Arson attack carried out on Stevenage Central Mosque

At Stevenage Central Mosque, Vardon Road, sometime between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, on February 26th 2014, an extractor fan in the mosques toilet’s was smashed and flammable liquid was poured in and set alight.
Salman Lone, executive committee member for the mosque, said: “This is a major incident. It’s the worst thing that has ever happened to the mosque since it was set up 14 years ago.

“Fortunately the fire was unable to spread but there’s still a lot smoke damage to the building which we’re doing everything we can to clean up.

“People are concerned, confused and cross about the whole thing because a lot of them cannot understand why this has happened.

“We want to show solidarity with everyone in the community and demonstrate that this sort of thing is wrong.”

In April 2013 as in 2011 a mosque  in the former school building at Tureluurshof, Enkhuizen, Netherlands, was also the target of arson.

In May 2013 police also had already to condemn a cowardly and disgraceful petrol bomb attack on an Islamic centre in Bletchley.
On the 24th of May 2013 Bletchley mosque ad a bottle of petrol thrown onto the roof of the Zainabia Islamic Centre, commonly known as the Granby Mosque, on Peverel Drive.

In June 2013 petrol was also poured around the door of the Masjid-E-Noor mosque on Ryecroft Street in Gloucester and set on fire in an attack.


> Possible arson attack on Stevenage Mosque

Related articles

• Possible arson attack on Stevenage Mosque
• The trickiest spot in Stevenage.
• Fire at Sidon mosque, arson suspected
• Mosque arson trial still on hold
• Suspect in Missouri Abortion Clinic Arson Now Implicated in Mosque Firebombing
• Bahrain mosque named after UAE martyr
• Police condemn "cowardly" attack on mosque
• Dutch Nationalists Cheer Mosque Arson in Enkhuizen
• Gloucester mosque arson attack: Two plead guilty
• Granby mosque targeted by arsonists

Simplicius Against the Monophysites

When Simplicius became bishop of Rome on this day, March 3, 468, it must have seemed to him that his troubles would come from the western half of the disintegrating Roman Empire. There Vandals, Visigoths, and Franks had replaced Roman power with their own. For thirteen years the western empire had been ruled by puppet emperors, controlled by these barbarians. Furthermore, Odovakar, a Herulian (one of the Teutonic tribes) seized power in Rome. Despite these omens, it was the East that gave Simpli... Read More >

Simplicius Against the Monophysites

Related articles

• The Visigoths and Rewarding "Bad" Behavior
• Are We The Modern Romans
• The Fall of Rome
• AP World History-A New Civilization Emerges in Western Europe Part 2
• Visigoths and Vandals
• Christianity and the Roman Decline
• Top Ten Reasons Why the Byzantine Empire Was Legendary
• West is Impudent - This is like the Fall of Rome
• West is Impudent - This is like the Fall of Rome
• Augustine Project: Week One

What date was the Flood?

From :Image:Creation of Light.png, trimmed for use in infoboxes where a large horizontal to vertical ratio is useful. Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a difficult question because there is no archaeological or geological evidence that can be used to date the Flood, and the Bible provides very little chronological information prior to Abraham.
Abraham is usually dated at about 2000 BC. In my book, The Times: a Chronology of the Bible, I argue for 1946BC as the date of his birth. Prior to this point in time, dates become approximate due to problems in the ancient manuscripts. The genealogy given in Genesis 11 is the only information we have of the time span from the Flood to Abram. Yet it is fraught with problems. According to the Masoretic text of Genesis 11 (followed by almost all modern Bibles), there were 222 years between the Flood and the birth of Terah (see Gen 11:10-24). However, another ancient manuscript, the Samaritan Pentateuch, gives 872 years. This is because the age of a father at the birth of his first-born is usually recorded to be 100 years later in the Samaritan Pentateuch than in the Masoretic text. The Greek Septuagint is similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch but adds the generation of Cainan making the total time 1002 years. Luke’s record of Jesus’ genealogy seems to support the Septuagint by including Cainan (Lk 3:36). However, it is possible that other generations are also omitted.
Based on these numbers, the Flood could be dated anywhere between about 2200 BC and 3100 BC, or earlier if there are additional omitted generations.

Abram Journeying into the Land of Canaan (engraving by Gustave Doré from the 1865 La Sainte Bible) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

-

Rob J Hyndman

Related articles

• Historicity of the Bible
• Why Orthodox Christians Prefer the Septuagint
• Reconciling Biblical Dates To Historic Dates
• Global flood astronomical fix revised
• Global flood astronomical date range (Photos)
• Global flood astronomical date range
• Qumran Pt 2: Why do the Dead Sea Scrolls Matter?
• Samaritan Torah in English
• English translations of the Masoretic and Samaritan versions
• Genesis 10

Why can’t Bible scholars agree on how to interpret the Bible?

It is true that there is wide spectrum of opinions when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Different opinions are not unique to biblical studies – scholars disagree about how to interpret Plato or Hume – but the disagreement is often far more pronounced amongst biblical scholars. One reason for this is that people have a lot invested in the results of biblical scholarship.

If the Bible is the Word of God, and contains ethical and spiritual instruction, then understanding the message is very important. So no wonder people sometimes disagree. If there are certain things I need to do or believe to be saved then that is a big deal and I will want to make sure I have understood those things correctly.

There is always a danger that we try and interpret the Bible to suit our own beliefs rather than letting it speak for itself. For example, if I believe that Christians need to keep the Sabbath I will put a lot of emphasis on those passages which talk about the importance of the Sabbath, and maybe play down those passages which say that the Law no longer applies.

The other danger is that we bring our own presuppositions to interpreting the Bible. For example, if I believe that miracles our impossible (perhaps because I am a materialist or because I think that God does not intervene directly in the world) then I am unlikely to interpret the miracle-stories in the Bible literally. I might choose to interpret them allegorically or regard them as simply false. But that is not what the Bible is saying, that is simply my interpretation of the Bible. Scholars often disagree about the interpretation of the Bible because their presuppositions disagree.

A good bible scholar should reveal his presuppositions and be consistent. He or she cannot simply pick and choose, saying that bit is literal and that bit is allegorical. First he or she should decide how to tell the difference between what is allegorical and literal, and then apply that principle to interpreting the bible.

In summary, bible scholars disagree because they have a vested interest in certain interpretations being true and because they approach the bible with different presuppositions. This is the position that we all find ourselves in. The best we can do is be honest with ourselves and ask why do I believe such-and-such, and is that actually what the Bible is saying?
-

Rob J Hyndman

Related articles

• Interpreting the Bible
• The Bible and Hellenism
• Lecture Notes on Biblical Hermeneutics: the Principles and Tasks of Interpreting the Bible
• How Colleges Create Creationists
• Allegorical Interpretation of the Bible
• Are the Creation Stories Allegorical or Factual?
• No, Creationists Aren't Crazy. You're Just Lazy (Among Other Things).
• P1 - An overview of 3500 years of Bible interpretation

Het aardse en het hemelse heiligdom

Het aardse en het hemelse heiligdom worden met elkaar vergeleken en tegenover elkaar gesteld. Het aardse heiligdom was een constructie die onder leiding van Mozes door mensen gemaakt was (Hebr. 8:5), terwijl 'het hemelse heiligdom niet door een mens opgericht werd' (vgl. Hebr. 8:2) of 'met [mensenhanden] gemaakt' is (vgl. Hebr. 9:11,24).

De overeenkomst tussen het aardse en het hemelse heiligdom wordt in Hebreeën vastgesteld door middel van de relatie tussen afbeelding [hupodeigma] en schaduw [skia] van het hemelse heiligdom (Hebr. 8:2-5). 'Noodzakelijk moesten dus hiermede (dierenoffers) de afbeeldingen [hupodeigma] van de hemelse dingen gereinigd worden, maar de hemelse dingen zelf met betere offeranden dan deze. 

 

Want Christus is niet binnengegaan in een heiligdom met handen gemaakt, een afbeelding (SV: tegenbeeld, antitupos) van het ware [alethenos], maar in de hemel zelf, om thans, ons ten goede, voor het aangezicht Gods te verschijnen (Hebr. 9:23-24).  Daarom 'bezitten we volle vrijmoedigheid om in te gaan in het [hemelse] heiligdom door het bloed van Jezus.' (Hebr. 10:19).

Omdat het 'een afbeelding' en 'een schaduw' van het originele heiligdom is, speelt het aardse heiligdom een belangrijke rol in het uitleggen van de details van het verlossingsplan aan zowel eerdere als hedendaagse gelovigen. Bovendien geeft de definiëring van het aardse heiligdom en zijn diensten als een 'schaduw' aan dat deze een voorafschaduwing waren van betere dingen die komen moesten. In feite spreekt de schrijver over de wet met haar rituele diensten als zijnde 'slechts een schaduw [skia]... der toekomstige goederen, niet de gestalte dier dingen zelf.' (Hebr. 10:1; cf. Kol. 2:17)

- Martin Rozestraten

Bible and Science: Scientific Facts and Theories

There's a lot of conflicting information about both science and the Bible. It will help us find the most useful information if we distinguish between two different fundamental ideas. Firstly we need to think about observable facts. Then we need to think about theories.

Observable facts

Frontispiece of the Rudolphine Tables: Tabulae Rudolphinae: quibus astronomicae ... by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630). Call number QB41 .K43 1627. Image ID: libr0310, Treasures of the NOAA Library Collection, Photographer: Archival Photograph by Mr. Steve Nicklas, NOS, NGS. Secondary source: NOAA Central Library, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/library/libr0310.htm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An observable fact is something that can be proved beyond doubt. These observable facts are tangible, measurable and repeatable. They can be felt through our senses and can be experienced first hand if necessary. Gravity is a good example of an observable fact. We all experience the effects of gravity every day of our lives. Whenever we drop anything it always falls to the ground. Whenever we throw a ball into the air it always falls back to us. Scientists have done experiments and understand gravity enough to launch rockets into space and put satellites into orbit around the earth. So gravity is real and it can be experienced and measured. It is an observable fact.

Theories

A scientist then creates a theory about something he wants to look at in a little more detail. This will be based on a set of assumptions. This theory should be the best explanation of the observable facts. He could, for example, have a theory that gravity acts upwards. It would be obvious to anyone that this does not fit the observable facts. Such a claim would be ignored.

But sometimes we have no way of knowing whether the assumptions used in a theory are right. This is often the case when considering what happened in the past. We can't do experiments to test the theory and check the assumption

So it is important that we know what can be proved and what is only a theory that we can't prove.

We want to look quickly at a couple of examples where theories which lacked vital facts were trusted. The consequences were terrible.

The Bible Prophecy Channel

 +

1. Are Science and the Bible Compatible?
2. Science and the Bible—Do They Really Contradict Each Other?
3. The mythical conflict of science and Scripture (1)
4. Bible containing scientific information
5. The mythical conflict of science and Scripture (2)
6. Reconciling Science and Religion
7. Sharing thoughts and philosophical writings
8. The truth is very plain to see and God can be clearly seen
9. Science, scepticism, doubts and beliefs
10. Science, belief, denial and visibility 1
11. Science, belief, denial and visibility 2
12. Ian Barbour connecting science and religion
13. Why think there’s a God? (1): Something from Nothing
14. Why think there is a God? (2) Goldilocks Effect
15. Book Review: Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe & Casey Luskin, Science & Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.124pp.
16. Science and Religion Harmonized (Once and For All…)
17. How to falsify a religion using scientific or historical evidence
18. Thomas Aquinas on Wisdom by Robert M. Woods

 +++
 

Related articles

• Yes, Science and Religion can Coexist
• Mathematics - Language and Science
• Victor Stenger: How To Debate Religion
• Science, As a Christian - My Thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate
• Science and Skepticism: Amid a Push for More STEM Training, Many Reject Key Elements of Science
• Science and religion: Do your own damn Google search
• That Dreadful Strawman "Science"...ugh...
• The Bible and Science - Two Sources of Truth?
• The Science Dilemma: Debating Evolution vs. Creationism
• Legal Theory Lexicon: It Takes A Theory To Beat A Theory