"There are three certainties in this life. Death. Taxes. And horrible Christian art."

More here

The KJV turns 400

A conference to celebrate

Simone's Exodus Map

I like it

Science and Genesis

Barry Newman is blogging extensively on this subject.

News & Views

If there is a blog or RSS you think I should have in my "News & Views" feed, PM me on FB and I will add it in...

James 3

For every creature—animal or bird, reptile or fish—is tamed and has been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things should not be this way. Does a spring pour out sweet and bitter water from the same opening? 

A bunch of Oz church leaders praise the Holman

See here

Congregationalism?

A helpful post by Mark Thompson

fishpond.com.au

This is now one of my favourite websites. It's much better than it used to be, both in price and range. Free delivery anywhere in Oz, and prices are very good at the moment, thanks to the high exchange rate...

PCA Geologists and the Antiquity of the Earth

"If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!"

Well argued, gentlemen

The Reformation and the Age of the Earth

"Hmmm... St Augustine
or Henry Morris?"

The young earthers certainly show some imagination and flexibility when prosecuting their case. I noticed this years ago with the original creation science movement - as quickly as the old arguments had been torn to ribbons by plain reason, they erected new, more obscure and more convoluted arguments. Indeed, the entire creation science movement was, and is, a conclusion looking for a justification.

One especially fanciful charge recently laid at the door step of old earth Calvinists like myself is that we effectively deny the essence of the Reformation if we deny a young earth. Now, anyone with a passing aquaintance with Reformation history will be pretty puzzled by that statement, as the age of the earth simply was not a topic under debate at the time.

Now, I don't deny that Calvin and Luther were (most likely) young earthers themselves - just like most of their contemporaries. Yet it was not an issue of pressing concern for them - you will find scant references to the matter in their works. To claim it is somehow at the heart or of the essence of the Reformation is to display ignorance of the era.

It's also worth pointing out that both Luther and Calvin were geocentrists (that is, they believed the earth was at the center of the universe). In this they were no different to most of their contemporaries. Now, very few modern young earthers hold to geocentricism. The question then becomes - why does denying a young earth amount to a denial of the Reformation, when one can deny geocentricism without (apparently) imperiling one's soul? The inconsistency is glaring.

No, this is simply another argument that the militant young earthers have picked up, almost at random, in an attempt to bolster their position. It is clearly a nonsensical argument, and I have no doubt they will abandon it as quickly as they apprehended it, and will continue to scrabble about, looking for something, anything, they can use to prosecute their beliefs.

Sydney and Anglican - A fresh look at mission

Looks like a good conference

The Genesis of Everything

An interesting paper by John Dickson. I'm in general agreement with his conclusions...

Fresh Songs

Check these guys out

Hebrew Scholars and the Age of the Earth

The interpretation of Genesis 1 (and Exodus 20) is certainly controversial. My own view is that the Bible gives no definitive position on the age of the Earth, and therefore belief in an old Earth or young Earth is a matter of freedom for Christians, who will each follow their conscience.

Genesis and Exodus, of course, were written in Hebrew. So it's natural to ask whether Hebrew scholarship has anything to say on the matter. After all, if every Hebrew scholar says that Genesis/Exodus = young Earth, then the old Earth position would lack credibility. As it happens, there are a number of Hebrew scholars, from world class seminaries, who believe Genesis/Exodus may be interpreted in a way that is consistent with an old Earth. I'll discuss three in this post.

I'll start with Gleeson Archer, former Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school (probably the finest evangelical seminary on the planet), and former Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary. His credentials make for impressive reading.

Writing of Exodus 20:10-11, Professor Archer states, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days." With regards to Genesis 1, he says, "...it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam's experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day."

Another relevant scholar is John C. Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenent Theological Seminary, and also the Old Testament chair for the English Standard Version of the Bible. Speaking of the "day/age" theory, he contradicts a number of arguments that young earthers use -

Let's dispense with a few arguments that some have offered to support the ordinary day position. The first is the claim that since the 'vast majority' of readers in the history of the church have held that the days are ordinary, so should we - to do otherwise would be unbearable arrogance. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the 'vast majority' are right, regardless of the reasons that led to their reading. After the first century, very few Christians read Hebrew at all, until about 1500; this means that this 'vast majority' arrived at their reading of Genesis on the basis of the Greek Old Testament in the Eastern church, and the Latin Old Testament in the West. These translations are good in some places and bad in others, and our 'vast majority' didn't have the resources to know which is which...

[Another] faulty argument is the claim that the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is at stake. That is, the Bible must be transparent in its meaning, and this favors the 'simple' reading. This argument is faulty because it actually misuses the doctrine it is supposedly upholding. I know of no responsible statement of this doctrine that claims that all parts of the Bible are equally easy to understand, or that we should prefer a 'simple' reading no matter what...

[Another] false claim is the idea that Christians changed their interpretation of the days in order to make peace with Darwinism. As a matter of fact, most of the interpretive options came into play before 1850 - and Darwin¹s Origins of Species came out in 1859. The big factor for many in the church was the new geology that began in the 1700s which seemed to most to prove that the earth was much older than a few thousand years. And if someone wants to make the counterclaim, 'You see, that just proves that geology is naturalistic, too,' he has to come to grips with the simple fact that most of the early geologists were devout Christians who were far from being naturalistic...

I'll finish with Walter Kaiser, former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. Talking about Genesis 1, he states, "I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth "day" according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine."

Three highly distinguished Old Testament professors, all experts in Hebrew, all from world-class seminaries, and all open to an old earth interpretation of Genesis. It's a powerful witness to the intellectual credibility of the old Earth position. It also clearly contradicts those who, probably from ignorance, wish to claim that all credible Hebrew scholars support a young Earth reading of Genesis/Exodus.

Geek Times

Mucking around with the data files for the original Colossal Caves Adventure