News And Notes -- By: Anonymous

Journal: Bible and Spade (Second Run)
Volume: BSPADE 06:1 (Winter 1993)
Article: News And Notes
Author: Anonymous

News And Notes

On the “Appearance of Age” in the Universe

Creationists are often criticized for suggesting that God created the universe with an “appearance of age.” Since atheistic and theistic evolutionists “know” the universe is 15-20 billion years old, they accuse creationists of implying that God deceived man by creating a universe which seems very old, but really isn’t.

The chief problem with this accusation by evolutionists is that God is not a deceiver and He did not deceive man regarding the age of the universe. It is clearly recorded in His Word that He did it in only six days not long ago. There is no Biblical evidence that the universe is old, and it has only been since the advent of evolution that scientists have imagined that it was old.

If there is deception as to the age of the universe, it is not from God. The source of it is the arch-Deceiver who has misled man. God has spoken truly in Genesis, and elsewhere, about the age of the universe. Only evolutionists, theistic and atheistic, believe the universe is old.

A Rejoinder to a Bar Article on Music of the Temple

[Ed. The letter below was published in Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 1993, p. 74. Although the article Mr. Wheeler refers to was published earlier in BAR, we include this letter in our magazine since we have published two articles on this subject by Mr. Wheeler (Winter, Autumn 1989; Winter 1992)].

Unhappily, Dr. Peter Jeffrey’s review of The Music of the Bible Revealed by Suzanne Haik-Vantoura (which I edited) in the July/August BAR is completely misleading.

Dr. Jeffrey graciously expounded on his statements in a recent letter to me (enclosed). Jeffrey misrepresents Haik-Ventoura’s credentials and views in several places (e.g., on the inventory of Gregorian chant by Pope Gregory I, the origin of Gregorian chant, and the “eternal principles of musical value” in ancient music, which is partly the fault of my own editor’s note).

More critically, he fails to understand (or state correctly) Haik-Vantoura’s historical logic (calling it “circular” and “mock-historical”), which is founded on the axiom of her musical decipherment. His conclusion that she simply read modern presuppositions into the music is based on the “modernity” of her results (and on unfounded speculations of his own). Finally, his claim that her conclusions are “utterly untrue” is essentially an argument from silence (certain features of her “key” allegedly being unknown before 1000 AD). The Masoretes’ tentative interpretations of the te’amim (derived long after the signs appear in mss.) assume they are a primarily grammatical notation of “primative” ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()