panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
If for no other reason: Iron sharpens iron!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[...] but as 'an expression of a miserable condition'
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?
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?
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.
All well and good, so back to my original question.
What is the Christian Exxon Oil Driller supposed to do?
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 earth quite yet.
Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.
Access : : Nature
The necessary physiographic location of deltaic sources deposited during the past 200 million years requires that continental movements be taken into account.
How?Oops. The link is for members only.
Continental Drift, however, is the main method for locating these deposits.
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.
Any comprehensive model for earth history consistent with the data from the Scriptures must account for the massive tectonic changes associated with the Genesis Flood. These tectonic changes include significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow for the deposition of up to many thousands of meters of fossil-bearing sediments, lateral displacements of the continental blocks themselves by thousands of kilometers, formation of all of the present day ocean floor basement rocks by igneous processes, and isostatic adjustments after the catastrophe that produced today's Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, and Andes. This paper uses 3-D numerical modeling in spherical geometry of the earth's mantle and lithosphere to demonstrate that rapid plate tectonics driven by runaway subduction of the pre-Flood ocean floor is able to account for this unique pattern of large-scale tectonic change and to do so within the Biblical time frame.
They have preferred to become inconsistent Christians rather than inconsistent scientists.
DMcFadden,
Young Earth Creation really cannot account for Continental drift in any accurate manner, but that will require a more indepth discussion than what I'm prepared to offer at this point. (Besides, that is only one of many issues. There are many more, such as the 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer, etc.)
In any case, I'm not necessarily defending their view, just pushing for a little understanding for those who hold to an old earth view. Many are true believers who hold to a high view of Scripture.
Neogillist,
Just to clarify, theistic evolution is a heresy. Old earth creation does not necessarily imply evolution.
I didn't intend to merely dismiss it. Perhaps I'll interact with it later. It requires more involvement than I intended to get into.I would appreciate more interaction with Baumgardner's work than a simple dismissal.
You've taken me too literally! When I spoke of Gen. 1-3 it wasn't in the context of discussing the structure of Genesis it was merely a passing comment designed to make reference to creation and the fall.
When it comes to the toledoth you're making much rest on the meaning of one word, i.e. that it has to refer to literal history. The way we determine how to understand the early chapters of Genesis is not by the meaning of one marker word (toledoth) but attendance to all the words, and what they mean in context.
I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical per se (a la Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.
Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.
There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.
Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.
So therefore, did God curse a snake or the devil, or both? If he cursed the devil, why is only a snake addressed as a snake? If he cursed the devil, why does a snake, which isn't personal (in your opinion) and thus is a non-moral agent, suffer? Why do we read nothing about curses on the devil himself?
Dear brother, this sort of statement adds little to the discussion except of ad hominem value. Please interact with my points rather than wheel in baggage-laden words (which distract).
The Bavinck quote unfortunately, I find, hardly does justice to the history of interpretation concerning Gen. 1-3. A literalistic reading of Gen. 1-3 presents all sort of deadlocks that theologians have noticed ever since the patristic period. Just go back and read the many hexamera of the Fathers who wrote them (from Basil to Grosseteste). You'll get a wide variety of views.
The view of Gen. 1-3 I'm presenting (which many many conservative inerrants adhere to) is neither myth, saga, nor poetry. Read my past posts carefully.
Well, you're free to have your opinion, but to me it's obvious they're not. There's a few 1000 years separating their authoring; one written in an ANE culture (with similarities to genres of the time), the other written in 1st century Graeco-Roman culture (and was a unique genre). Identical genres? I don't buy it.
Well, this bypasses the point I made. Matt.10:16 hardly deals with the argument. Words have their meanings in their context (basic rule of semantics). When 'arum is placed in it's immediate context it's obvious it refers to a personal character, given precisely that the "snake" then deceives by talking to the women! No mention of the demonic possessing the snake. Such an idea must be read into the text. And again the women in 3:13 admits that the "serpent deceived me" and I ate. And the key word again is: context.