Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.
On November 29, Tjalle asked about a timeline for the flood. I recently read an article by Dr. Carl Wieland which tells of Manetho, an Egyptian historian of 270 BC. This historian has a chronology which adds centuries to the Biblical account. However, it is now realized that some of the kings he put consecutively actually reigned simultaneously. That aside, Manetho writes that after the flood, Ham the son of Noah begat Aegyptus or Mestraim, who established in the area of egypt. He wrote that the dispersion of the tribes was five years after Noah's descendant Peleg was born. This agrees with Genesis 10:25. It seems that Manetho pretty well corroborates scripture in Genesis. (CMI, Creation magazine, vol 35, no.4, 2013.)
We often thing that ecumenism is just about different denominations working together, or at least getting along with each other. I think that is partly true, but that the more fundamental issue is in which areas we can work together, and which areas prevent us. For example, in our local ministerial, the Jehovah witnesses and Mormons are not included, while other churches (christian) are included. There is a great deal of ecumenical attitude, but there are still limits and confessional boundaries.
Doesn't the same thing apply when we discuss differences of belief about Genesis 1? If our interpretation of Genesis 1 (or other passages) leads us to deny man's ultimate responsibility for sin and disobedience, or if it leads us to deny God's ability to intervene or create miraculously, then haven't we crossed the line from an "ecumenical difference" to a God denying discussion? Given the seriousness of an evolutionary understanding of creation, and its effect on many who use it as their reason for denying a God who cares and creates, shouldn't we be incredibly cautious about "conforming to the world" in this regard?
Tjalle, you earlier asked about a timeline for Noah's global flood. An interesting youtube video by Ian Juby (Genesis Week, Episode 12, Season 3) highlighting some of the 250 flood legends around the globe, and the similarity of lineages with the biblical account would give some credibility to the fact that the flood was global, not local. One of the accounts gives a more detailed lineage of Japheth's line than the Bible does, and it seems some of these stories have been shown to predate missionary activity into Africa or east Asia. In this episode, he also talks about the genetic bottleneck of mitochondrial DNA, as well as implications for other species. His episode 13 of Season 3 describes the tropical forest debris found in the high artic, as well as the antartic. The huge amounts of tree trunks indicate major catastrophes since the roots have been torn away, and many of these trees have not been fossilized, but merely frozen.
The theological implications of a global flood are quite different than the theological implications of a relatively small local flood. You can imagine what they might be. When Israel as God's chosen people began to worship other gods, along with still offering sacrifices to Jahweh, God became angry enough to punish them, but He used other people and nations to punish them. Then He would also punish other nations and people as well, (see Nahum on the punishment of Nineveh). But the punishment was never indicated to be global, and did not require a 100 year boat construction project or something similar.
Tjalle, we are getting a lot of snow here, already more so far than we normally get all winter. Beautiful, but roads are tough to get thru sometimes. Your question about mountain formation relative to the Tigris is a good one. There apparently were small mountains before the flood, while the larger ones formed at the time of the flood, but I will have to research that issue further.
Water ends up under rock all the time, regardless of bulk densities, so I don't think that is a big deal. Porosity and volume are some of the details, but in principle it would seem to be possible. As far as how the water got there in the first place, of course scripture says that there was water under the earth, and God created it. It becomes circular or never ending to ask how something got there in the first place, because in our human limited understanding, it would always have to come from somewhere, regardless of where it came from, so the question would never end.
Yes plates would have to subduct. Creation Ministries has a different theory that the subduction we now see is simply the tail end of a very rapid subduction at the time of the flood. Are you saying that Brown denies subduction, or simply doesn't consider it? I would think he is well aware of subduction. I think he also indicates that the crust stretched upward, and some of it disappeared or exploded upwards.
I believe Walt Brown talks about superheated water which is well above the normal boiling point temperature, under pressure, and considerably warmer than the 25C per km you mention. In fact he suggests the water temp was too high to boil, since it was supercritical.
It may be true that rock bending slowly enough can bend without fracturing, but that thought goes against common observation. Or perhaps some rocks and not others. Much rock fractures even without bending, simply due to contraction and expansion. In any case, whether it fractures when it moves depends on what surface it is moving on, and whether it can move all at once. If this surface has moderate resistance on a level surface, and if the friction causes a melting of rock then presumably the layer could move without significant fracturing. The bending of present sedimentary rock layers in the mountains is also thought to have happened when the layers were yet soft enough not to fracture significantly, either from heat or from lack of hardening.
The story of Babel does not seem to exactly fit into a chronology in scripture as far as I can see, but regardless, the population growth could be the same whether the tower happened later or earlier. Noah and his descendants lived long and could have had many children, causing a quick and great increase in population. From four couples, there could easily have been millions of people in two hundred years, especially if they were still having children when two hundred years old (and consider how long they lived). Some rough calculations show an exponential possibility of 1.2 million people after only 80 yrs. Perhaps not likely by our standards, but we know they began having children at 35 years old or younger and didn't even Abraham live to 175 years?
And the same people or technology that built the ark may have found a way to build pyramids, don't you think?
Interesting that statement, "we'll have to agree to disagree". Do I have to agree with that? Couldn't I also disagree on that one, hoping that we might some day agree on a few more things?
And I also hope you have a fruitful and enlightening 2014. God bless.
Tjalle, would the apostle's creed be an acid test? Yes, for ecumenism perhaps. But perhaps not sufficient for our promise to uphold the confessions, right? So while we have a type of variety and divergence within the denomination, we also have promised a basic confessional perspective, which includes the Heidelberg. Everyone who professed their faith and became a member, agreed to that, right? The Heidleberg:
Q & A 5 Q. Can you live up to all this perfectly? A. No.1 I have a natural tendency to hate God and my neighbor.2
Q & A 6: Q. Did God create people so wicked and perverse? A. No. God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3 so that they might truly know God their creator,4 love him with all their heart, and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.5
Q & A 7: Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from? A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1 This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition.3
Q 9. But doesn’t God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?
A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1They, however, provoked by the devil,
in willful disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.Are not some things in evolutionary theory outside of the boundaries of the confession of promise?
I don't think the human sinful nature is a biological inheritance. It is a spiritual inheritance. But it is sure isn't it, that we do not see any perfect people without sin. This apparently is not part of the natural variability of the human race.
As far as scientists fudging evidence, well they are not perfect either, and there is clear evidence of scientists fudging things from time to time, while we assume most do not. However, in this case we are not talking about fudging evidence so much as interpreting evidence. A big difference. The bias of the interpretation looms huge. Did you know that the same codons in DNA codes for at least two different processes simultaneously, as if it could be read in two different programs at the same time? Fascinating, and some would say more clear evidence of an intelligent creator, rather than mere random mutations coupled with selection. Both evolutionists and creationists see the same evidence, but the creationist says this could not have happened by the proposed evolutionary mechanisms. It is too improbable, too absurdly unlikely. The evolutionist says it doesn't matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened this way. So who is being more scientific in this case?
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
On November 29, Tjalle asked about a timeline for the flood. I recently read an article by Dr. Carl Wieland which tells of Manetho, an Egyptian historian of 270 BC. This historian has a chronology which adds centuries to the Biblical account. However, it is now realized that some of the kings he put consecutively actually reigned simultaneously. That aside, Manetho writes that after the flood, Ham the son of Noah begat Aegyptus or Mestraim, who established in the area of egypt. He wrote that the dispersion of the tribes was five years after Noah's descendant Peleg was born. This agrees with Genesis 10:25. It seems that Manetho pretty well corroborates scripture in Genesis. (CMI, Creation magazine, vol 35, no.4, 2013.)
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
We often thing that ecumenism is just about different denominations working together, or at least getting along with each other. I think that is partly true, but that the more fundamental issue is in which areas we can work together, and which areas prevent us. For example, in our local ministerial, the Jehovah witnesses and Mormons are not included, while other churches (christian) are included. There is a great deal of ecumenical attitude, but there are still limits and confessional boundaries.
Doesn't the same thing apply when we discuss differences of belief about Genesis 1? If our interpretation of Genesis 1 (or other passages) leads us to deny man's ultimate responsibility for sin and disobedience, or if it leads us to deny God's ability to intervene or create miraculously, then haven't we crossed the line from an "ecumenical difference" to a God denying discussion? Given the seriousness of an evolutionary understanding of creation, and its effect on many who use it as their reason for denying a God who cares and creates, shouldn't we be incredibly cautious about "conforming to the world" in this regard?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, you earlier asked about a timeline for Noah's global flood. An interesting youtube video by Ian Juby (Genesis Week, Episode 12, Season 3) highlighting some of the 250 flood legends around the globe, and the similarity of lineages with the biblical account would give some credibility to the fact that the flood was global, not local. One of the accounts gives a more detailed lineage of Japheth's line than the Bible does, and it seems some of these stories have been shown to predate missionary activity into Africa or east Asia. In this episode, he also talks about the genetic bottleneck of mitochondrial DNA, as well as implications for other species. His episode 13 of Season 3 describes the tropical forest debris found in the high artic, as well as the antartic. The huge amounts of tree trunks indicate major catastrophes since the roots have been torn away, and many of these trees have not been fossilized, but merely frozen.
The theological implications of a global flood are quite different than the theological implications of a relatively small local flood. You can imagine what they might be. When Israel as God's chosen people began to worship other gods, along with still offering sacrifices to Jahweh, God became angry enough to punish them, but He used other people and nations to punish them. Then He would also punish other nations and people as well, (see Nahum on the punishment of Nineveh). But the punishment was never indicated to be global, and did not require a 100 year boat construction project or something similar.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, we are getting a lot of snow here, already more so far than we normally get all winter. Beautiful, but roads are tough to get thru sometimes. Your question about mountain formation relative to the Tigris is a good one. There apparently were small mountains before the flood, while the larger ones formed at the time of the flood, but I will have to research that issue further.
Water ends up under rock all the time, regardless of bulk densities, so I don't think that is a big deal. Porosity and volume are some of the details, but in principle it would seem to be possible. As far as how the water got there in the first place, of course scripture says that there was water under the earth, and God created it. It becomes circular or never ending to ask how something got there in the first place, because in our human limited understanding, it would always have to come from somewhere, regardless of where it came from, so the question would never end.
Yes plates would have to subduct. Creation Ministries has a different theory that the subduction we now see is simply the tail end of a very rapid subduction at the time of the flood. Are you saying that Brown denies subduction, or simply doesn't consider it? I would think he is well aware of subduction. I think he also indicates that the crust stretched upward, and some of it disappeared or exploded upwards.
I believe Walt Brown talks about superheated water which is well above the normal boiling point temperature, under pressure, and considerably warmer than the 25C per km you mention. In fact he suggests the water temp was too high to boil, since it was supercritical.
It may be true that rock bending slowly enough can bend without fracturing, but that thought goes against common observation. Or perhaps some rocks and not others. Much rock fractures even without bending, simply due to contraction and expansion. In any case, whether it fractures when it moves depends on what surface it is moving on, and whether it can move all at once. If this surface has moderate resistance on a level surface, and if the friction causes a melting of rock then presumably the layer could move without significant fracturing. The bending of present sedimentary rock layers in the mountains is also thought to have happened when the layers were yet soft enough not to fracture significantly, either from heat or from lack of hardening.
The story of Babel does not seem to exactly fit into a chronology in scripture as far as I can see, but regardless, the population growth could be the same whether the tower happened later or earlier. Noah and his descendants lived long and could have had many children, causing a quick and great increase in population. From four couples, there could easily have been millions of people in two hundred years, especially if they were still having children when two hundred years old (and consider how long they lived). Some rough calculations show an exponential possibility of 1.2 million people after only 80 yrs. Perhaps not likely by our standards, but we know they began having children at 35 years old or younger and didn't even Abraham live to 175 years?
And the same people or technology that built the ark may have found a way to build pyramids, don't you think?
Interesting that statement, "we'll have to agree to disagree". Do I have to agree with that? Couldn't I also disagree on that one, hoping that we might some day agree on a few more things?
And I also hope you have a fruitful and enlightening 2014. God bless.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, would the apostle's creed be an acid test? Yes, for ecumenism perhaps. But perhaps not sufficient for our promise to uphold the confessions, right? So while we have a type of variety and divergence within the denomination, we also have promised a basic confessional perspective, which includes the Heidelberg. Everyone who professed their faith and became a member, agreed to that, right? The Heidleberg:
Q & A 5 Q. Can you live up to all this perfectly? A. No.1 I have a natural tendency
to hate God and my neighbor.2
Q & A 6: Q. Did God create people so wicked and perverse? A. No. God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3 so that they might truly know God their creator,4 love him with all their heart,
and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.5
Q & A 7: Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from? A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1 This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition.3
Q 9. But doesn’t God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?
A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1They, however, provoked by the devil,
in willful disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.Are not some things in evolutionary theory outside of the boundaries of the confession of promise?
I don't think the human sinful nature is a biological inheritance. It is a spiritual inheritance. But it is sure isn't it, that we do not see any perfect people without sin. This apparently is not part of the natural variability of the human race.
As far as scientists fudging evidence, well they are not perfect either, and there is clear evidence of scientists fudging things from time to time, while we assume most do not. However, in this case we are not talking about fudging evidence so much as interpreting evidence. A big difference. The bias of the interpretation looms huge. Did you know that the same codons in DNA codes for at least two different processes simultaneously, as if it could be read in two different programs at the same time? Fascinating, and some would say more clear evidence of an intelligent creator, rather than mere random mutations coupled with selection. Both evolutionists and creationists see the same evidence, but the creationist says this could not have happened by the proposed evolutionary mechanisms. It is too improbable, too absurdly unlikely. The evolutionist says it doesn't matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened this way. So who is being more scientific in this case?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."