it's stance on stauros over time. Again.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

kf, that's an awesome paper. Take for example the early Christian uses of Tau and Isaiah 65:2. See also references to the masts of ships. I still don't grasp Barb's logic though. Does she think that Christians must believe that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross, and since there's some doubt that can be raised as to whether he was, he must not have been crucified on a two-beamed cross? How is that logical?
Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a "cross" made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole. - Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), p. 824
Simply. False.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

PPS: On translation, we already have shown evidence that the meaning was broader than you are willing to acknowledge. Just, on presenting you with such, you refused to recognise the breadth of an envelope of meaning, where if a word has senses 1, 2, . . . we seek the appropriate one for the context. Which was given, just ignored. PPPS: This may make useful reading, for those who want a useful summary.kairosfocus_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

PS: I already summarised the evidence that you deny exists, it is right there in the text, and in the context, with a tad of simple physical calculation. A patibulum of 40 - 60 lbs could be carried by a badly whipped man, the upright we know was normally left in place. Such a man carrying 150 lbs of upright is nonsense, never mind erroneous paintings. As to placard above HANDS (not HEAD), that cuts across the natural sense of the text. Patibulum + nails plural in hands + sign above head strongly point to a T or t, most likely a t. And in that time and place, as direct text shows, the cross was an instrument of shame. But from the first, preaching the gospel was synonymous with preaching the cross. A cross that clearly fits the usual picture best, save the sign board would have been bigger than is commonly realised. KFkairosfocus_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Barb: endlessly repeating a mantra does not make it so. I will simply note that Gospel preaching is an act of worship and that the cross is pivotal to it, as the AD 55 1 Cor 1 shows. The ossuaries I mentioned, from the 40's Ad are a fact. As for you must not mix Christian and pagan, if the point is that the core gospel and scriptures are not to be compromised, sure. The problem is, at ever so many levels, there is a gentile-pagan context in which the gospel was preached and written. For instance "Theos" is close to "Zeus," and was used for what we call small-g gods; it was taken up in the Septuagint, and became infused with a distinctly Hebraic meaning, the One True Living God. The very alphabet -- even the Hebrew one -- is of gentile-pagan origin, much less the Greek one. The very numerals 0, 1, 2 . . . 9 we use are of pagan derivation, as is much of the foundation of academics, science and technology. Try to hold a meeting in a house of worship with zero Gentile-Pagan traced things and we could not speak English or Greek, we could not use text, we could not use a building or furniture or lights or musical or sound equipment, or wear pants and dresses, or wear woven or knitted cloth etc etc. We need to be discerning but effective as say Paul was at Mars Hill, Athens. As to the Ankh, again, it is a simple thing: it is quite plainly a stylised womb and birth canal, just look carefully. That is not inherently pagan, but was used in pagan rituals which corrupted motherhood into evil . . . and that is what evil is, twisting, distorting and frustrating the good out of line with its God-given purpose. And yes that uses -- shudder -- theology, philosophy, ethics, logic and metaphysics; you cannot avoid these either, you will either do them badly and get into serious hot water, or you will study to think aright, bringing thought life under Him who is Reason Himself [The Logos] . . . and that text is deeply riddled with philosophy. For that matter, to use corn [bread derived from a cereal] and wine in a religious ritual at spring full moon has many pagan allusions. But, the Passover meal and its derivative, the Eucharist [= thanksgiving], cleanse the significance. And so on and so forth. Panicky or ill-informed attempts to insert a black and white dichotomy are futile. And on the cross, the attempt to strain staurus to mean an I-cross fails in the face of known possible meanings and the textual context. And that is where I find a problem, you seem to be failing to read in light of context. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Mung,
“The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle” (New World Translation, 1950, p.771). This is simply false.
How much more evidence would you like? How many scholars have I cited? How many have you refuted?
From the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) on The Gospel of Matthew: As they [the soldiers] were coming out, they found a person from Cyrene, Simon by name. They pressed this [person] into service to carry his [Jesus'] cross. … His ’cause’ was placed above his head; [what was] written [was], ‘This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.’ Then two bandits are crucified with him, one at the right [hand] and one at the left. By ‘cross’ here is meant (by synecdoche) the cross bar and not the whole cross fn409. The upright will already be in position at the place of execution. ‘Often [the cross beam] was carried behind the nape of the neck like a yoke, with the condemned’s arms pulled back and hooked over it.’ fn410 … The condemned man was the one who was expected to carry the cross bar for his own execution. If the statement was on the cross and not on some separately set-up notice board or hung around Jesus’ neck, then a position above the head seems most likely, and this in turn suggest that Jesus’ cross was ‘t’ shaped, much as it has been traditionally represented.
If it was an upright stake or pole, the notice would simply have been placed above Jesus’s hands, which would have been nailed to the stake above his head. As seen in some of the illustrations in the links I provided earlier.
And on and on and on I could go, but me quoting scholars isn’t going to convince Barb, because it’s not scholarship that’s not the real issue.
It’s not? What about accurate translation of the Greek language? Or are you saying that you only believe scholars who agree with your point of view?Barb_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

"The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle" (New World Translation, 1950, p.771). This is simply false. From the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) on The Gospel of Matthew:
As they [the soldiers] were coming out, they found a person from Cyrene, Simon by name. They pressed this [person] into service to carry his [Jesus'] cross. ... His 'cause' was placed above his head; [what was] written [was], 'This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.' Then two bandits are crucified with him, one at the right [hand] and one at the left.

By 'cross' here is meant (by synecdoche) the cross bar and not the whole cross fn409. The upright will already be in position at the place of execution. 'Often [the cross beam] was carried behind the nape of the neck like a yoke, with the condemned's arms pulled back and hooked over it.' fn410 ... The condemned man was the one who was expected to carry the cross bar for his own execution.

If the statement was on the cross and not on some separately set-up notice board or hung around Jesus' neck, then a position above the head seems most likely, and this in turn suggest that Jesus' cross was 't' shaped, much as it has been traditionally represented.
John nolland And on and on and on I could go, but me quoting scholars isn't going to convince Barb, because it's not scholarship that's not the real issue.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Mung,
Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But here is their own translation of John 2:18-22:
Congratulations on (again) completely missing the point of the scriptures cited. That's okay, though, the Jews were also confused by his words. Taking this scripture in context, we see that Jesus said to the Jews: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (Joh 2:19) The Jews thought he was speaking of the temple of Herod and used this against him at his trial, witnesses against him saying: “We heard him say, ‘I will throw down this temple that was made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’” (Mr 14:58) Jesus was using figurative speech, referring to “the temple of his body.” He was put to death and on the third day rose again. (Joh 2:21; Mt 16:21; Lu 24:7, 21, 46) He was resurrected by his Father Jehovah God in another body, not one made with hands like the temple of Jerusalem, but a spirit body made (built) by his Father. (Ac 2:24; 1Pe 3:18) The scriptures in John correlate with Acts 2:24 ["But God resurrected him by releasing him from the pangs* of death, because it was not possible for him to be held fast by it.", NWT] and 1 Peter 3:18 ["For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.", NWT] From Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2: "He was resurrected, but not in his fleshly body, which was given as a ransom sacrifice; yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar. Jesus, when resurrected, was the same person, the same personality, in a new body made for his new dwelling place, the spiritual heavens." Are you in disagreement with any of the scriptures cited?Barb_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But here is their own translation of John 2:18-22:
...the Jews said to him: “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said: “This temple was built in 46 years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples recalled that he used to say this, and they believed the scripture and what Jesus had spoken.
Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

And your point is...? That the Witnesses have clarified their beliefs over time has been explained to you repeatedly. What part don't you understand? Haven't refuted a single scholar or scripture I cited earlier, have you?Barb_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Here it is 2014 and I am listening to the album Millions Now Living Will Never Die How odd is that? Did I place the wrong order by mistake?
A public talk titled "The World Has Ended; Millions Now Living May Never Die" was first delivered on February 24, 1918 in Los Angeles, California. Just five weeks later, on March 31, 1918 the title was changed to indicate absolute certainty and the word "May" was substituted by the word "Will". So the new title became "The World Has Ended; Millions Now Living Will Never Die." The public talk continued to be delivered under that same title until 1925. The material in that talk was published in 1920. For decades Jehovah's Witnesses believed that they would never die in this system and that they would simply pass on into a righteous new earth.
Millions Now Living Will Never Die
The contents of this book were originally delivered by Rutherford in a speech given in 1918. This brochure was published two years later in 1920. Rutherford argues that in 1914, the world had "ended legally", and that millions of people then living would never die. He states that the final jubilee "would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? In the type there must be a full restoration; therefore the great antitype must mark the beginning of restoration of all things. The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."
Millions Now Living Will Never Die False Prophets or False Teachers. Why quibble?Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply