Depends what you mean. God's dwells in "unapproachable light" (1 Tim. 6:16), and so it could not be his direct glory, it would have to be a glory accommodated to the created order.

But the problem with the suggestion is that the text doesn't say so.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Perhaps, but if this is right, you're no longer reading the text literally. If the words don't literally mean "eating dust", then where do we stop?

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

From Calvin:

Thou art cursed above all cattle. This curse of God has such force against the serpents as to render it despicable, and scarcely tolerable to heaven and earth, leading a life exposed to, and replete with, constant terrors. Besides, it is not only hateful to us, as the chief enemy of the human race, but, being separated also from other animals, carries on a kind of war with nature; for we see it had before been so gentle that the woman did not flee from its familiar approach. But what follows has greater difficulty because that which God denounces as a punishment seems to be natural; namely, that it should creep upon its belly and eat dust. This objection has induced certain men of learning and ability to say, that the serpent had been accustomed to walk with an erect body before it had been abused by Satan. 38 There will, however, be no absurdity in supposing, that the serpent was again consigned to that former condition, to which he was already naturally subject. For thus he, who had exalted himself against the image of God, was to be thrust back into his proper rank; as if it had been said, 'Thou, a wretched and filthy animal, hast dared to rise up against man, whom I appointed to the dominion of the whole world; as if, truly, thou, who art fixed to the earth, hadst any right to penetrate into heaven. Therefore, I now throw thee back again to the place whence thou hast attempted to emerge, that thou mayest learn to be contented with thy lot, and no more exalt thyself, to man's reproach and injury.' In the meanwhile he is recalled from his insolent motions to his accustomed mode of going, in such a way as to be, at the same time, condemned to perpetual infamy. To eat dust is the sign of a vile and sordid nature. This (in my opinion) is the simple meaning of the passage, which the testimony of Isaiah also confirms, (Isaiah 65:25) for while he promises under the reign of Christ, the complete restoration of a sound and well-constituted nature, he records, among other things, that dust shall be to the serpent for bread. Wherefore, it is not necessary to seek for any fresh change in each particular which Moses here relates.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

I'm a staunch young earther and I'm not going to get involved in this debate but I do want to observe that, after 120 plus replies and over 1400 views the answer to the question - "Is it worth the battle?" is answered in the affirmative.

Battle on!

__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
I just know there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!

The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog) MySpace (Music), MySpace (Personal)
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

If for no other reason: Iron sharpens iron!

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

My links: ChristianSkepticism.org | personal | facebook | Prescriptive Psalmody

I don't want to get into this discussion too much myself, but I have a little twist that needs to be considered. I read David Snoke's defense of Old Earth Creation, and he presented a case that got me thinking...

“Many people may find it easy to believe that thousands of non-Christian scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fabricate geological data, but one thing acts as a strong check to prevent them from doing that: self-interest. Geology underlies the oil industry, and the oil industry is interested in finding oil with pinpoint accuracy, not in creating a vast religious deception. Some Christians fault the old-earthers for violating the scientific method because they deal with things that lie in the past, and therefore beyond the realm of falsifiable predictions. This is incorrect. The theory of an old earth and continental drift is a highly successful, predictive theory, used by thousands of people who put millions of dollars at risk in order to find oil and coal. Just as capitalism tends to make selfish people work toward productive goals out of self interest, so it also tends to keep them honest, since a person who consistently denies reality, making false predictions of where to drill for oil, at a cost of millions of dollars, will not last long in the business. If young-earth science made better predictions than old-earth science of where to find oil, I am convinced that the industry would embrace it in an instant.”

One may question Snoke's apologetic, but I want to bring this into the practical realm. Whether or not we should let science dictate our interpretation of Scripture isn't really the point here. My question is this. What is a Christian to do if he is employed as an oil driller for Exxon? Should he…

1.) …abandon his old earth geology at the expense of finding oil (and losing his position)?

2.) …accept old earth geology six days a week, long enough to get his job done, and then revert to young earth creation on Sunday?

3.) ...accept the possibility that the Bible allows for an old earth?

4.) …find a new job?

Other alternatives?

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

Mr. Foord, I believe they do mean literally eating or licking dust as the literal activity of a literal serpent as cited by the verse in Micah; but that this literalness has a spiritual significance that would not make sense unless we literally assume that the devil is present in the snake as the rest of scripture takes this up and applies it spiritually as well. Again I'm probably expressing this badly but it is the distinction Mr. Winzer drew between taking something literally and naturalistically, as if the literal ruled out the supernatural and spiritual: that is to draw a false distinction, a distinction modern science fundamentally adopts -- & they never find God anywhere in spite of His being everywhere revealed -- but that I reject. I appreciate much that your concern is not for science but for the text, but I don't believe the distinction is in the text and my point was more that the rest of Scripture's usage of these concepts as both physical and spiritual supports that it isn't: that you have the spiritual significance hidden or revealed, certainly not divorced from, the physical and both together form the 'literal' reading.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

well, I am no expert on geology, but - are they finding oil based on the "facts" of an old earth, or are they utilizing the lessons learned from previous oil finds to develop better and better methods of discovery? I tend to believe that folk align their presuppositions to the evidence...does the YE group have an workable interpretation of the evidence?

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

My links: ChristianSkepticism.org | personal | facebook | Prescriptive Psalmody

PD, yes, the YE's have workable models just as the OE's do. It's never a straightforward matter of 'this is what the facts tell me' with regard to origins etc. One makes a model to account for 'evidence' and these models are based not only on observable evidence but on one's presuppositions; new evidence is constantly coming to light and changing the models; the models themselves have no real way of being tested, etc. It's a changing and very biased standard again: to speak of the 'facts' of things beyond our observation without an authoritative framework is naivety on our part.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

did a google - found this from AIG

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

My links: ChristianSkepticism.org | personal | facebook | Prescriptive Psalmody

That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

The real issue is this: Is it okay to hold a position that the science of the day, finds reprehensible. Or is it only okay to hold to a position such as YEC as long as you have a working model as comprehensive as the other positions?

Let's for example say that I agree that YECers dont have a working model for finding oil, but let us imagine that in 50 years one is worked out. Is it irrational to hold to YEC until 50 years from now?

Now let us imagine that the YEC working model at that point is better than the OEC one. Do the OECers have to then (and only then) capitulate and come over?

Or can we look at scripture and say, if science does not currently bear out YEC (or OEC) as the case may be, then it just shows that more work needs to be done?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Hi Scott, yes, one can deny those theories on the basis of an unchanging and eternal authority: indeed it is much more coherent to deny them where they oppose that authority than to qualify that authority by them when they are dealing with things that cannot be proven, when they have been outdated numerous times in the past etc. Again the concern for how to read Genesis should be textual not scientific. It is the height of our -I don't know, presumption, ignorance- to trust science to qualify the Scripturally coherent and plain reading of the Word of God. The arguments from science will not muster any more authority with six day Creationists than they can possibly have as a changing human tool, which is why such arguments are irrelevant in this kind of discussion about the reading of a text.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

All well and good, so back to my original question.

What is the Christian Exxon Oil Driller supposed to do?

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

Keep making money and understand that science is changeable but the Word of God is not.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

To be more specific.

According to what we know scientifically (fully realizing that it can change tomorrow), the accurate finding of coal and oil requires the assumption of an old earth (of course, like all science, this faces the problem of induction). Nevertheless, can one temporarily adopt "old earth geology" in order to get his job done, at least until a time comes when young earth geology may give a better alternative? What if his job and knowledge of geology influenced his view of creation, giving him an old earth perspective? Would he be heretical in doing so?

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

I question that plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are key variables used to predict the location of oil. Rather the opposite is true - the location of oil is used as 'evidence' of plate tectonics and continental drift. I have never heard any geologist say "if continental drift, then we should find oil at location X". I seriously doubt that old earth theories are critical to oil exploration.

Also, do young earth theorist necessarily deny plate tectonics??

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Also, Scott, if your concern is over the 'h' word (smiley) then certainly I don't think anyone here would say the man is departing from the Christian faith over this issue -- indeed people like Warfield, C. S. Lewis, are held in very high esteem by most of us; I understood the original question to be more whether our church officers should ideally be required to hold to this position. It isn't a matter even of separation from people but of whether those who are in a special position of defending the church from error should be required to be confessional on this point: in that sense, I do believe this is worth 'fighting for' because I think the errors logically -- though not in every personal case-- lead to others. But no, I don't think this issue alone constitutes someone a heretic or that the thread is geared towards that kind of anathema.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.

Access : : Nature

I do know of one particular geologist who is an adamant young earth creationist. Yet he does his job under the pretense that the earth is old, because it appears old. He admits that everything he knows about the earth suggests that it is billions of years old. Nonetheless, he holds that it is young, because Scripture says so.

But most believing scientists I know are old-earthers.

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Th