I've looked at several dozen creation/ist videos posted on YouTube, and have found that almost every one of them has abusive comments posted; often foul, obscene, and vituperous. These are comments filled with rage and hatred. The question is this; what is there about Darwinism that leads people to become so foul mouthed, rude and obscene?
- The psychology seems both simple and clear. I think most of the people who make these comments (and they strike me as quite young, mainly teenagers or people in their early twenties) are kids who grew up in Christian homes. (In many cases these are the kids of pastors and missionaries.) I assume they have parents who are both Christians and creationists. When it comes time to rebel these kids find Darwinism a great tool to use in their rebellion. It gives them an excuse to reject the faith of their parents. i.e. ''since we know Evolution is true, the bible is wrong about creation; and if it's wrong about creation there's no reason to believe it about anything'' (or so they tell their parents).
In their rebellious phase they easily see Evolution as being modern and sophisticated (it's neither) while they see creation and Christianity as being outdated and silly. i.e. non-scientific.
The hatred they spew isn't really against the speakers (most of whom have PHDs, while these kids probably haven't finished high school) but against their parents. They have adopted E. as a way of spiting their parents and as a way of inflicting pain on them. Darwinism becomes the road to separation. Their motivation behind rejecting creation and accepting E. is rebellion.
While they might be hesitant to curse their parents (sadly this isn't always the case) they can mock and ridicule creationists.
Most of these kids know precious little about the E. they celebrate, and seem to imagine someone has made Richard Dawkins the official authority on what E. is or is not. About all they know about E. are sound bites by Dawkins; e.g. ''e. is simply change over time.'' The fact they know so little about the 'theory' of evolution allows them great confidence in its verity. If they studied it (e.) in detail they would see how riddled with problems the story is; and how little it can explain. (A little e. is a dangerous thing; and all most kids get in gov. schools are 'facts' they're told to memorize; i.e. they're being taught Evolution (i.e. M2M) the way kids in the USSR were taught communism.)
They seem blissfully unaware of the atheist source of evolution. They might want to ask themselves why it is Dawkins offers such a dumbed down definition of evolution. e.g. is he trying to formulate a definition so vague and watered down that it's impossible to refute? It's as if a creationist defined creation as 'stasis over time' i.e. if you see stasis you see evidence of creation. Well; since we see stasis therefore we have proof of creation. (Anyone convinced?)
All this is to be expected when christian parents send their children to be educated by atheists, secularists and humanists; in a system dominated by an evolutionary spirit. Evolution isn't science it's a worldview, and represents the spirit of the age (an increasingly pagan age). We see this influence in the way once Christian students reject creation and accept Evolution, and we see it in their foul speech and lack of respect for parents. These kids apparently have no idea how to treat others.
Only the most naive believe this conversion to evolution has much (if anything) to do with science. (In my experience most of these haters of creation aren't even in the sciences.) Adopting Darwinism isn't about biology but it's a circumspect way of adopting atheism.
Since these kids rejected Christianity on the basis of E. they feel the need to 'refute' creation, which atheists who grew up in atheist homes don't feel... and so they haunt any creationist web page and try to refute what creationists have said. i.e. if they can't then their rationale for atheism collapses. Since they have so little ammunition in the form of arguments they depend upon rhetoric, obscenity and name calling, etc.
Summary;
What we see in the great animus toward creation among the youth is really an animus against Christians and Christianity. It's no surprise that the most enthusiastic supporters of the e. story are the fiercest critics and haters of Christianity. The idea of cosmic evolution is an old (old) story and was invented as a way of escape from Godly religion and from the Creator. It gave men a rationale for declaring themselves not responsible to God. It serves the same purpose now. The psychology of evolution is a rejection of the Creator (and the creaturehood this entails) and a declaration of independence and autonomy.
Many young people in the church turn their hostility toward biblical Christianity into hostility against creation and an advocacy of evolution; this allows them to remain in the church on the one hand, but to be separate from it as well. Hand in hand with an adoption of evolution is an adoption of liberal theology, antinomianism, a god of process, and so forth. They remain (marginally) in the church but have an entirely different religion from their grandfathers.
Where does the desire to mock and ridicule and name call come from? Does it stem from the ridicule they themselves suffered from classmates and teachers for a one time belief in creation? Did they adopt e. to escape this critique and ridicule? Have they now externalized this pain by attacking creationists? (Parents are expecting far too much of their children if they expect them to be 'creation evangelists' in secular (government) schools. Children should be students, not teachers. It's not their job or their proper role to instruct their evolutionist teachers.)
In my opinion it's far better for Christian young people to learn evolution theory before they get taught it at school. Too many young Christians are completely bowled over by the presentation and are unable to see the falseness and inadequacy of it. They should learn evolution theory from a critical standpoint, as they will be very unlikely to get a critical presentation in a govrnment school. Christian students who meet evolution for the first time in school haven't been properly prepared.
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. I haven't included quotes; the internet is a foul enough place already without giving you examples of this type of comment. They're readily available.
2. It never ceases to amaze me how small and petty anti-creationists are; they sneer and curse, mock and ridicule, slander and name call. Can't they realize how bad they look?
3. I wish someone would collect a book's worth of these comments and publish them so future generations could see what idiocy was extant in our time.
4. These people (ranting and raving like politicians at a convention) remind me of first generation atheists, as they are clearly excited (enthused) about their new faith. Kids growing up in multi-generational atheism have no such fanaticism in attacking creation or creationists. (We'll have to see how excited they still are when they reach their seventies and eighties.)
5. These kids would do well to ask themselves why this subject provokes them into fury, and why they allow themselves to treat others so badly.
6. These kids have abandoned far more than just a belief in creation; they've abandoned civility, manners, a concern for the truth, treating your neighbor as yourself, respect for parents, humility, and a great deal more.
7. What we see in all this is the curse of anonymity. Where man becomes anonymous he becomes barbaric and uncivilized. In the bible we see the antithesis of anonymity; where every man is held accountable and no one is allowed to wear a mask. A civilized society must fight against any and all anonymity. One way to restrain human depravity is to make it essential that all men need to protect their good name. (I suggest people reject the very concept of anonymous comments.) We see to have forgotten that men (starting with Adam) were given names for a purpose, and that purpose is to hold men accountable. We see that people who set aside their names also set aside their decency and morality. Anonymity works like an intoxicant robbing people of their prudence and manners, and is an invitation to profligacy.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
In praise of the Creator
Quotes and comments;
1. "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps ... Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl..." Psalm 148:7, 10
Q. How do animals praise the Lord?
A. They praise the Lord just by being alive, by the sounds they make and the colors they bear. We can watch and study them and be amazed at the wisdom of their creator. (It's not only cute creatures like birds and rabbits that demand praise from us, but also the most fiercesome of creatures; e.g. dragons or dinosaurs. God is not just the God of bunny rabbits, he is also the God of sea monsters.)
The creatures that populate this world are like a wordless hymn of praise to the Creator, and if man in his rebellion will not praise God they do. (If we could imagine aliens coming to this planet from another universe or another dimension, they would surely say, ''what an amazing creator this world has, we've never seen anything like this. He is the most wise and gifted being we have ever come across. Is there nothing he can't do?'')
If men do not praise God for his wondrous works of creation they thereby condemn themselves, and are worthy of reproof. Men will not be able to blame God for their rebellion, they will not be able to say they didn't know, as a myriad of living creatures praised their creator on a daily basis and before the eyes of all men.
The living creatures of this planet are a treasure and an apologetic. There is more wisdom to be found in a single one of God's creatures than in all the books written by atheists put together. There is more wisdom in a humble beetle than in all godless philosophy. Forget Spinoza and Nietzsche, throw their books into the rubbish dump and get out and study the animals, birds, fish, insects (etc.) of the real world. Stop wasting your time with miserable and disgruntled philosophers and employ yourself profitably with a study of God's creation.
Why read a book on evolution theory when there is infinitely more to be learned in a study of living organisms? A single cell on the end of Richard Dawkins' nose is about a million times more interesting than he, as a writer, is. (Did I say a million? Try a billion or a trillion.)
M. Johnson
Addendum;
I find it interesting to read old commentaries on verses like this. Matthew Henry [1662 – 1714]
had this to say;
'Even in this world, dark and bad as it is, God is praised. The powers of nature, be they ever so strong, so stormy, do what God appoints them, and no more. Those that rebel against God's word, show themselves to be more violent than even the stormy winds, yet they fulfil it. View the surface of the earth, mountains and all hills; from the barren tops of some, and the fruitful tops of others, we may fetch matter for praise. And assuredly creatures which have the powers of reason, ought to employ themselves in praising God. Let all manner of persons praise God. Those of every rank, high and low. Let us show that we are his saints by praising his name continually.'
Notes;
1. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; 148:7-14
1. "Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps ... Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl..." Psalm 148:7, 10
Q. How do animals praise the Lord?
A. They praise the Lord just by being alive, by the sounds they make and the colors they bear. We can watch and study them and be amazed at the wisdom of their creator. (It's not only cute creatures like birds and rabbits that demand praise from us, but also the most fiercesome of creatures; e.g. dragons or dinosaurs. God is not just the God of bunny rabbits, he is also the God of sea monsters.)
The creatures that populate this world are like a wordless hymn of praise to the Creator, and if man in his rebellion will not praise God they do. (If we could imagine aliens coming to this planet from another universe or another dimension, they would surely say, ''what an amazing creator this world has, we've never seen anything like this. He is the most wise and gifted being we have ever come across. Is there nothing he can't do?'')
If men do not praise God for his wondrous works of creation they thereby condemn themselves, and are worthy of reproof. Men will not be able to blame God for their rebellion, they will not be able to say they didn't know, as a myriad of living creatures praised their creator on a daily basis and before the eyes of all men.
The living creatures of this planet are a treasure and an apologetic. There is more wisdom to be found in a single one of God's creatures than in all the books written by atheists put together. There is more wisdom in a humble beetle than in all godless philosophy. Forget Spinoza and Nietzsche, throw their books into the rubbish dump and get out and study the animals, birds, fish, insects (etc.) of the real world. Stop wasting your time with miserable and disgruntled philosophers and employ yourself profitably with a study of God's creation.
Why read a book on evolution theory when there is infinitely more to be learned in a study of living organisms? A single cell on the end of Richard Dawkins' nose is about a million times more interesting than he, as a writer, is. (Did I say a million? Try a billion or a trillion.)
M. Johnson
Addendum;
I find it interesting to read old commentaries on verses like this. Matthew Henry [1662 – 1714]
had this to say;
'Even in this world, dark and bad as it is, God is praised. The powers of nature, be they ever so strong, so stormy, do what God appoints them, and no more. Those that rebel against God's word, show themselves to be more violent than even the stormy winds, yet they fulfil it. View the surface of the earth, mountains and all hills; from the barren tops of some, and the fruitful tops of others, we may fetch matter for praise. And assuredly creatures which have the powers of reason, ought to employ themselves in praising God. Let all manner of persons praise God. Those of every rank, high and low. Let us show that we are his saints by praising his name continually.'
Notes;
1. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary; 148:7-14
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Trying to debate John Lennox
If you've read 'The Seven Days that Divide the World' by Lennox you might want to follow up with some articles I think are pertinent to the book. They will provide background and needed corrective. I was disappointed that he declined to engage with scholars who defend the young earth position. These articles will provide a YE position on the material discussed in his book.
If you were only going to read one article I would recommend;
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? - by Terry Mortenson
- an outstanding article.
Quote from above article;
'These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological and astronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalism from geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions and billions of years.'
Also;
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? by Thomas Schirrmacher
Why most scientists believe the world is old - by Russell Humphreys
Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- this is really a collection of links to more than a hundred articles.
*Untangling Uniformitarianism; Level 1: A Quest for Clarity - by John K. Reed
The long story of long ages - by David Green
Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence - John Reed
Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - by Richard M. Davidson
Demythologizing Uniformitarian History - John K. Reed
* An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution - Jonathan F. Henry
Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science; A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski - by Terry Mortenson
Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea - Jerry Bergman
Geology and the young earth - Tas Walker
Battlegrounds of Natural History: Naturalism - John K. Reed, Emmett L. Williams
Millions of years; the idea's origin and impact on the church - Terry Mortenson [DVD] a version of the lecture can be seen on YouTube
- part 2. is crucial to an understanding of our debate; as M. quotes many OECs, giving the reason they have abandoned what they admit is the plain meaning of Genesis 1. [6.]
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - by Lael Weinberger
Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth - by Terry Mortenson
Helpful book reviews;
Science & Christianity: Four Views - Edited by Richard F. Carlson; 2000 - review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius Hunter; - review by Lael Weinberger
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander - Review by David Anderson
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins - reviewed by Andrew Kulikovsky
* A Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine - John Reed
- The 'Seven Days' (by Lennox) appears to be a rehash of this MR article that Reed is responding to, as the points made in it (published in 2010) he repeats almost verbatim. (I don't know this to be a fact.) I see no reference to this article in the book.
The original article is; PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth
David Campbell Lyle D. Campbell, Chip Cates, Gregg Davidson, Keith Long, Richard F. Mercer, Kent Ratajeski, Davis A. Young
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. The seven days that divide the world - John Lennox [2011]
2. The only reference to young earth creation is to an essay in an edited collection, and it was written not by PHDs in science (e.g. Humphreys, Sarfati, Bergman, etc.) but by two theologians.
(Was Lennox trying to imply that no 'real' scientists accept a young earth position, only theologians?)
3. I think that a part of what we see here (in this conflict between young and old earth models) i that people like Lennox are looking to win the short term battle, while YECs are looking to win the war. (If you'll allow the metaphor.) Lennox feels that if he were to affirm YE creation he would be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and thus have no chance to make a case for Christianity. People like Jonathan Sarfati believe they must present what they feel is the Biblical case, no matter what academics think of it. i.e. they are looking far beyond current squabbles to an ultimate result.
- I'm not in academia so it's (relatively) easy for me to affirm a YE position; and I know that's not the case for people like Lennox, Lane, Zacharias, etc.
4. Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’
5. An unnamed person was overheard to say; "this is the book Philip Johnson was smart enough not to write.'' (No comment.)
6. OECs keep telling us that it's consensus science that must dictate what Genesis means; but what if consensus science decided (or decides) that aliens created man upon this planet? (What if we lived in the days of Democritus and consensus science told us we lived in an eternal universe?)
- OECs in great regularity confuse arguments for an old earth with 'evidence' for an old earth. i.e. they confuse the data and interpretations of the data. It's not the data that speak of an old earth, but secular interpretations of that data. (What's baffling is that even philosophers do this.) Data in itself does not speak, but is mute. OECs are making (at least by proxy) the unwarranted and fallacious claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the data, and that is an old earth. (This is akin to looking at economic history and saying the only possible reading is the superiority and necessity of communism.)
7. A great resource for this subject is a Teaching Company course called 'The philosophy of Science' by Jeffrey Kasser. (It's tough sledding for anyone not familiar with the subject, but crucial to understanding our debate.)
8. A problem we see throughout the book is the conflation of Naturalism with science.
Internet follies;
As a complete aside, if you are being annoyed with a browser feature called Easyinline, it can be removed from your computer by getting rid of a program called YonToo. Full information at easyinline.com
If you were only going to read one article I would recommend;
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? - by Terry Mortenson
- an outstanding article.
Quote from above article;
'These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological and astronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalism from geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions and billions of years.'
Also;
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? by Thomas Schirrmacher
Why most scientists believe the world is old - by Russell Humphreys
Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- this is really a collection of links to more than a hundred articles.
*Untangling Uniformitarianism; Level 1: A Quest for Clarity - by John K. Reed
The long story of long ages - by David Green
Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence - John Reed
Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - by Richard M. Davidson
Demythologizing Uniformitarian History - John K. Reed
* An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution - Jonathan F. Henry
Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science; A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski - by Terry Mortenson
Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea - Jerry Bergman
Geology and the young earth - Tas Walker
Battlegrounds of Natural History: Naturalism - John K. Reed, Emmett L. Williams
Millions of years; the idea's origin and impact on the church - Terry Mortenson [DVD] a version of the lecture can be seen on YouTube
- part 2. is crucial to an understanding of our debate; as M. quotes many OECs, giving the reason they have abandoned what they admit is the plain meaning of Genesis 1. [6.]
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - by Lael Weinberger
Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth - by Terry Mortenson
Helpful book reviews;
Science & Christianity: Four Views - Edited by Richard F. Carlson; 2000 - review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius Hunter; - review by Lael Weinberger
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander - Review by David Anderson
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins - reviewed by Andrew Kulikovsky
* A Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine - John Reed
- The 'Seven Days' (by Lennox) appears to be a rehash of this MR article that Reed is responding to, as the points made in it (published in 2010) he repeats almost verbatim. (I don't know this to be a fact.) I see no reference to this article in the book.
The original article is; PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth
David Campbell Lyle D. Campbell, Chip Cates, Gregg Davidson, Keith Long, Richard F. Mercer, Kent Ratajeski, Davis A. Young
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. The seven days that divide the world - John Lennox [2011]
2. The only reference to young earth creation is to an essay in an edited collection, and it was written not by PHDs in science (e.g. Humphreys, Sarfati, Bergman, etc.) but by two theologians.
(Was Lennox trying to imply that no 'real' scientists accept a young earth position, only theologians?)
3. I think that a part of what we see here (in this conflict between young and old earth models) i that people like Lennox are looking to win the short term battle, while YECs are looking to win the war. (If you'll allow the metaphor.) Lennox feels that if he were to affirm YE creation he would be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and thus have no chance to make a case for Christianity. People like Jonathan Sarfati believe they must present what they feel is the Biblical case, no matter what academics think of it. i.e. they are looking far beyond current squabbles to an ultimate result.
- I'm not in academia so it's (relatively) easy for me to affirm a YE position; and I know that's not the case for people like Lennox, Lane, Zacharias, etc.
4. Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’
5. An unnamed person was overheard to say; "this is the book Philip Johnson was smart enough not to write.'' (No comment.)
6. OECs keep telling us that it's consensus science that must dictate what Genesis means; but what if consensus science decided (or decides) that aliens created man upon this planet? (What if we lived in the days of Democritus and consensus science told us we lived in an eternal universe?)
- OECs in great regularity confuse arguments for an old earth with 'evidence' for an old earth. i.e. they confuse the data and interpretations of the data. It's not the data that speak of an old earth, but secular interpretations of that data. (What's baffling is that even philosophers do this.) Data in itself does not speak, but is mute. OECs are making (at least by proxy) the unwarranted and fallacious claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the data, and that is an old earth. (This is akin to looking at economic history and saying the only possible reading is the superiority and necessity of communism.)
7. A great resource for this subject is a Teaching Company course called 'The philosophy of Science' by Jeffrey Kasser. (It's tough sledding for anyone not familiar with the subject, but crucial to understanding our debate.)
8. A problem we see throughout the book is the conflation of Naturalism with science.
Internet follies;
As a complete aside, if you are being annoyed with a browser feature called Easyinline, it can be removed from your computer by getting rid of a program called YonToo. Full information at easyinline.com
Friday, March 2, 2012
Review of 'Seven days that divide the world'
We dare not make scripture subservient to science;
A (continuing) review of 'Seven Days that Divide the World' by John Lennox. I normally wouldn't read a defense of 'old earth' creation, but since I have respect and affection for Lennox I felt obligated to read it.
Quotes and comments;
Ch. 1. But does it move? a lesson from history
p. 15 '...what are we to think of astronomer N. Copernicus's suggestion that the earth moves when scripture seems to teach that the earth is immovably fixed in space?'
- Does scripture seem to 'teach' that the earth is fixed? I don't agree that it does; and reject the idea it 'teaches' this. (There's a difference between stating something in passing... e.g. in a psalm and teaching it as a fact... in a non-poetical setting.) Young earth creationists [YECS] point to verses that suggest the opposite. (e.g. "the earth hangeth upon nothing")
p. 15. He tells us that Aristotle taught a geocentric universe, but then he strangely references this claim by pointing to Job 38. This doesn't make sense to me.
Job 38:4. ''Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?''
- To refer to the earth's foundation doesn't make a claim about geocentricity or to the fact the earth is fixed (i.e. doesn't move) We might ask 'fixed on what?' The very idea makes no sense to me; as it would require the earth to be infinitely deep... to have no bottom. I'm not aware that anyone thought this. Many of the ancients believed the earth was circular in shape (i.e. shaped as a ball.)
p. 16. He points to psalm 93:1. ''Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved.'' (apparently as evidence the bible makes false claims.)
What was the psalmist referring to however?
Let's quote the full verse... as only quoting a part of a verse can be confusing.
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.''
The psalmist is not making a scientific comment but referring to god's control of the universe he made, to his providential government.
'The thought seems abrupt here. It would appear as if the psalmist had been meditating on the dark things which occur in the world; the mysteries which abound; the things which seem irreconcilable with the idea that there is a just government over the world, and that suddenly the idea occurs, as a flash of lightning in a storm, that Yahweh reigns over all, and that all must be right. Amidst all these things God sits upon the throne; he orders all events; he sways his scepter over all; he orders all things according to his own will; he secures the accomplishment of his own purposes. - Barnes [2.]
- 'The Lord reigneth - He continues to govern every thing he has created; and he is every way qualified to govern all things, for he is clothed with majesty and with strength - dominion is his, and he has supreme power to exercise it; and he has so established the world that nothing can be driven out of order; all is ruled by him. Nature is his agent: or rather, nature is the sum of the laws of his government; the operations carried on by the Divine energy, and the effects resulting from those operations. - Clarke
- 'The Lord reigneth," or Jehovah reigns. Whatever opposition may arise, his throne is unmoved; he has reigned, does reign, and will reign for ever and ever. Whatever turmoil and rebellion there may be beneath the clouds, the eternal King sits above all in supreme serenity; and everywhere he is really Master, let his foes rage as they may. - Spurgeon
Lennox just ignores orthodox commentary on this verse, and distorts the plain meaning by claiming the author is 'teaching us' the earth is fixed in space. This is not even remotely close to what the author is saying!
p. 17. He quotes 1 Sam. 2:8
''for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."
- Again this is only part of the verse; the full verse reads;
''He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
- The author is not talking about geology or astronomy as surely everyone can see; he is talking about god's providential government of all things. He's talking about people not about planets.
e.g. ''1 Kings 16:2 "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins.
The 'pillars' of the earth is not meant to be taken literally. (This of course is what the 'higher' critics of the bible claim... in their attempt to defame the bible.) If the earth was founded on pillars where were they? and what were they set upon, and what was that set upon. The whole image is little more than comical. (e.g. it's turtles all the way down)
What were pillars? they were gates of the city perhaps, they were the columns of royal palace perhaps. i.e. they were signs of power and authority. (The word pillars seem to come from something poured out. e.g. cement or molten metal in the manufacture of some item. We might speculate that the ancients knew of the molten source for much rock.... no doubt some had seen lava turn to rock.)
- 'The princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zechariah 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God.' - Gill
p. 16. He quotes psalm 104:5
''He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.''
Moved is not the best translation in my opinion; e.g. 'So that it shall not totter [NASB]
a. to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
- I agree with the tone of the KJV that reads ''Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
i.e. the idea isn't what was done but who did it.
If we include the surrounding verses we see clearly that the psalmist is using poetic language; that he's employing figurate metaphor. e.g. v.3. ''and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.''
The psalmist isn't teaching students about geology or astronomy but declaring to them the greatness of the creator God. It's plain distortion to claim this is teaching people about geology... this isn't remotely the point. He's using figurative language to do his best to express the awesome power of God.
'This image Bishop Lowth thinks evidently taken from the tabernacle, which was so laid upon its foundations that nothing could move it, and the dispensation to which it was attached, till the end purposed by the secret counsel of God was accomplished: and thus the earth is established, till the end of its creation shall be fully answered; and then it and its works shall be burnt up. On the above ground, the stability of the sanctuary and the stability of the earth are sometimes mentioned in the same words. - Clarke
'Who laid the foundations of the earth,.... Or "founded the earth upon its bases" (l); which some take to be the waters, according to Psalm 24:2 - Gill
i.e. 1. ''The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
2. for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.
- this being a reference to Genesis 1.
Zecharia 10:4
''From Judah will come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
- The biblical authors were far (far) more interested in the One who made the earth than in the earth itself. Humanism is basically preferring the creature to the creator, and scientism is the sad result.
'That it should not be removed for ever: for though it may be shaken by earthquakes, yet not removed; nor will it be until the dissolution of all things, when it shall flee away before the face of the Judge, and a new earth shall succeed, Revelation 20:11. - Gill
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
'In a second decastich the poet speaks of the restraining of the lower waters and the establishing of the land standing out of the water. The suffix, referring back to ארץ, is intended to say that the earth hanging free in space (Job 26:7) has its internal supports.
p. 16. He quotes 1 Chron 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.''
- The author is making a contrast between men who will be shaken and moved (e.g. into apostasy) and God who will not be 'moved.' i.e. who will not become unjust or unrighteous or unholy. i.e. man changes but god changes not; this is the picture being drawn. There is no attempt to teach science here; the author isn't speaking about planetary geology but about God.
'Young's Literal Translation
''Be pained before Him, all the earth:
- We note that the word translated by some as 'moved' has the meaning of; to totter, shake, slip. There is no reference to not moving (travelling) through space.
If we go on to verse 31 we read; ''Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
The author is celebrating God's power and holiness not giving a lesson in cosmology. It is illegitimate to claim these verse are teaching that the earth is immovable or that it doesn't hang in space.
Job 26:7
''He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.''
Why doesn't Lennox quote this verse for us?
'Over the empty place - על־תהוּ ‛al-tôhû, "Upon emptiness, or nothing." That is, without anything to support it. The word used here (תהוּ tôhû) is one of those employed Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was wlthout form and void." But it seems here to mean emptiness, nothing. - Barnes
p. 17. '...the bible seemed equally clearly to say that the sun moved. [reference Eccl 1:5]
- Lennox is surely aware that the bible is written in phenomenological language. It was written to be spoken to the people, and so written in a phenomenological manner. (These arguements of his are as old as the hills... there's nothing modern about them.) They've all been dealt with numerous times; though he makes no mention of this.
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.''
- Solomon is speaking in these early verses about vanity, about the monotonous 'circularity' of life, the regularities of things. i.e. the fact things never change. e.g. the rain cycle, etc. The language is clearly meant to be figurative. Does anyone imagine S. really thought of the sun as a runner, panting and gasping as he makes his way to the finish line? Does anyone think he thought of the sun as a person? He's not talking about planetary bodies, but about human beings who seemingly labor in vain.
Young's literal translation;
"Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.
- does anyone imagine S. thought the sun was panting?
p. 17. He tells us Martin Luther dismissed heliocentrism as false; but what does this tell us? Theologians are often wrong about things but this doesn't tell us anything about what the bible teaches.
He quotes ML as saying the bible tells us Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. (I confess I don't know what that incident involved; but suspect it's another case of figurative language... or perhaps phenomenological language.)
p. 18. 'Jean Calvin on the other hand clearly believed the earth was fixed.
- This is understandable as that's the way it looks; but no one is infallible, not even the best theologian the church has ever had. We need to stress here that Calvin acquired this opinion not from his study of scripture but from his 'naive' experience of the world.
p. 18. He refers to the 'Galileo incident' as an iconic example of the conflict between religion and science.
- I don't like his continued use of religion when he's talking about Christianity. i.e. there is no such thing as generic religion or generic science. e.g. if you mean C. say C. and if you mean materialist science say so... don't just say science. There is no such thing as generic science, as all 'scientific' models are built upon philosophical foundations. i.e. basic unproven, and unprovable assumptions. There is no such thing as science without presuppositional beliefs. All science is done in terms of a worldview.
p 19. 'But now we need to face an important question; why do Christians accept this new interpretation, and not still insist on a 'literal' understanding of the ''pillars of the earth?'' Is it really because we have made scripture subservient to science?'
- This is the main (if not only) point of the chapter. Lennox is responding to the charge that old earth creationists like himself have made 'science' the ultimate authority in the world and have replaced the bible with the textbook. I find the chapter unconvincing. There's nothing original in it, and he ignores ye creationists and their responses to all these old charges.
This is a poor argument. He says why don't Christians still insist on a literal understanding of the pillars of the earth. I've pointed out (at length) that this was figurative language; it was never meant to be taken 'literally' by its author/s. It's absurd to say we should insist on a literal interpretation of a figurative statement! That makes no sense to me John.
This example means nothing, and demonstrates nothing. He's given us a misinterpretation of the text and then set it up as a straw man to knock down.
Summary;
- In chapter 1. Lennox is unconvincing in his attempt to persuade us we should abandon the bible as a source of truth about the universe we live in and about our history on the earth.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Seven days that divide the world - John Lennox
2. Commentary quote come from bible.cc
3. - Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?
- an article discussing figurative language in the bible, and pertinent to this review. e.g.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
'In both cases we are dealing with a situation that is charged with poetic indications (pillars that can be "astonished"?) and we are obliged not to read things too literally.
4. Basic Literary Forms I
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-i/
- 'Phenomenological Language. Much of the Bible comes to us with language that describes the way things appear to the naked eye. The language used is descriptive of the ways things look from our perspective and is not necessarily asserting precise scientific fact. An example of this is the description of the sun rising. Unless we understand the use of phenomenological language, we might think that the Bible teaches that the earth is at the center of the universe. When we realize that the Bible describes things according to appearance, we see that the Bible is not really saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Rather, it is merely saying that the sun rises because, to our naked eye, it looks like the sun moves and the earth does not. This use of language is still current. The meterologist gives us the time of sunrise, but nobody assumes he is teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. - Ligonier ministries
5. It's revealing that he must go back 400 years for his example instead of engaging with modern day creationists.
- As far as I can see he only makes reference to YEC once; and that's a short book that presents 3 different creationist models, one of which is YE. i.e. 'The Genesis Debate; three views on the days of creation' Neither J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall who defend the YE view is a scientist. Lennox just ignores all the PHDs who accept a YE model. (He also mentions an essay written by two YECs; Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. Of the two only Nelson could be called a scientist.)
- Lennox seems to quote (and reference) himself more than anyone else. Is he unaware of the hundreds of books published by YE creationists? He mainly appears to be shadow boxing with himself.
6. For those people who think a YE position can't be rationally defended they might want to reference an article called 'Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- the article makes brief points and then provides a link to one or more articles that defend that particular reason in detail. I've gone through the whole list (including reading all the articles linked to) and I find the case for a YE convincing. (I don't think you can prove a young earth, but you can give a good case why it could be true, or even is likely to be true. I don't believe you can prove an old earth either, but I imagine Lennox would disagree.)
- As far as I can see Lennox never tells us what research he did in preparation for the book, but I see little evidence he did much. (In his defense he's not much interested in speaking to YE creationists but is directing his arguments to people who find a YE position absurd. On p.12 he talks about a woman who thought the Genesis account of creation was a 'very silly story'.) I personally haven't seen much (if any) evidence people reject Christianity because of Genesis 1. (This isn't the Bible's account of things, as it claims men reject God because of natural depravity and rebellion.)
A (continuing) review of 'Seven Days that Divide the World' by John Lennox. I normally wouldn't read a defense of 'old earth' creation, but since I have respect and affection for Lennox I felt obligated to read it.
Quotes and comments;
Ch. 1. But does it move? a lesson from history
p. 15 '...what are we to think of astronomer N. Copernicus's suggestion that the earth moves when scripture seems to teach that the earth is immovably fixed in space?'
- Does scripture seem to 'teach' that the earth is fixed? I don't agree that it does; and reject the idea it 'teaches' this. (There's a difference between stating something in passing... e.g. in a psalm and teaching it as a fact... in a non-poetical setting.) Young earth creationists [YECS] point to verses that suggest the opposite. (e.g. "the earth hangeth upon nothing")
p. 15. He tells us that Aristotle taught a geocentric universe, but then he strangely references this claim by pointing to Job 38. This doesn't make sense to me.
Job 38:4. ''Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?''
- To refer to the earth's foundation doesn't make a claim about geocentricity or to the fact the earth is fixed (i.e. doesn't move) We might ask 'fixed on what?' The very idea makes no sense to me; as it would require the earth to be infinitely deep... to have no bottom. I'm not aware that anyone thought this. Many of the ancients believed the earth was circular in shape (i.e. shaped as a ball.)
p. 16. He points to psalm 93:1. ''Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved.'' (apparently as evidence the bible makes false claims.)
What was the psalmist referring to however?
Let's quote the full verse... as only quoting a part of a verse can be confusing.
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.''
The psalmist is not making a scientific comment but referring to god's control of the universe he made, to his providential government.
'The thought seems abrupt here. It would appear as if the psalmist had been meditating on the dark things which occur in the world; the mysteries which abound; the things which seem irreconcilable with the idea that there is a just government over the world, and that suddenly the idea occurs, as a flash of lightning in a storm, that Yahweh reigns over all, and that all must be right. Amidst all these things God sits upon the throne; he orders all events; he sways his scepter over all; he orders all things according to his own will; he secures the accomplishment of his own purposes. - Barnes [2.]
- 'The Lord reigneth - He continues to govern every thing he has created; and he is every way qualified to govern all things, for he is clothed with majesty and with strength - dominion is his, and he has supreme power to exercise it; and he has so established the world that nothing can be driven out of order; all is ruled by him. Nature is his agent: or rather, nature is the sum of the laws of his government; the operations carried on by the Divine energy, and the effects resulting from those operations. - Clarke
- 'The Lord reigneth," or Jehovah reigns. Whatever opposition may arise, his throne is unmoved; he has reigned, does reign, and will reign for ever and ever. Whatever turmoil and rebellion there may be beneath the clouds, the eternal King sits above all in supreme serenity; and everywhere he is really Master, let his foes rage as they may. - Spurgeon
Lennox just ignores orthodox commentary on this verse, and distorts the plain meaning by claiming the author is 'teaching us' the earth is fixed in space. This is not even remotely close to what the author is saying!
p. 17. He quotes 1 Sam. 2:8
''for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."
- Again this is only part of the verse; the full verse reads;
''He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
- The author is not talking about geology or astronomy as surely everyone can see; he is talking about god's providential government of all things. He's talking about people not about planets.
e.g. ''1 Kings 16:2 "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins.
The 'pillars' of the earth is not meant to be taken literally. (This of course is what the 'higher' critics of the bible claim... in their attempt to defame the bible.) If the earth was founded on pillars where were they? and what were they set upon, and what was that set upon. The whole image is little more than comical. (e.g. it's turtles all the way down)
What were pillars? they were gates of the city perhaps, they were the columns of royal palace perhaps. i.e. they were signs of power and authority. (The word pillars seem to come from something poured out. e.g. cement or molten metal in the manufacture of some item. We might speculate that the ancients knew of the molten source for much rock.... no doubt some had seen lava turn to rock.)
- 'The princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zechariah 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God.' - Gill
p. 16. He quotes psalm 104:5
''He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.''
Moved is not the best translation in my opinion; e.g. 'So that it shall not totter [NASB]
a. to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
- I agree with the tone of the KJV that reads ''Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
i.e. the idea isn't what was done but who did it.
If we include the surrounding verses we see clearly that the psalmist is using poetic language; that he's employing figurate metaphor. e.g. v.3. ''and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.''
The psalmist isn't teaching students about geology or astronomy but declaring to them the greatness of the creator God. It's plain distortion to claim this is teaching people about geology... this isn't remotely the point. He's using figurative language to do his best to express the awesome power of God.
'This image Bishop Lowth thinks evidently taken from the tabernacle, which was so laid upon its foundations that nothing could move it, and the dispensation to which it was attached, till the end purposed by the secret counsel of God was accomplished: and thus the earth is established, till the end of its creation shall be fully answered; and then it and its works shall be burnt up. On the above ground, the stability of the sanctuary and the stability of the earth are sometimes mentioned in the same words. - Clarke
'Who laid the foundations of the earth,.... Or "founded the earth upon its bases" (l); which some take to be the waters, according to Psalm 24:2 - Gill
i.e. 1. ''The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
2. for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.
- this being a reference to Genesis 1.
Zecharia 10:4
''From Judah will come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,
- The biblical authors were far (far) more interested in the One who made the earth than in the earth itself. Humanism is basically preferring the creature to the creator, and scientism is the sad result.
'That it should not be removed for ever: for though it may be shaken by earthquakes, yet not removed; nor will it be until the dissolution of all things, when it shall flee away before the face of the Judge, and a new earth shall succeed, Revelation 20:11. - Gill
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
'In a second decastich the poet speaks of the restraining of the lower waters and the establishing of the land standing out of the water. The suffix, referring back to ארץ, is intended to say that the earth hanging free in space (Job 26:7) has its internal supports.
p. 16. He quotes 1 Chron 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.''
- The author is making a contrast between men who will be shaken and moved (e.g. into apostasy) and God who will not be 'moved.' i.e. who will not become unjust or unrighteous or unholy. i.e. man changes but god changes not; this is the picture being drawn. There is no attempt to teach science here; the author isn't speaking about planetary geology but about God.
'Young's Literal Translation
''Be pained before Him, all the earth:
- We note that the word translated by some as 'moved' has the meaning of; to totter, shake, slip. There is no reference to not moving (travelling) through space.
If we go on to verse 31 we read; ''Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
The author is celebrating God's power and holiness not giving a lesson in cosmology. It is illegitimate to claim these verse are teaching that the earth is immovable or that it doesn't hang in space.
Job 26:7
''He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.''
Why doesn't Lennox quote this verse for us?
'Over the empty place - על־תהוּ ‛al-tôhû, "Upon emptiness, or nothing." That is, without anything to support it. The word used here (תהוּ tôhû) is one of those employed Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was wlthout form and void." But it seems here to mean emptiness, nothing. - Barnes
p. 17. '...the bible seemed equally clearly to say that the sun moved. [reference Eccl 1:5]
- Lennox is surely aware that the bible is written in phenomenological language. It was written to be spoken to the people, and so written in a phenomenological manner. (These arguements of his are as old as the hills... there's nothing modern about them.) They've all been dealt with numerous times; though he makes no mention of this.
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.''
- Solomon is speaking in these early verses about vanity, about the monotonous 'circularity' of life, the regularities of things. i.e. the fact things never change. e.g. the rain cycle, etc. The language is clearly meant to be figurative. Does anyone imagine S. really thought of the sun as a runner, panting and gasping as he makes his way to the finish line? Does anyone think he thought of the sun as a person? He's not talking about planetary bodies, but about human beings who seemingly labor in vain.
Young's literal translation;
"Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.
- does anyone imagine S. thought the sun was panting?
p. 17. He tells us Martin Luther dismissed heliocentrism as false; but what does this tell us? Theologians are often wrong about things but this doesn't tell us anything about what the bible teaches.
He quotes ML as saying the bible tells us Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. (I confess I don't know what that incident involved; but suspect it's another case of figurative language... or perhaps phenomenological language.)
p. 18. 'Jean Calvin on the other hand clearly believed the earth was fixed.
- This is understandable as that's the way it looks; but no one is infallible, not even the best theologian the church has ever had. We need to stress here that Calvin acquired this opinion not from his study of scripture but from his 'naive' experience of the world.
p. 18. He refers to the 'Galileo incident' as an iconic example of the conflict between religion and science.
- I don't like his continued use of religion when he's talking about Christianity. i.e. there is no such thing as generic religion or generic science. e.g. if you mean C. say C. and if you mean materialist science say so... don't just say science. There is no such thing as generic science, as all 'scientific' models are built upon philosophical foundations. i.e. basic unproven, and unprovable assumptions. There is no such thing as science without presuppositional beliefs. All science is done in terms of a worldview.
p 19. 'But now we need to face an important question; why do Christians accept this new interpretation, and not still insist on a 'literal' understanding of the ''pillars of the earth?'' Is it really because we have made scripture subservient to science?'
- This is the main (if not only) point of the chapter. Lennox is responding to the charge that old earth creationists like himself have made 'science' the ultimate authority in the world and have replaced the bible with the textbook. I find the chapter unconvincing. There's nothing original in it, and he ignores ye creationists and their responses to all these old charges.
This is a poor argument. He says why don't Christians still insist on a literal understanding of the pillars of the earth. I've pointed out (at length) that this was figurative language; it was never meant to be taken 'literally' by its author/s. It's absurd to say we should insist on a literal interpretation of a figurative statement! That makes no sense to me John.
This example means nothing, and demonstrates nothing. He's given us a misinterpretation of the text and then set it up as a straw man to knock down.
Summary;
- In chapter 1. Lennox is unconvincing in his attempt to persuade us we should abandon the bible as a source of truth about the universe we live in and about our history on the earth.
- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Seven days that divide the world - John Lennox
2. Commentary quote come from bible.cc
3. - Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?
- an article discussing figurative language in the bible, and pertinent to this review. e.g.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
'In both cases we are dealing with a situation that is charged with poetic indications (pillars that can be "astonished"?) and we are obliged not to read things too literally.
4. Basic Literary Forms I
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-i/
- 'Phenomenological Language. Much of the Bible comes to us with language that describes the way things appear to the naked eye. The language used is descriptive of the ways things look from our perspective and is not necessarily asserting precise scientific fact. An example of this is the description of the sun rising. Unless we understand the use of phenomenological language, we might think that the Bible teaches that the earth is at the center of the universe. When we realize that the Bible describes things according to appearance, we see that the Bible is not really saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Rather, it is merely saying that the sun rises because, to our naked eye, it looks like the sun moves and the earth does not. This use of language is still current. The meterologist gives us the time of sunrise, but nobody assumes he is teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. - Ligonier ministries
5. It's revealing that he must go back 400 years for his example instead of engaging with modern day creationists.
- As far as I can see he only makes reference to YEC once; and that's a short book that presents 3 different creationist models, one of which is YE. i.e. 'The Genesis Debate; three views on the days of creation' Neither J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall who defend the YE view is a scientist. Lennox just ignores all the PHDs who accept a YE model. (He also mentions an essay written by two YECs; Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. Of the two only Nelson could be called a scientist.)
- Lennox seems to quote (and reference) himself more than anyone else. Is he unaware of the hundreds of books published by YE creationists? He mainly appears to be shadow boxing with himself.
6. For those people who think a YE position can't be rationally defended they might want to reference an article called 'Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- the article makes brief points and then provides a link to one or more articles that defend that particular reason in detail. I've gone through the whole list (including reading all the articles linked to) and I find the case for a YE convincing. (I don't think you can prove a young earth, but you can give a good case why it could be true, or even is likely to be true. I don't believe you can prove an old earth either, but I imagine Lennox would disagree.)
- As far as I can see Lennox never tells us what research he did in preparation for the book, but I see little evidence he did much. (In his defense he's not much interested in speaking to YE creationists but is directing his arguments to people who find a YE position absurd. On p.12 he talks about a woman who thought the Genesis account of creation was a 'very silly story'.) I personally haven't seen much (if any) evidence people reject Christianity because of Genesis 1. (This isn't the Bible's account of things, as it claims men reject God because of natural depravity and rebellion.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)