Wednesday, June 2, 2010

270: Two Unoriginal Books

Habakkuk 1-3
"How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, 'Violence!' but you do not save?" - Habakkuk 1:2

Habakkuk starts out with a complaint for God. He says that he, and the Israelites, constantly cry out to God, but he doesn't come to help them with their enemies. This is an especially valid complaint when you consider that God has said many times that if the Israelites would only cry out, he would immediately help them. I guess God needs to be in a good mood to help.

God's responds to this by saying that he is raising the Babylonians to punish all the nations that are bad to the Israelites (and, it turns out, the Israelites themselves). Yes, we're back to this discussion. God is raising up the Babylonians to be his punisher, but he will soon punish the Babylonians for all of the punishing they've done.

Habakkuk's second complaint is that God doesn't punish those who deserve it (this is surprisingly like his first complaint). God, apparently to get out of his punishment responsibility, explains that evil people get no satisfaction from their deeds. Therefore, I guess, there's no need for them to be punished(?). It's a good thing the American judicial system doesn't follow Godly logic.

Zephaniah 1-3
" 'I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth,' declares the LORD. 'I will sweep away both men and animals; I will sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. The wicked will have only heaps of rubble when I cut off man from the face of the earth,' declares the LORD." - Zephaniah 1:2-3

Zephaniah is incredibly unexciting. God goes through the list of nations that he regularly talks about and says how he's going to destroy them all.

The only think that pops out at me as original or worthy of talking about is from the very beginning of the book. God seems to slip up and says that he is going to wipe everyone off the earth. First of all, God never does this (obviously). Or, as any good apologist would say, it just hasn't happened yet. Second, what happened to God's promise to not wipe everyone off the earth? Now he just threatens to do it like a frustrated, all powerful toddler.

Maybe God will be more mature in the New Testament.

*News*
We have more "science" babble today. This time it shows evidence that the biblical account of creation could be accurate.
"When the Bible describes the day-by-day development of our universe in the six days following the creation, it is truly referring to six 24-hour days. But the reference frame by which those days were measured was one which contained the total universe," Schroeder wrote -- a universe that was rapidly expanding. Because of the time/velocity connection, that change in perspective changed the meaning of time -- or of, say, six days.
Right, when you look at the reference frame which somehow contains the entire universe, then 15 billion years equals exactly six 24 hour days. If that didn't blow your mind, e = -1. What's the difference? The latter can actually be proven. I've heard attempts to reconcile Genesis 1 and science before. This was probably the least successful.

The most hilarious part of this article, to me, is Ken Ham's take on the issue:
"The first thing I look at," said Ham, "is to question what is his ultimate motivation?"

Ham and his museum believe that the Bible should be taken literally, rejecting theories of evolution in favor of the Bible's stories. He said Schroeder "has accepted the secular view of 15 billion years as the age of the universe, so his ultimate motivation is to fit 15 billion years into the Bible's account. He then develops this model, to fit that model."
Who else starts with a conclusion and then twists facts and science to fit their ultimate goal? Oh, that's right, Ken Ham! I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this blatant hypocrisy.

(via Fox News)

2 comments:

  1. So God now has the chutzpah to claim that he's sending the Babylonians to help the Israelites?! Is this like destroying a village to save it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everything I've read about "The Science of God" (which I presume Ken is being referring to) is that it's just a bunch of pseudoscience crap. A man dabbling in a field that isn't his own and coming up with numbers that no real scientists would accept.

    This sounds really familiar... Oh yeah! AiG.

    ReplyDelete

 

Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me