Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Bob Helm.
In regard to the interpretation of Bible prophecies and scripture in general, there is something called exegesis, which is intended to produce the objective meaning of the text. Of course, some pericopes of scripture are difficult to exegete, and the process of exegesis is not always 100% accurate. But in the case of Daniel 9, you have a prophecy that points to the time for the Messiah’s appearance and death, and then goes on to predict the abomination of desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The fact that these events really did occur at the specified time and in the order that was predicted strongly affirms the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9 as valid exegesis. To think that these events fell into place chronologically by chance does not seem possible. The prophecy is simply too specific for a chance fulfillment. It does not have a wax nose! So I have to conclude that while there is no absolute proof for the Christian Faith (as in mathematical proof), there is strong evidence to back up Jesus’ claims. Sir Isaac Newton saw this plainly when he called Daniel 9 the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Again – I am glad to acknowledge someone who holds to a fideistic position as a brother in Christ, but this position has more in common with the Enlightenment and Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy (which speaks of faith as a blind leap in the dark) than with true New Testament evangelical faith.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I never called anyone angry. I affirm you as my brother in Christ, even if we don’t always agree! Certainly, the church should affirm sola scriptura. But why do we have confidence in the principle of sola scriptura? Again – here is where apologetics and the weight of evidence play an
essential role.@Professor Kent:
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, I apologise for not responding sooner. I was very busy and forgot. I have now posted my response.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
