{"id":169,"date":"2010-07-18T13:13:47","date_gmt":"2010-07-18T13:13:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/dev\/?page_id=169"},"modified":"2010-09-11T18:18:22","modified_gmt":"2010-09-12T01:18:22","slug":"schweigerdt-archive-bruce-schweigerdt-ma","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/schweigerdt-archive-bruce-schweigerdt-ma","title":{"rendered":"Schweigerdt Archive (Bruce Schweigerdt, MA)"},"content":{"rendered":"

NOTE: PDF documents require Adobe Acrobat Reader<\/a><\/p>\n

The Genealogies of Jesus: The Chrono<\/em>-genealogical Record of HisStory<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Originally written in 2003 under the auspices of the Genesis Forum Study Group, the work was commissioned in an effort to definitively provide a chronological time-scale for the course of history based on the chrono<\/em>-genealogy accounts given in Genesis, parts of the Old Testament, and the New Testament books of Matthew and Luke.\u00a0 The work demonstrates that the Bible is HisStory<\/em>, and as such provides a linear and consistent account of God’s redemptive history to mankind.<\/p>\n

The Gnostic Influence on Psychology: Effects of the Common Heresy<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

Judeo-Christian theology has been plagued throughout its history by heresy concerning, among many things, the doctrine of God and of human nature. Psychology, possessing a generally fluid doctrine of human nature – from the dualistic to the holistic, from the analytical to the existential, from the “dark shadow” to the supreme good – has also been plagued by anthropological heresy. This article tentatively suggests that historical psychology has built its anthropology upon philosophical presuppositions in the tradition of the Gnostic heresy. (This article was originally published in the The Journal of Psychology and Theology, 1982, Vol. 10, No. 3, 221-229. Copyright 1982 by Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University.\u00a0 (Journal of Psychology and Theology<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The Basic Problems of Analytical Psychology: A Trace Study of the Foundations and <\/a> Principles of Psychoanalysis Manifest in the Theory of Transactional Analysis <\/a><\/p>\n

It is alleged that Sigmund Freud had an Egyptian fixation, a Mosaic obsession, and a Messianic complex. This fixation, obsession, and complex were manifest in his theory of psychoanalysis which is, in essence, an outgrowth of Pharisaic Jewish mystical and legalistic Gnosticism, based on an evolutionary pantheistic Nature-philosophy, mixed with Greco-Egyptian theistic mythologies and proposed as a salvationist cure, a panacea and final solution for the human dilemma.<\/p>\n

Further, it is suggested that each of the non-Biblical therapeutic models — old and new, with Transactional Analysis cited as an example — are based upon a Freudian mentality and lead to the same negative and destructive results.\u00a0 (Masters Thesis, California State University, Sacramento, 1980.\u00a0 Note in particular Figure 1, “The Humanistic Triangle,” page 49)<\/p>\n

Dr. Freud was smitten by a quest for history, both real and fictional, and sought particularly after the story of his people, the Hebrew nation.\u00a0The Basic Problems of Analytical Psychology. . .<\/em> represents, so far as I can recall, the first effort on my part at portraying one of the significant motives of biblical Higher Criticism (German) and that of evolution-based science.\u00a0 Freud, the creator of depth psychology, found it essential to his psychoanalytic theory to undertake an inquiry into biblical history in a uniquely critical way (cf. excerpt from Moses and Monotheism<\/em>, 1939<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Evolution As Myth: Scientific Orthodoxy and its Implications for Society<\/a><\/p>\n

Myth<\/em> defined is a traditional explanation of life and its origins which so expresses or coincides with the contemporary spirit that its often radical contradictions and absurdities are never apparent, in that they express the basic presuppositions, however untenable, of everyday life and thought (Rushdoony).\u00a0 Eisley, in The Immense Journey<\/em>, put it this way:\u00a0 “With the failure of its many efforts, science has been left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.\u00a0 After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:\u00a0 Namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”\u00a0 Evolution As Myth. . . <\/em>traces the historical development of the myth-notion of Darwinian Evolution, outlining the diabolical implications it holds for any society that clings to its tenets.<\/p>\n

Millions and Billions of Years<\/a><\/p>\n

The notion of millions<\/em> and billions<\/em> of years that we hear so ubiquitously bantered about is actually nothing more than an intellectual construct; an idea none-the-less, upon which an entire cultural mythology has been raised.\u00a0 In order to come to grips with this fundamental reality it is important to understand where and how the notion of eons of time originated in our western mindset.\u00a0“Millions and Billions of Years” traces that history of thought.<\/p>\n

A Hierarchy of Evolution<\/a><\/p>\n

Most people think of evolution as an objective science.\u00a0 Nothing could be further from the truth.<\/p>\n

Evolution Defined<\/a><\/p>\n

Is it enough to assert, as evolutionists do, that the term “evolution” simply means change<\/em> over<\/em> time<\/em>?\u00a0 Ah, if things were only that simple!\u00a0 To find out where a person is going with that insipid definition, you must ask, “How much change<\/em>?,” and “How much time<\/em>?”\u00a0 And when it comes to time<\/em>, it is important to realize where the ideas came from in the first place for all those millions and billions of years of earth history.\u00a0 This essay provides that information.<\/p>\n

Evolution – Illogical and Unreasonable<\/a><\/p>\n

The notion of evolution is illogical and unreasonable.\u00a0\u00a0Reason<\/em> demands a logical progression in order for it to function properly.\u00a0 The idea that the origin of all things occurred millions and billions of years ago has no logical support because the notion of eons of time is basically superfluous and unfathomable.<\/p>\n

A Critique of the Notion, “Evolution AS<\/em> Science” (textbook analysis)<\/a><\/p>\n

The entire notion of Evolution AS Science<\/em> is based on the assumption that all things in nature are the result of natural phenomena. \u00a0When it comes to showing that evolution is the process used by nature to form life and all its diversity, science is invoked, with its very methodology modified to accommodate both the assumption of natural causes and the conclusion of an evolutionary process.\u00a0 Through the analysis of two commonly used biology textbooks, it is shown that the evolutionary belief system is based entirely on speculation and spurious logic.<\/p>\n

Reasonable Speculation<\/a><\/p>\n

In reference to evolution and all that flows from it, responsible textbooks will (and generally do) employ two key words to describe the phenomena: \u00a0speculation<\/em> and reasonable<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0Not so the \u201cCalifornia Science Framework for Public Schools.\u201d \u00a0“Reasonable Speculation” discusses this concern.<\/p>\n

Evolution And Religion<\/a><\/p>\n

Other than a few hard-core proponents of the notion, most Darwinists think of Evolution as a theory<\/em>, albeit one they firmly believe in<\/span>.\u00a0 Many — perhaps unwittingly — have actually incorporated it into their personal belief system and hold to it as many a Believer holds to his religion.\u00a0 There is a reason for such a phenomena:\u00a0 Evolution is<\/em> a religion that meets at least sixteen (16) of the criteria.<\/p>\n

Also see the article, “Is Evolution a Religion?”<\/a><\/p>\n

The Genesis Creation Day<\/a><\/p>\n

What does the Bible say about the Genesis creation \u201cday?”\u00a0\u00a0 Is it an ordinary 24-hour day, or is it a long period of time of millions and billions of years?\u00a0 Included in this paper are some of the Scriptural arguments for and against an ordinary, literal, 24-hour day.\u00a0 Those who believe in a biblical creation hold to an ordinary, literal, 24-hour day.\u00a0 Those who insist that the universe and the earth are billions of years old (Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists) must interpret the Genesis \u201cday\u201d as long periods of time. What does the Bible really teach?\u00a0 (Essay by Larry D. Miller)<\/p>\n

*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n

The Church and Compromise Theology items<\/p>\n

Commentary on Hegel <\/a>
\n(First Hegelian Dialectic \/ Antidote for Hegelian Dialectic)<\/a><\/p>\n

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) had a profound effect on western thought, and Christian theology in particular.\u00a0His system of rational thought in the form of a dialectic, when applied to biblical scholarship, placed the holy Scripture on par with any other treatise, and thus subject to the same skepticism.\u00a0 This essay provides a brief overview, a first example, and the antidote for the Hegelian Dialectic.<\/p>\n

Tacking Jesus onto a Belief System: <\/a>A Review of <\/a> The Language of God:
\nA Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief<\/em><\/a> by Francis S. Collins<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2006, Dr. Francis S. Collins wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, <\/em>in which he proposes a new and fresh look at theistic-evolution as the solution to the cultural conflict over Creation\/Evolution.\u00a0 This March 2009 review addresses concerns raised by that work.\u00a0 In September 2009, the Institute for Creation Research published an item dealing with Collins and his form of theistic-evolution, which can be accessed here: “Dr. Francis Collins and the Dangerous Doctrines of BioLogos<\/em>.”<\/a><\/p>\n

Response to John Sailhamer’s Genesis<\/em> Unbound: A Provocative <\/em><\/a>New Look at the <\/em><\/a>Creation Account<\/em> (1996) <\/a>(With Professor P. Rainbow Correspondence excerpts, and a commentary on B. B. Warfield)<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2001 I was asked to review John Sailhamer’s Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. <\/em>It proved to be a provocative experience indeed.\u00a0 Using understanding I gained through an extensive email correspondence over the course of five months which I had with a seminary professor who cited B.B. Warfield as an expert resource, I fashioned this critique.<\/p>\n

Letter to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis Regarding <\/a>The Radio Bible Class matter (July 2001)<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2001 the Radio Bible Class, as part of its Discovery Series<\/em> published a booklet entitled “Dinosaurs & the Bible: Defusing the Creation Controversy” (since revised\/republished\/renamed – see below) in which a significant amount of compromise theology<\/em> was shared.\u00a0 This prompted a detailed letter from Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis to the President of The RBC, Martin R. De Haan II.\u00a0 After reviewing the booklet and Ham’s letter, I wrote this letter sharing my experience with how Christian theology in general has corrupted biblical teaching throughout the ages, even to the present.<\/p>\n

I don’t know when the booklet was revised and republished under the new title “The Genesis Account of Creation: Defusing the Controversy”<\/a>, but the final result is the same.\u00a0 The problem with the stream of thought provided in these booklets is that the RBC focuses on God’s Creation, Special Revelation, and the Bible on the one hand, and so-called Modern Science, General Revelation, and the “Book of Nature” — usually defined by evolutionary theory and Uniformitarian assumptions — on the other hand.<\/p>\n

The issue is not here at all, but rather, what is the history<\/em> that is portrayed by Uniformitarian “Science,” and that of the HisStory<\/em> of all things that is given us by God in His Word, the Bible.\u00a0 The clear demarcation of note which everyone<\/em> on both sides recognizes is that of the Great Flood (of Noah) as recorded in Genesis 6-9.
\nThe matter is rather simple:\u00a0 Those who hold to a cataclysmic, universal flood that transformed the topography of the entire earth, interpret geological evidence (i.e., the Grand Canyon) as rapid-changed, while those who see a local flood (if indeed there was even a “big flood”) as being change of a gradual nature over millions and billions of years.\u00a0 Beyond that, how is the history of the earth in chronological form revealed to us?\u00a0 After all, isn’t that what history<\/em> is all about?<\/p>\n

In evolutionary science we have layers of strata and fossils that were laid down over eons of time based on Uniformitarian assumptions, while the Bible gives a chrono-genealogical calendar<\/em> (c.f., “The Genealogies of Jesus: The Chrono-<\/a>genealogical Record of HisStory<\/em>“<\/a>) from the first week of Creation through the birth of Christ.\u00a0 From there the calculation is not difficult.\u00a0 The question is, upon which model will you place your faith?
\nIn case you missed this information on the Genesis Forum Academy “Library” page, the links to items mentioned above are given here (note, the original booklet, “Dinosaurs & the Bible: Defusing the Creation Controversy” is no longer available):<\/p>\n

A Response to Radio Bible Class and its Booklet on Dinosaurs<\/a>
\n(Ken Ham’s response to the booklet)
\nLetter to Ken Ham Regarding The Radio Bible Class matter (July 2001)<\/a>
\n“The Genesis Account of Creation: Defusing the Controversy”<\/a>
\n(Revised\/re-titled booklet, date unknown)<\/p>\n

Correspondence Regarding Hugh Ross’ Creation and Time. . .<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe<\/a> is an astronomer, and professing evangelical Christian.\u00a0 He is also an Old-Earth Creationist who uses the discipline of astronomy in an effort to prove that one can be a Bible-believing Christian while at the same time holding to Uniformitarian assumptions of cosmic age.\u00a0 Over the years Ross has published a number of books, and this item is a critique (in letter form) of his Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy<\/em>.\u00a0 A more elaborate and scientific critique by retired physicist, Dr. Lambert Dolphin is also suggested reading:\u00a0 Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross from L. Dolphin, PhD<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another excellent resource on this subject is Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross<\/a> by Van Bebber and Taylor.<\/p>\n

In January 2009, Dr. John Ankerberg, Host of “The John Ankerberg Show,” sent an appeal letter to his supporters stating that he now subscribed to the notions of Hugh Ross in regards to matters of Creation, Genesis, and the Bible in general.\u00a0 The response by the Institute for Creation Research can be found here<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 Ankerberg has been showing Ross for a number of years, and it would appear as if he has now gone overboard!\u00a0 (Refer to Ankerberg’s original letter here<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n

S.T.A.R. Project-related items<\/p>\n

The S.T.A.R. Project has this goal:\u00a0 S<\/em><\/span>tarlight T<\/em><\/span>ravel A<\/em><\/span>nd (the theories of) R<\/em><\/span>elativity \u2013 Einstein postulated the theory of Special Relativity; our mission is to explain the theory as a Recent Creation alternative to an Old-Age model of the universe.\u00a0 A monogram is currently being composed in an initial effort to address this concern. \u00a0 \u201cLight-year Misapplied\u201d is a seminal draft which will be part of a larger work dealing with Genesis chapter one, under the auspices of Genesis Forum Academy (Jan. 2007).\u00a0\u00a0 A prior work, \u201cThe Cosmic Mirage: Space, Time, and the Relative Age of the Universe\u201d (1999) is also a considered resource in this project.<\/p>\n

The Cosmic Mirage: Space, Time, and the Relative Age of the Universe<\/a><\/p>\n

It is a significant challenge \u2014 and one that has thus far received scant attention \u2014 to address the inherent problems and resulting doctrines regarding the actual age of the universe, presently stated to be from 8 – 20 billion years old. This paper is addressed specifically to this concern and is intended to show how Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, in particular, assists in providing a definitive answer relating to the Creation Week of Genesis 1 and the “young” age of the universe.<\/p>\n

Light-year<\/em> Misapplied<\/a><\/p>\n

Although the most distant point in the universe from our planet may be 10 billion light-years or more, that does not mean the universe is 10 billion years old.\u00a0 A light-year is a measurement of distance, not of time.\u00a0 At our deliberate, limited, finite, and relatively simple level of existence, it is easy to interchange the concept of distance, and of time. \u00a0But when it comes to quantum and cosmic levels of being, it is not possible to deduce a perception of time from a measurement of distance.<\/p>\n

Quantum Physics and the Ether of Old<\/a><\/p>\n

Commencing with a discussion of quantumness and its intellectual limitations, and culminating in a presentation of the Trinity (Tri-Unity) as a biblical doctrine and universal reality as a stumbling block to the likes of Newton, Bacon, Jefferson, etc., this essay purports to reveal the very Secret of the Universe<\/em>, and with the assistance of Nathan R. Wood, explain it!<\/p>\n

(A Brief Treatise on the Nature of Light)<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2001 I had the unique opportunity to enter into a rather voluminous email correspondence with a New Testament scholar and seminary professor over the matter of the age of the universe.\u00a0 The professor held to the notion of an age of billions of years based on his understanding of the teachings of science, among other doctrines.\u00a0 As the discourse progressed he inquired of my understanding pertaining to the teachings in Genesis 1 dealing with the nature of light and its creation.\u00a0 As with most “Old-earth Creationists,” the professor felt that starlight travel over the course of light-years in the billions was an immutable argument to support this notion.\u00a0 This document is my response to his specific inquiry.<\/p>\n

The Question — The Answer<\/a><\/p>\n

The American Museum of Natural History has a question that they can’t answer:\u00a0 Why can’t anything travel faster than light?<\/em> The brief response provided here discusses light as the very context for the demarcation between the tangible and the intangible universe and offers this interesting thought:\u00a0 It is not a matter of going beyond<\/em> the speed of light which should concern us, but to think in terms of going outside<\/em> the speed of light, outside of energy and matter and into the realm of spiritual things.<\/p>\n

Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of the Time Measurement<\/a>
\n(R. Newton \/ J. Lisle)<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2001, Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist, under the pseudonym, Robert Newton, published “Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement ” in TJ: The Indepth Journal of Creation <\/em>.\u00a0 A response that I wrote to that article —“The Paradox of Light Travel” <\/a>— was published in a subsequent issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NOTE: PDF documents require Adobe Acrobat Reader The Genealogies of Jesus: The Chrono-genealogical Record of HisStory Originally written in 2003 under the auspices of the Genesis Forum Study Group, the work was commissioned in an effort to definitively provide a chronological time-scale for the course of history based on the chrono-genealogy accounts given in Genesis, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/169"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176,"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/169\/revisions\/176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.genesisforumacademy.org\/library\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}