Bully's Blog

A couple of guys have written a book called Beyond Creation Science. As preterists, they understand there was a symbolic ‘flood’ across the Land of Israel under both Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon and Nero/Vespasian’s Rome. Problem is, they read this back into Noah’s flood and try to say that this was only a local flood, which then allows them to compromise with old-earth Creationism.

It was ‘long-age’ geological assumptions that provided a ‘foundation’ for Darwin’s long-age biological fantasy. I would recommend Tas Walker’s site, Biblical Geology, for someone who really knows his stuff.

The position of these fellows causes more problems than it fixes. It makes the Bible’s very detailed chronology a joke, and forces a gap of millions of years into Genesis 1.

Here’s the solution:

Adam’s failure brought physical de-Creation. Cain founded a corrupt civilisation whose evil influence triumphed and was destroyed in a literal flood. Just like Cain, Ham was cursed, and his son Canaan’s influence led to social de-Creation. As God raised new land out of the waters after the flood, God would now perform another Creation miracle. In calling Abram, God was socially dividing the waters of the nations into the Land and the Sea. The era of the patriarchs, ruling fathers, began. God called Abram, and tore the world in two.

The land and sea division was a literal, physical land and sea in early Genesis. The ark of Noah was a literal ’world-in-a-box’, a safehouse and doorway to a new world. But when God called Abram, the ‘Land and Sea’ division was purely social, and the Tabernacle and Temple were a symbolic ‘world-in-a-box.’ These guys have confused these two and unwittingly undermined the authority of Scripture.

[Also, on hyperpreterist ‘Covenant Creationism’, see A Chronic Hysteresis.]

“Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him: ‘You are like a young lion among the nations, And you are like a monster in the seas, Bursting forth in your rivers, Troubling the waters with your feet, And fouling their rivers.’ “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I will therefore spread My net over you with a company of many people, And they will draw you up in My net. Then I will leave you on the land; I will cast you out on the open fields, And cause to settle on you all the birds of the heavens. And with you I will fill the beasts of the whole Land.” (Ezekiel 32:2-5)

The beast referred to might not be a modern-day crocodile. The sarcosuchus imperator (often called “Supercroc”) weighed up to ten tons, had a 1.8 metre long skull with over a hundred teeth, scales like roofing tiles, and a bulbous structure at the end of its snout with an enormous cavity under the nostrils. This could have been part of a biological mechanism to produce flames and smoke, like the bombadier beetle. If so, Supercroc is possibly the Leviathan of Job 41:18-21, a fire-breathing dragon.

Land beast

The Lord showed Job that He was not only the all-knowing architect of the universe, but also its all-powerful manager. He asked Job to look at Behemoth and Leviathan, not look them up in a book, which indicates that these huge animals still existed.

Based on their detailed descriptions, these two beasts were what we now call dinosaurs, and the Lord made the point that He was the only one who could control them, either with His sword, or by pulling them with a hook (40:19, 24). Behemoth was a huge marsh-dwelling land beast that answered to no one but God. He was the king of the Land, sustained by “springs of water.”

Sea beast

In the Creation account, the word used for “created” (as opposed to “made”) is only used of three things—the three most wonderful things: heaven and earth, man—and the great sea dragons. The sailors who drew such things on their maps saw these awe inspiring creatures. Leviathan was a sea beast that no one dared provoke. He was the king of the sea, and his description is terrifying (Job 41).

The Bible uses these great sea beasts as metaphors for Gentile nations, including Egypt and Babylon. This language was perfect to convey the hostility of the world under Satan, ready to rush over the boundaries of the Land like a flood of monsters from the deep.

One word used to describe these is also the word for “pride” (Rahab). As Leviathan was the king over all the “children of Rahab” (the other beasts, Job 41:34), so the “allies of Rahab” cower before God’s throne (Job 9:13). Like Solomon, the Lord has terrible beasts guarding His throne in heaven. Israel was His throne on earth, so the terrifying beast nations that surrounded Israel were there for her protection—until she disobeyed and He let them off the leash.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Reference: Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

I recently found a quote that deals wonderfully with the argument that Genesis was just a story written to refute the errors in the paganism of the time, not to describe the actual biological history of the world:

“…while it’s quite unlikely that Moses was thinking, “Take that, Darwin!” when he set pen to papyrus, it will turn out that by refuting Enuma Elish, Genesis also refutes Darwin, because Darwinism, at bottom, is nothing but Enuma Elish baptized in post-Enlightenment balloon juice. Anyone with Longman’s literary expertise ought to see this very clearly.

Enuma Elish says the world as we know it today was born in an orgy of chaos, sex, and death, and these three forces are the engine from which all life springs. Darwin explains that the various species arise from a combination of random mutation (chaos) and natural selection (sex and death). The big difference is that Darwin said it in a way that post-Enlightenment man wouldn’t laugh at. Hawking likewise has nothing to add that Enuma Elish hasn’t already offered to the world, only to have Genesis soundly refute it.”

You can read Tim Nichols’ full article here:

How Not To Read Genesis

Is Genesis 1 history or myth?

“The expositor [of the creation narratives] must move knowingly between two temptations. On the one hand, there is the temptation to treat this material as historical, as a report of what happened…. On the other hand, there is the temptation to treat these materials as myth, as statements which announce what has always been and will always be true of the world…. Our exposition will insist that these texts be taken neither as history nor as myth. Rather, we insist that the text is a proclamation of God’s decisive dealing with his creation.

The word “creation” is controlling for such a view. The whole cluster of words—creator/ creation/ create/ creature—are confessional words freighted with peculiar meaning. Terms such as “cosmos” and “nature” should never be carelessly used as equivalents, for these words do not touch the theocentric, covenantal relational affirmation being made…. The text, then, is a proclamation of covenanting as the shape of reality…. This theological affirmation permits every scientific view that is genuinely scientific and not a theological claim in disguise.”

—Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary), pp. 16-17.

I agree that the Creation narrative sets the foundation for the structure of later Covenants, and also of the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple, but the explanation above is just a fancy dance to avoid the unavoidable bullet that is Genesis 1. So it’s a proclamation that affirms theological truth but not historical truth? No wonder the western church is in a pickle!

When faced with an issue in which you wish to fence-sit, REDEFINE the terminology:

“In the last analysis, the Old Testament doctrine of creation expresses a sense of the present situation of man. He is hedged in by the incomprehensible power of Almighty God. The real purpose of the creation story is to inculcate what God is doing all the time…. Thus the doctrine of creation expresses man’s sense of utter dependence on God.”

—Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, p. 18.

If Genesis 1 is not history, and it is not myth, it is ideology. Which makes this plain old boring gnosticism. These smart guys just don’t get it, do they?

As one of my old Bible teachers used to say, “If someone’s taking an odd position, there’s a bee in his pocket.”

“I could never believe a book that starts with a talking snake!”

The fourth beast was stronger and more terrifying than the others. Its huge teeth were made of iron, and what it didn’t grind with its teeth, it smashed with its feet. It was different from the others, and it had horns on its head – ten of them. Just as I was thinking about these horns, a smaller horn appeared, and three of the other horns were pulled up by the roots to make room for it. This horn had the eyes of a human and a mouth that spoke with great pride. Daniel 7:7-8

The Bible begins with Adam, Eve and a serpent in the garden, and ends with a false prophet (Adam), harlot (Eve) and beast (serpent) squatting in God’s house. The seed of man’s rebellion was now a fullgrown tree – a tree of death (James 1:14-15).

Animals are the tutors in the Old Testament. Man was created in God’s image, but instead imaged a beast. Adam was covered in animal skins and their blood temporarily covered his sin. The law was administered by angels, and the symbols God uses are mostly animals. As mentioned in a previous post, the three major covenants were symbolised by an ox, a lion and an eagle. The New Covenant symbol is the Man who is bread and wine. The New Covenant era is administered not by angels but by men, Christians.

But as this New Covenant era arrived, so did a false man: a being who had the eyes and mouth of a man but was really a man-mask for the Roman beast. Revelation refers to Jews as ‘men’ because, like Noah, they were the mediators. The gentiles are the ‘beasts’ who are called to submit and enter the ark of Christ (Acts 10:11-12).

As Israel’s history completed Day 6 (the Land animals and the Man predicted in Daniel 7), this false man, a beast who spoke like a man, was squatting in God’s garden. The Herodian line was a talking snake.

You can trust the Bible. There is always method in any apparent madness. God doesn’t do or allow anything without a reason.

(Balaam the false prophet was also a ‘talking snake.’ He was blind to God’s word, so God used a talking donkey to get through to him.)

Whether we wear a cross around our neck and/or a white lab coat, whether we carry a Koran and/or a microscope we’re all wearing glasses called “what we think and what we think we know up to this point”. Some of those help us see more clearly and some obscure things badly. But, if I can put it like this, our eyeballs are attached to the glasses – the moment we take off the glasses then we see nothing at all. We all have our pre-commitments. We’re all standing somewhere.

Sometimes you’ll hear a “scientist-in-epistemological-denial” or a “campaigning-anti-Christian-scientist” argue as though religious people are the ones with presuppositions and a subjective standpoint whereas scientists are neutral and objective. Real scientists know better: you can’t get out of your own mind in order to think about things.

The Christian version of recognizing this is cheerfully to acknowledge our pre-commitments and renounce all claims to neutrality. We are breathing God’s air as we talk about him, using his gift of sight as we observe things, and spending time which he has given us as we get on with life. The whole earth belongs to Jesus Christ and those who deny that are still walking on his property and breathing his air as they do so.

The anti-Christian version of recognizing this is harder to find. Statements such as, “I realize that I am not neutral; I am already committed to disbelieving the Christian account of things; that is the territory I occupy as I go about my observing and hypothesizing; and I am more than comfortable with the thought that my rejection of God colours everything I see.”

David P. Field, Science and Christianity 6/8, http://davidpfield.blogspot.com

“God told Noah to build the Ark with nests inside. The word qen {kane} is translated nests every other time it appears in Scripture, but most versions substitute the word rooms only for Noah’s Ark. Since there is no good reason to do this, we should take nests as the preferred option. Thinking in terms of nests rather than rooms, we begin to see a different view of how the animals may have been housed…

As nests, it would be inappropriate to imagine animals lined up on display or herded together in huge stalls. Neither option would suit animal transport anyway. Instead, we should be thinking of snug, private enclosures where an animal would hide and bed down. The enclosure should be comfortable, safe, private, warm and probably darkened. It should also be an area that is not routinely disturbed.”

from www.worldwideflood.com

If the ark prefigured the Temple and the body of Christ, a floating “house” mediating between the old world and the new, the congregations within His body are “nests.”

Atheists reduce Religion/Theology to a chapter within anthropology. This, of course, removes any claim to validity for Christianity. It just gets lumped together with other ‘superstitions.’

In response, theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg claims that the Godness of God and not human religious experience must have first place in theology. (Quoted in Michael Jensen’s post Pannenberg on Anthropology at mpjensen.blogspot.com)

‘Theologians will be able to defend the truth precisely of their talk about God only if they first respond to the atheistic critique of religion on the terrain of anthropology. Otherwise all their assertions, however impressive, about the primacy of the Godness of God will remain purely subjective assurances without any serious claim to universal validity.’1

Jensen summarises, ‘He maintains, furthermore, that rejecting this anthropological ground is in fact conceding the ground to anthropological suppositions – by reducing theology to mere subjectivity.’

So, I think Pannenberg says:

1 Anthropology is actually a chapter within theology, not the other way around.

2 Christians must debate the issue on anthropological grounds, or there is no common ground upon which to engage the atheists in debate. In other words, they have won the boxing match by default because we won’t enter the boxing ring.

Jensen asks, ‘Which way are evangelicals going to swing on this?’

To mix metaphors, don’t swing in a boxing ring that doesn’t exist! The foundation of the atheists’ anthropology is fiction.

Continue reading

“There are “clocks” all over the universe, like supernova, that show us the universe really is 13.7 billion years old.”

What does a young earth creationist say to this? Is there a simple answer?

The best way I could distill Dr Humphreys’ theory was to understand that a clock on Mt Everest moves faster than one at sea level. If the universe has a centre of gravity as he postulates, then time moves faster as one moves from its centre. Apparently the only major variation he makes to modern cosmology is that the universe is finite and therefore has a centre.

Sounds just as plausible to me as anything the old earthers postulate.

Starlight and time—a further breakthrough

A stunning new book by a physics professor purports to show more firmly than ever how light from the most distant stars would have reached Earth in a very short time.

Some new developments here.