u/Crucible_of_Thought

Noah's Ark has been found! ... NOT.

Noah's Ark has been found! ... NOT.

No, Dr. Bakhtar has NOT proven that the Durupinar Formation in Turkey is Noah's Ark. That's WILDLY inaccurate. He hasn't released any peer-reviewed or independently-verified research on the current claims, and no academic or technical journal has published anything about this; the current claims are being promulgated by a group with a financial incentive to convince people it's true. In rigorous tests by the military, his ground-penetrating "BakhtarRadar" or "EarthRadar" has consistently identified underground pipes only about 25% of the time, and even those identifications were successful only when the radar had been carefully calibrated to exactly see what they were told it would be finding - in other words, he's doing worse than random chance, and only when he knew exactly what he was looking for, including density and material and specific size of the target. A paper published in IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine says of the 2002 US military tests at Fort A.P. Hill that "The IDA report says the blind tests produced results substantially different from Bakhtar's claims and concluded that EarthRadar's underlying hypothesis about target scattering and image formation was flawed. It specifically concluded that the technology did not offer an improvement over existing systems for UXO detection." The "holes" or "tunnels" that he is currently claiming to have found are entirely consistent with the geological formation that's there; it's a naturally-weathered uplift of a folded sediment layer, and establishes exactly nothing about manmade origins. Previous studies have found nothing other than natural geological formations and rocks. The only peer-reviewed study of the site proved it was entirely natural. This is stuff my dad, a geology nerd, taught me decades ago. Look up "anticline dome." They exist all over the world.

u/Crucible_of_Thought — 11 days ago

“Controversy begotten: Apologist William Lane Craig rejects Nicene Creed”

Any opinions on this?

https://roysreport.com/controversy-begotten-apologist-william-lane-craig-rejects-nicene-creed/

Don’t make a snap judgement that Lane is rejecting trinitarianism. He isn’t rejecting the Trinity or even rejecting that Christ is “begotten.” He affirms begetting in the Incarnation and affirms Christ’s full deity and co-equality with the Father. What he rejects is eternal generation - the specifically Nicene claim that the Son’s divine nature itself is begotten from the Father’s, timelessly and necessarily. His stated reason is that “begotten” implies derivation and dependence, which he thinks undercuts real co-equality, and that the patristic concept (procession/emanation, the sun-and-light analogy) is borrowed Greek metaphysics rather than biblical exegesis.

Seems to me that Roys is being inflammatory with the headline and the simplistic description.

I’m less nuanced in my views. I tend to believe that the Gospel writers were describing Jesus as a mortal who was given the Divine name because of the excellence of his life and witness to the Father - made the Son, more than eternally the Son. I note the variety of descriptions in the Bible on this topic. It seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity mashes together a number of quite varied concepts in the New Testament, and tries to force them into a univocal understanding, while the NT writers had notable and non-trivial differences in their own understanding. The Council of Nicea crammed it all into one mold and called “heretic” on all the other conclusions.

Second Temple Judaism - the world Jesus and the New Testament writers were inhabiting - has a well-attested tradition of principal agents bearing God’s name, throne, and authority without being ontologically identified with God: the angel of the LORD in whom God’s name dwells (Exodus 23:21), Moses made “elohim to Pharaoh,” Enoch/Metatron traditions, Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham, personified Wisdom. And several NT texts fit that mold closely: Philippians 2:9-11 has God bestowing the name and exaltation on Jesus after his obedience, not Jesus possessing it eternally by nature; Acts 2:36 says God “made him Lord and Christ”; Matthew 28:18 has authority given to him; John 5:22 has judgment given to the Son. That’s investiture language, agent language, and it’s genuinely in the text, not read into it.

At any rate, I’m interested in other opinions on both this article and the topic in general.

u/Crucible_of_Thought — 2 months ago