Subject 창조론자도 탄소연대측정 결과에 매달린다.

창조론자가 탄소 연대측정 결과에 매달리는 경우

얼마 전에 어떤 분이 Barbara Thiering의 저서(Jesus the man)의 서평을 인용해서, 예수는 동정녀 출생이 아니며 십자가에서 죽지도 않았고 막달레나와 결혼해서 자식까지 두었다가 이혼해서 기원 후 64년 경에 죽은 유태교 급진 에세네 파의 지도사제였다고 주장하였는데 Barbara Thiering의 주장 근거는 그 유명한 사해 문서이다.

문제는, 예수의 모델같은 실존 인물이 등장하는 사해문서가 도대체 언제 씌어졌는가하는 것인데 그 문서 내용만으로는 연대를 추정하기 어려워 성서고고학자들이 두루말이를 탄소연대 측정(그리고 handwriting tests) 해보았더니 기원 전 1세기내지 2세기의 것이라는 결론이 나와 사해문서에 메시아로 기록된 인물이 신약 상 예수의 활동시기보다는 100년 이상 전의 사람으로들 믿고 있는데 Barbara Thiering은 예수가 바로 사해 문서에 묘사된 인물이 틀림없다는 전제하에 논리를 전개해 나가고 있지만, 적어도 과학자들은 예수가 실존 인물이라면,사해문서에 씌어진 사람하고는 다른 존재라고 생각하고 있는 것이다.

Barbara Thiering의 저서가 몇 권 더 나와서 관심을 불러일으키자 창조론자들도 도저히 무시하고 넘어갈 수가 없다고 판단하였는지 유명한 창조론 문필가 Jonathan Sarfati가 answersingenesis에 간략한 비평을 기고하였는데 예수가 사해문서의 인물과 동일인물이라는 Barbara Thiering의 주장을 물리치는 근거로 탄소 연대측정 등 과학적 분석 기법의 측정 결과를 인용하면서 Barbara Thiering의 주장은 scholarly world 에는 어떤 근거도 없다고 단정한 것이다.

희한한 일이다.
다른 탄소연대 측정은 거의 100퍼센트 오류라고 빡빡 우기던 창조론 문필가가 자기들 주장에 도움이 될 만 하니까 탄소연대 측정이니 scholarly world 니 하는 말도 천연덕스럽게 하고 있는 것이다.

Jonathan Sarfati가 다른 연대 논쟁에서 scholarly world 가 사용한 탄소연대측정 결과를 인정한 적이 단 한번이라도 있었는가?







Barbara Thiering: A short critique
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati


Barbara Thiering is an Australian woman who has written several books attacking orthodox Christianity. Her basic thesis is that the New Testament was written in a code which only she has discovered. Although her outlandish ideas have absolutely no support in the scholarly world. She is unique in dating the Dead Sea Scrolls to the time of Christianity, although radiocarbon and handwriting tests put them mostly in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC.

She also tries to use the fancy Hebrew word pesher in the hope that the public will be suitably impressed. But it means something quite different—an interpretation of a real, actual text, not a code word for vivid re-definitions of words as she does. There is no way the Gospels could be examples of pesher, since those who used that technique made it very clear that they were doing so, by putting the actual word into the text on which they were commenting.

Her anti-supernaturalistic bias comes through on almost every page. Although she doesn’t believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, she does believe in resurrecting dead theories. She actually advocates the old ‘swoon theory’, discredited last century by David Strauss, himself no friend of the Resurrection. She asserts that Jesus didn't die on the cross, on the grounds that he bled after the spear thrust (John 19:34) because ‘dead men don’t bleed’. A butcher friend of mine says she obviously has no experience of carcasses, which most definitely can bleed if stabbed. Note also that John’s report of ‘blood and water’ (John 19:31) flowing out is proof of death—the corpuscles and serum have separated. Thiering compounds the idiocy by claiming that the two thieves helped revive Him. After suffering crucifixion and having their legs broken, they would be in need of medical attention themselves …

The most bizarre aspect of her theories is the alleged secret code in the Gospels and Acts. This is her ‘evidence’ (if it deserves to be called that) for her weird ideas about Jesus supposed family. Apparently Acts 6:7 ‘…the word of God increased’ is code for Jesus’ family growing larger, and the same again with Acts 12:24. Somehow well-known places in Jerusalem and even heaven and earth become code-names for places in Qumran. Mary Magdalene is also Jairus’ daughter as well as Rhoda in Acts 12:13. Thiering identifies John Mark with the ‘beloved disciple’, the centurion at the foot of the cross, and Eutychus who fell out of a window (Acts 20:7–12).

A good book on Thiering is N.T. Wright, Who was Jesus? (Great Britain: SPCK, 1992). This also has chapters on Bishop Spong and AN Wilson. The book Jesus was No Wicked Priest, by Clifford Wilson and Murray Adamthwaite, usefully refutes some of her earlier books which contain basically the same nonsense.

In conclusion, although one Australian atheistic media personality referred to Thiering as the ‘Miss Marple of the Bible’, a comparison with the bumbling Inspector Clouseau would be more apt.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/448.asp

[이 게시물은 꽹과리님에 의해 2004-08-28 15:35:36 자유게시판(으)로 부터 복사됨]