Would Radical Liberal Tony Breeden use 1937 medical science?

What? No?

Then why does he quote 1937 science? I mean, honestly, does our good friend have nothing better to do expect fight Ham’s battles for him? At that point, one can easily detect Tony’s presuppositions about science, that it never changes, never gathers evidences, never formalizes a hypothesis into a theory… and then he goes on to quote Darwin… tisk tisk tisk…

He notes,

Just as he tries to poison the well by saying that the Bible teaches geocentrism and a flat earth. These straw man arguments concerning the Bible have been so oft-refuted. He insists on a woodenly literal interpretation of Scripture when those who actually affirm a literal interpretation allow for figures of speach, round numbers, etc. In essence, he’s creating a straw man argument. Interestingly enough, in stating that the Bible teaches that the universe revolves arouns a flat earth , is Brother Joel upholding or undermining Biblical authority?

Here’s the issue – the authors of Scripture actually believed in a flat earth and geocentricism, although this is often overlooked as mere poetry (not Genesis 1, of course, just everything else that one doesn’t agree with, like genocide). So, no, it’s not a straw man argument. Further, by upholding Scriptural Authority as I do, contrary to deistic view held by Ham and Tony, we are able to actually move to the real authority of Scripture, which, albeit this may come as a shock, isn’t dependent upon either Ham or a false view of Genesis 1.

He goes on to write,

Rather than placing our own personal interpretation on the Bible, we are letting it speak for itself; rather than reading into it what we want it to say, as Bible doubters like Brother Joel do, we creationists draw the meaning out

Now, these bible idolaters who think that the pages actually speak aloud still have no real clue the subjectivity which they themselves apply to Scripture. Those who read the text 2000 years, or more, saw it differently. Cultures and people change. This means that if one were to allow that Scripture ‘speaks,’ then one must allow that Scripture will speak differently to each culture. Instead, we follow those who have gone on before and try to get back to the sources, beyond the subjective interpretations of modern people, like Ham.

He then shows his theological ineptitude and further, boldly lies about the Apostles,

We believe that God revealed His Word and wanted it to be understood plainly. Our position on special creation in six calendar days and a world-covering Flood in the days of Noah is the traditional, apostolic teaching of the Church; novel views that allow for millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution are not. So who is willfully ignorant of Church history here?

First, unless he is prepared to state that Christ suddenly appeared out of the blue, then he should rethink his appellation of Word to Scripture, because if we are to remain Scriptural, then the misuse of Word applied to Scripture should stop. Remember, even Scripture was never ‘revealed.’ Scripture is not a revelation of God – only Christ is. Scripture is a deposit of the human witnesses to God’s revelation. Further, the Apostles have not yet been shown to believe in the false superstition which Tony and Ham believe. They are, again, reading anachronistically.

Now, Tony further shows that he has no clue as to Scriptural Authority or Science,

Science is an interpretation of the evidence and if science has refused to begin with the Bible, if it has rejected the truth that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge, and seeks instead to find all-natural answers in defiance of the obvious design of the universe, these wrong assumptions will lead it to wrong conclusions.

The issue is, is that the natural world existed long, long before Scripture. Second, Scripture is not a scientific text book. Theology begins with Scripture, not Science, and neither, obviously does our dear friend and lost brother Tony. To say that one has to ‘begin with Scripture’ (no such thing, really, as ‘the Bible), is to deny history, Tradition, biblical studies, theology and of course, God. Am I saying that Tony, Ham, and other Creationist Apologists are false teachers who would rather destroy the Church and hold on to their selective interpretative liberalism? Yes. Have been, actually.

Now, as he often does, he tries to quote Scripture, but fails in his attempt to hold on to a certain straight line, and as a result shows that he is inept at all things theological but he does so to go on bit of a rant again me, calling me more than a few names and suggesting some awful things about me. That’s fine. God bless him and forgive him. God forgive me for the things I say and do just to spite. Let us pray that Ham and Tony and others come to the marvelous light of the Truth, the wonderful Grace of God. There is such a mystical beauty here, in the Truth, in the Garden where I can commune daily with God. It is not filled with concreteness of one’s own manufacturing, but of the abstract mystery of God where wonder is uplifted, and grace is given. God is no longer just a has-been Creator for me, but one which every day is creating, so that God is every day Father, Judge, Saviour. Thank God for the revelation that God is.

You Might Also Like

9 Replies to “Would Radical Liberal Tony Breeden use 1937 medical science?”

  1. Love it! Keep Breeden and Ham in their place….. these nuts work hard to ruin the minds of the young, the impressionable, and the “that sounds right to me” folks.

    Especially Breeden….. me thinks he thinks that he thinks more than he really thinks.

  2. Common creationist blundering: appealing to outdated scientific quotes cherry-picked to cast doubt on evolution, with nary a modern source to back up their ideas. It’s the only way to make it look like there’s not an overwhelming professional consensus in the natural sciences about the fallacies of young earth creationism!

    Joel, have you looked at Tony Breeden’s background? What credentials does he have?

  3. Instead of resorting to ridicule as the rest of the commentators to this post have done, let’s actually look at what Scripture has to say. You stated “the authors of Scripture actually believed in a flat earth and geocentricism, although this is often overlooked as mere poetry.” How then do you explain passages such as Job 26:7, 10 and Isaiah 40:21-22 which describe earth as being a sphere as well as noting the “circle of the earth.” Interestingly, the Hebrew word used for circle in passages such as Isaiah 40:22 is חוּג, transliterated as chuwg. This word and its root word both mean circle or sphere. But I thought the authors of Scripture believed in a flat earth! Apparently not.

    The International Bible Encyclopedia comments on this matter:

    ““The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7).” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]

    Some have commented that Scripture speaks of the four corners of the earth using such a description to comment that the authors of Scripture were “flat-earthers.” This is nonsense as such language merely notes the four directions on the compass, namely north, south, east, and west.

    You also commented “the natural world existed long, long before Scripture. Second, Scripture is not a scientific text book. Theology begins with Scripture, not Science, and neither, obviously does our dear friend and lost brother Tony. To say that one has to ‘begin with Scripture’ (no such thing, really, as ‘the Bible), is to deny history, Tradition, biblical studies, theology and of course, God. Am I saying that Tony, Ham, and other Creationist Apologists are false teachers who would rather destroy the Church and hold on to their selective interpretative liberalism? Yes. Have been, actually.”

    Have you forgotten first of all that God is eternal. God existed long before his creation. God revealed to man through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the how and why of creation as outlined in Genesis. Therefore, God as eyewitness to his creative acts, recorded what he did in Scripture. Tony Breeden, Ken Ham or any other YEC that apparently are the frequent target of your discussions indeed first begin with Scripture as the source of authority. I for one am quite thankful Scripture is not a science textbook as science constantly shifts its ideals while God’s word remains true and relevant for all eternity.

    To make a statement that beginning with Scripture is to deny history, tradition and even God is in complete opposition to God’s word itself. Are you saying we should look elsewhere for wisdom? Someplace other than the pages of Scripture? All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17).

    Noted theologian and pastor Dr. John MacArthur reminds us “The idea that getting in step with the latest scientific theories is ‘best for evangelism’ is a natural result of the loss of confidence in biblical authority. It is much worse than merely a slippery slope; it represents the abandonment of the most important aspect of faith in the Bible—the conviction that Scripture is God’s Word and that it’s the ultimate, inviolable authority over every thought or theory of the human mind.
    Evangelicals need to recover their biblical convictions and creationism, and believe what God has plainly said—whether or not worldly minds approve of it.

    The so-called ‘framework hypothesis’ and every other literary trick designed to prove that Genesis 1–3 doesn’t mean what it seems to say are all de facto rejections of the authority and perspicuity of Scripture. They represent a refusal to allow Scripture to mean what it plainly says, while relying on novel theories no one ever imagined before to explain the ‘true’ albeit hidden meaning of the text—as if no one unsophisticated enough to deconstruct the literary genre could possibly understand what God was trying to tell us. That is as wrong-headed as it is arrogant.
    Evangelicals need to recover their biblical convictions and creationism, and believe what God has plainly said—whether or not worldly minds approve of it. We especially need to have confidence that the gospel (not clever arguments or human reason) is the power of God unto salvation. The salvation of every sinner is a sovereign miracle of God by the Word of truth (1 Peter 1:23); not a work of man by clever means (John 1:12–13).”

    It is your last statement that is perhaps most disturbing. You call individuals such as Tony Breeden and Ken Ham “false prophets.” In response to such an outrageous declaration, I would submit the following passage in 2 Peter 3:

    “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

    Notice the items which Peter addresses, issues which seem to be at the core of the confrontation between those who espouse a YEC/biblical creation approach to origins and those who espouse a more non-literal theistic evolutionary type approach. Peter comments on those who declare everything has been “on as it has since the beginning of creation” or the beginning of time if you will. Sounds strikingly similar to the uniformitarian principles of evolution. Notice also Peter’s addressal of those who deny or mock a worlwide cataclymic flood.

    Instead of worrying about someone’s “credentials” and falsely declaring individuals as false prophets, I would submit you must first engage Scripture using established hermeneutical principles and let Scripture speak as it is written. Instead of looking to the wisdom of the world, let God’s word reveal the truths that are repeated throughout, namely, God created everything in 6 literal days, there was a literal Adam and Eve, there was no death before sin, Noah’s flood was a global catastrophic event, and most importantly, because of the entrance of sin and death as a result of Adam’s sin, Christ was provided as the perfect sacrifice for our sin.

    Were Tony’s comments blunt in some respects? Sure they were and I would submit rightly so. Scripture on more than one occassion reflects the author bluntly warning people to be aware of teaching that is in oppostion to God’s word. The Apostle Paul on a number of occasions calls out individuals who were leading people astray. The concern of Tony in his blog post was the overt willingness of some individuals, apparently like yourself, to mislead people into thinking Scripture is not correct when it engages matters of science. You claimed Ken Ham does not know what science is further making the claim that a flat earth or geocentrism are both “biblical.” What Ham believes is Science actually is his own personal reading of Scripture, or theology, This is not science. Science is a well documented body of evidence which supports theories. Science is not “The bible tells me so..” Is Science your authority or is Scripture. That is the question Tony Breeden rightly asks. You seem to be missing the point that there is a vast difference between observational science and origins or as Ken Ham put it “historical science.” Modern science inserts millions of years into history, a position which Scripture refutes. Those who place their allegiance to the millions of years religion if you will do indeed incorrectly wield Scripture.

    God bless.

    1. Job 26.7-10, but stopping short before verse 11 which describes, as ANE cosmology often does, as everything being supported on pillars… Of course, I am sure that is only poetics for you, whereas a circle (a plat, non 3-d image) is to be taken ‘literal.’ I’ve spoken about the false use of Jb 26 by YEC’s, before: http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/10/one-argument-at-a-time-job-26-7-doesnt-talk-about-gravity/

      I know, I know… it actually looks to take Scripture for what it says, in ancient context, and not the context approved by Ham, but, then again, the ancient writers would laugh at Ham’s context anyway. The Circle, again, a flat object, in Isaiah is the same sort of cosmology found in Job. Notice that in Isaiah as well, we have another creation story, with God defeating Rahab. Also, in Isaiah, is the most perfect picture of what Creation was for the ancients, an ordering by God, not the actual physical creation of a universe.

      Notice what the ISBE says well… that the Sphere of the Earth is actually the heavens – something that is blindly seen when you or even the ancients looked at the sky. Notice as well that the ISBE affirms the geocentricism of the the ancients as well as the the idea that the universe, pre-16th century, is a small sphere around our solar system. Now, considering that the ISBE was completed in 1915, and since then, our knowledge field has grown, we also understand without apologetics, that as I noted before, the ancients believed that the world was built on pillars (you know, the foundation of the world…)

      You realize that there are more than just four directions on a map, right? So your ‘logic’ falls short.

      Regarding your idea that Genesis 1 is actually about a physical creation, see the comments above. Second, they aren’t starting with Scripture. They are starting with themselves. Let me help you unpack that statement. When you approach Scripture with presuppositions that you know what it means, or that you can, just by yourself, know what it means, then you are the deciding factor, first, and Scripture comes second. Ham and Breeden, et al, do not start with Scripture, but they start with themselves first, and then infer upon Scripture what they believe it says. Actual biblical scholars and theologians start with Scripture when they begin to discover what Scripture said to those who first heard it. While you may attempt to take my words out of context, they are actually written. Not so easy for you to do. I didn’t say anything negative about actually starting with Scripture, although to be honest, one has to start first with the original languages, and then with original contexts and then with Scripture. But what Ham and others do is to, again, start with themselves, which goes on to deny the things I list.

      Further, God’s Word is Jesus Christ. Get it right.

      MacArther makes the same logical fallacies that you do, and attempts to create the same strawmen. No one is saying that one has to get into step with the latest scientific discoveries; only that Scripture wasn’t speaking about science. Further, to accept evolution as a scientific theory is not to deny biblical authority and indeed, has nothing to do with Scriptural authority.

      Further, MacArthur shows his enthocentrism when he seeks to rely upon ‘plain sense.’ An ancient Hebrew, Assyrian, Babylonian, or other ANE civilization would have read the text much differently than a modern Euro-American white male protestant who has been told that his sense is the plain sense. Further, under his methodology, the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as what Matthew and Paul does to the Jewish Scriptures is wrong. They shouldn’t see the hidden meaning of the text, which for those writers, pointed to Christ, but simply rely on what they think it means. You see the problem with that, right?

      Regarding the Petrine Cosmology, see here:

      http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/11/the-cosmological-worldview-of-2-peter-creation-%E2%89%A0-world/

      Further, you make another straw man when you note that your interpretation is based only on what ‘seems’ to be being said. You should see the problem in that, correct?

      Note again how Isaiah defines Creation… to see what the authors of Scripture saw Creation as. For Peter, the world existed before Creation, and after Creation.

      Actually, I have engaged Scripture with established principles, which prevents me from buying into the “plain sense” reading. Honestly, it should do so for you as well, but your source is most likely Ham and others, and not actual contextual studies. If you actually seek to engage Scripture, you will seek to engage the worlds in which it was Created. The context of the passage is never, and has never been, your context. To say that it means what you think it means simply because you read it in modern English is to deny the authority of Scripture and supplant it with yourself.

      Scripture never engages science, so there is no reason for it to be either correct or incorrect. The person with a low view of Scripture and God must strive to see Scripture as doing so, but those with actual faith in God and a strong belief in Scriptural authority as no need to do so. What Tony and others are do is projecting upon others their own doubts and fears.

      You have said a mouthful when you write,

      What Ham believes is Science actually is his own personal reading of Scripture, or theology, This is not science. Science is a well documented body of evidence which supports theories.

      That’s exactly the point. Ham is confusing his interpretation with what Scripture actually says; his interpretation with the actual inspiration of Scripture.

      By the way, another straw man…. no one is placing allegiance in Science. We are simply saying that Scripture doesn’t speak to science.

      I hope that you consider my words here, and if you find that you are teaching the same falseness that Ham and Breeden are, that you repent.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.