Category Archives: creation Ministries Internation

The Welsh Dragon—sorry the Welsh Dinosaur. Yr Draig Goch; or yr deinosor gwirion

As I lived in Wales for many years we got used to flying the Welsh flag  – a red dragon. It now seems that it was not a dragon but a dinosaur as Dr  Brian Thomas. who has a Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from Liverpool University demonstrates in this blog for the Institute for Creation Research.

He had visited St David’s cathedral in west Wales and found a carving of a dinosaur Brachytrachelopan mesai  on a misericord as he describes below. (I lifted the blog to save you the effort of opening it!)  As befits a Ph D from one of our leading universities with a great geology department (where I gave lectures on the glories of creationism many years ago) Thomas discusses the possibility of it being a dinosaur in a very scientific way (nagadi) and considers whether it could have been the imagination of the woodcarver. However he shows that was not the case and that there were dinosaurs in wales at that time. Unfortunately the welsh velociraptors (known in welsh as diogyn – the fastest animal on earth) had died out before 1280, otherwise  Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, would have used them with great effect against Edward I of England. Not even his longshanks would has escaped them! This is a great pity, although we would not have Conwy or Caernarfon castles today.

P1010482P1010475

 

If they had survived and Edward paid homage to LLywelyn, other dinos could have helped to build the castles as the had Stonehenge just after Noah’s flood

Dinosaurs-Built-Stonehenge-----Sounds-Legit

The welsh have an excellent term to describe this high quality intellectual reasoning;

cachu rwtsh

The more I read this article, the more I am convinced by it and support his last sentence

This remarkable art forces a rethink of secular dinosaur doctrines but happens to fit perfectly with a biblical view of dinosaurs.

There is more too this, as  Phillip Bell of Creation ministries Internation found representations of dinosaurs in Carlisle cathedral.  These show that in the Lake District dinos were still alive and well in the 15th century. I am convinced that the then Bishop of Carlisle had a pet dinosaur  and thus it was put on his tomb to remind subsequent generations of his love of dinosaurs.

These two episcopal examples show conclusively that dinosaurs were roaming Britain less than a thousand years ago. Wales has been better at keeping the memories alive, but the Church of England and the Church of England have hopelessly compromised themselves on the truth of biblical creation.

I call upon the Archbishop of Wales, and his counterparts in York and Canterbury, to repent and publicise and preach the truth of Biblical Creation and to lead the Anglican Churches away from heresy.

This would be a much belated recognition of the wonderful work of Henry Morris, whose name indicates his Welsh ancestry

 

Source: St. Davids Dragon—Fantasy or Reality?

From The Institute of Creation Research, San Diego

My early memories of dinosaur teachings reflected the doctrine of their extinction 65 million years ago and the evolution of mankind only several million years ago. If that really happened, then our ancestors who lived before the scientific study of fossils should have had no knowledge of dinosaurs or similar creatures like pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs.

Certain pieces of ancient artwork appear to show just the opposite. I grabbed an opportunity to examine one such piece—a carved wooden dragon—found in St. Davids Cathedral in Wales. The ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History in Dallas displays a picture of this intriguing dragon art.

St. Davids Cathedral, Wales
Image credit: Brian Thomas

My wife and I visited the cathedral situated in picturesque Pembrokeshire, a far western headland of Wales. Religious buildings have occupied the site for a millennium. The current cathedral had its last big refurbishment in the 1800s, about 400 years after a major late-medieval upgrade, when the dragon-art piece was crafted. We ascended the slope-floored main area to several smaller chapels in the back.

One chapel featured folding seats called misericords. Each one is attached to a tall, straight-backed, dark, ornately carved wooden slot. They line three walls like a series of serene sentinels. Whereas medieval artists represented ecclesiastical themes with reverence, they brought a measure of whimsy to scenes, faces, and animals carved on the underside of each solid oak seat. When the seats are folded up, each carving is visible.

Image credit: Brian Thomas

One misericord shows a dinosaur look-alike. Its overall anatomy resembles the sauropod dinosaurs known from fossils, with longer hind legs than front legs. These long-necked, extinct reptiles typify Jurassic rock layers. This one’s neck is not nearly as long in proportion to its main body as the more familiar sauropods like Diplodocus. Lest someone say its neck looks too short for the carving to represent any real sauropod, its neck length closely matches that of a dinosaur fossil found in Argentina in 2005 named Brachytrachelopan mesai.1

Two of the carving’s body details—small wings and ears—don’t match what fossils suggest.2 Like some modern cartoon dragons, these wings make no biological sense. The creature’s body would be far too massive for such tiny wings to support it in flight. Do these misfit features disqualify the piece from representing a real animal? It depends.

Brachytrachelopan
Image credit: Copyright © M. Hattori. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

We first must ask if the unknown artist could have imagined by chance this particular animal form. The pure imagination hypothesis would explain the wacky wings, but it wouldn’t explain the long neck, long tail, legs positioned beneath a barrel-shaped body instead of straddle-legged like modern lizards, small head with sauropod-shaped mouth, and reptilian frills along its spine. When placed on a biology balance, the weight of creature features favors the idea that the artist somehow knew what sauropods looked like. If so, then he or she knew this centuries before scientists began to describe them from fossils.

This eyewitness hypothesis would benefit from an explanation of the ears and especially the wings. Until someone uncovers an ancient artist’s notebook that explains particular stylistic choices, we must reason it out. Medieval dragon depictions across Europe very often include wings. Perhaps artists placed wings on their large reptilian forms to identify them as dragons. In medieval Europe, the word dragon referred to reptiles. The St. Davids sauropod may represent a real, though extinct, reptile with imaginary body parts added on purpose. How could this happen?

If flying dragons were more widely known than fen-dwelling (wetland) dragons, then the artist could have added the flying serpent’s familiar wings to a lesser-known land dragon body just to make sure the viewer knew the creature was a reptile. Evidence that ancient inhabitants of the United Kingdom were familiar with flying dragons that we know today as pterosaurs would bolster this supposition. One sober 18th-century Scottish account reads:

In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed…dragons…appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east, from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that…boisterous weather would follow.3

And according to an approximately 19th-century Welsh anecdote, “the woods around Penllyne Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike.”4 If flying dragons hadn’t yet been eradicated from the UK by the 1700s, then the animals must have been around to terrorize old and young long before then—for example, in medieval times when the St. Davids carvers lived.

Whoever would reject the wings-equal-dragon hypothesis still needs to explain the wealth of short-necked sauropod-specific anatomy on the St. Davids misericord. The larger weight of evidence lies on the side of artists who had some measure of eyewitness knowledge of their subject matter. This remarkable art forces a rethink of secular dinosaur doctrines but happens to fit perfectly with a biblical view of dinosaurs.5

References

  1. Creation researcher Vance Nelson connected the carving to this fossil in his book Dire Dragons. Nelson, V. 2012. Dire Dragons. Red Deer, Canada: Untold Secrets of Planet Earth Publishing Co.
  2. A third detail—webbed feet—could have represented a wetland habitat.
  3. Flying Dragons at Aberdeen. 1793. A Statistical Account of Scotland. 6: 467. Quoted in Cooper, B. 1995. After the Flood. Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 141.
  4. Trevelyan, M. 1973. Folk-Lore and Folk-Stories of Wales. Yorkshire, UK: EP Publishing Limited, 169. The passage adds on page 170: “An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful….This old man attributed the extinction of winged serpents to the fact that they were ‘terrors in the farmyards and coverts.’”
  5. God created dinosaurs when He “made the beast of the earth according to its kind” (Genesis 1:25). Noah’s Flood fossilized many of them, when “all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 7:21). Some dinosaurs presumably survived the Flood on board Noah’s Ark, where “they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life” (Genesis 7:15). Centuries later, God told Job, “Look now at the behemoth….He moves his tail like a cedar,” probably indicating a sauropod living near where “the Jordan [River] gushes” (Job 40:15-23). These and many other historical records challenge evolutionary beliefs about dinosaur extinction.

* Dr. Thomas is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.

Cite this article: Brian Thomas, Ph.D. 2019. St. Davids Dragon—Fantasy or Reality?Acts & Facts. 48 (11).


De



 

A fascinating blogs on what animals would have been live if there were no predators before Adam and Eve went scrumping which resulted in God giving the curse.

Or, why do rabbits have eyes to the side?

Absurdity is absurdity

 

 

A central tenet of young earth creationism is the belief that the entire world before Adam’s transgression experienced no animal death. What would such a world have looked like? Examining YEC depictions of Eden you would think that the animals looked like those alive today except that all extinct things, eg. dinosaurs, were also alive […]

via Was The Young-Earth Perfect Prelapsarian Paradise a Maladapted World? — Naturalis Historia

The ultimate root of Creationism, not science but a fundamentalist worldview

This is an excellent blog on how Creationism is supposedly a defence of Christian Morals which they see undermine if you believe in an old earth.

It trace the root back to a reaction against Bernard Ramm who wrote an excellent book on science and Christianity in 1955.

One odd thing, creationists have a moral crusade but do seem rather lax on the ninth Commandment.

AIG fortress cartoon

 

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2019/08/09/radical-creationists-fall-into-the-poetry-trap/?fbclid=IwAR1igfy9qOQISMam3DLSasffHYxtpyfRklYeJ3UOADVjzdQf4ATzGFIzwPg

Radical Creationists Fall into the Poetry Trap

Want to understand American creationism? Then don’t dig into Charles Darwin or even Bill Nye. The key to American creationism isn’t science, not even its peculiar “zombie” science. No, to understand radical American creationism, we need to look instead to poetry and the fundamentalist impulse.

Here’s the latest: today’s leading radical creationist Ken Ham recently defended his young-earth position against charges of flat-earthism. As Ham bemoaned,

now it’s not just atheists arguing the Bible teaches a flat earth—it’s some Christians, too, who’ve sadly fallen for flat-earth arguments and now believe that’s what the Bible teaches. But does it?

No, it doesn’t. Now, flat earthers will frequently bring up poetic passages, such as verses from Psalms or Job, and say those verses teach a flat earth because phrases like “ends of the earth” or references to a setting sun appear. But those passages are poetry—by definition poetry is filled with literary devices such as metaphors, similes, and figures of speech. The biblical text is meant to be interpreted naturally, according to the genre. And poetry is clearly intended to be understood within the context of abundant literary devices that are not meant to be taken so woodenly and literally (i.e., God does not literally lie us down in green pastures as per Psalm 23:2).

For those who know the history of American creationism, Ham’s use of the “poetry” defense must seem either brutally cynical or woefully ignorant. Here’s why: Back in the 1950s, fundamentalist Protestant scholars tried to move away from Ham’s preferred sort of radical young-earth creationism. They wanted to remain creationists, but they didn’t want to be bound to scientifically outlandish notions such as a 6,000-year-old earth or a literal world-wide flood.

How did they interpret the creation passages in Genesis? You guessed it: as poetry.

Most influentially, Bernard Ramm argued in his 1954 book The Christian View of Science and Scripture that simple young-earth creationism made a huge theological mistake. As Ramm wrote,

If the theologian teaches that the earth is the center of the solar system, or that man first appeared on the earth at 4004 BC, or that all the world was submerged under water at 4004 BC and had been for unknown millennia, he is misinterpreting Scripture and bringing Scripture into needless conflict with science.

When the Bible describes creation, Ramm argued, it was speaking poetically, in popular, accessible language. Such language, Ramm thought, did not “theorize as to the actual nature of things.” Rather, it explained God’s role as a personal, engaged Creator in poetic language that people everywhere could understand.

AIG fortress cartoon

REPORT THIS AD

The modern American radical-creationist movement was born as an attempt to directly refute Ramm’s ideas. John Whitcomb Jr. and Henry Morris set out in their blockbuster creationist hit The Genesis Flood to prove that Genesis was not poetry, but history.

As always, though, poetry is in the eye of the beholder. How were conservative evangelicals supposed to choose where to draw the line? How were they supposed to decide if talk about a flat earth was meant to be read poetically or literally? Or passages about a world-wide flood? Or the age of the planet?

In the end, the answers came down to something besides science or even theology. For Whitcomb and Morris in the 1960s and 1970s, or Ken Ham today, insistence on a literal young earth and literal world-wide flood is not a scientific decision or a theological one, but rather a very popular kind of draw-the-line-ism, a fundamentalist promise that traditional beliefs must be protected at all costs.

For example, when John Whitcomb Jr. and Henry Morris made their first case for radical young-earth creationism, they insisted that there were only two ways to see the world—young-earth creationism or “evolutionism.” On the creationist side stood Jesus and the Scriptures. On evolution’s side were only “ancient idolatries or primitive animism or modern existentialism or atheistic communism!”

AIG foundations

Throughout his long career, Henry Morris insisted that only a rigid, literalistic, radical creationism stood between true religion and a host of pernicious ideas. In The Long War Against God, for example, Morris warned that a poetic reading of Genesis would mean an endorsement of “premarital sex, adultery, divorce, and homosexuality” as well as ”Unrestrained pornography. . . . [and] Prostitution, both male and female.” Don’t forget, Morris warned, that “evolutionary thinking” lead to “abortionism.” And the Holocaust. As well as, presumably, cannibalism, not to mention “the modern drug crisis (rock music, peer pressure, organized crime, etc.)”

When Henry Morris insisted on reading Genesis as literal rather than poetic, he wasn’t making a theological statement. He was not making a scientific statement. Rather, Morris was appealing to America’s fundamentalist impulse, the desire of many conservative Christians to draw the line somewhere.

For Morris and his erstwhile protégé Ken Ham, the threat of evolution isn’t really theological or scientific. Rather, as Ham never tires of repeating, evolutionary thinking is the foundation of a host of modern social ills, from abortion rights to LGBTQ rights; from youthful disrespect to internet pornography.

I can’t help but wonder if Ham is aware of the long history of his poetry defense. Does he know that Bernard Ramm used the same argument against his mentor’s radical young-earth beliefs? Does Ham just not care? Or, rather, does he understand that his followers don’t really care about science or theology, they are just looking for someone to tell them where to draw the line, where to take up a fundamentalist defense of traditional values?

Young-Earth Creationism Leads the Short-Necked Okapi to Identify as a Giraffe

Creationism has so many inconsistencies and absurdities. They are virulently anti-evolution, but more and more they argue for evolution in a matter of years rather than millions of years.
In defending the bible and the gospel they simply destroy it.

Naturalis Historia

The Ark Encounter theme park in Kentucky is filled with signs and displays that promote young-earth interpretations of geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology and theology. I have critiqued many of these interpretations before (e.g. My Trip to the Ark Encounter and Depicting a Real Flood with Unrealistic Images). Today, I want to talk about one sign. A sign that explains the young-earth understanding of the origin of giraffes.

A sign on the Ark Encounter posted next to cage containing a pair of short-necked giraffe-like animals. Photo: Joel Duff

It is hard to read so here is the text from that sign:

“Why is the Giraffe’s Neck so Short?

Giraffidae is a family of large mammals currently represented by only two species. They have split hooves and re-chew their food, indicating they qualify as “clean” animals according to the dietary laws described in Leviticus.  This means that up to seven pairs…

View original post 2,343 more words

Is Genesis History? Well, nope

 

Image result for is genesis history

Is Genesis History? is a DVD to show that early Genesis is “history” and that the earth is a few thousand years old, God talked the universe into being in 144 hrs, the flood was worldwide and most of the strata were laid down at that time. Evolution is a big no-no.

It has the support of most creationist groups and many of their “experts” have contributed to this beautifully flawed production.

P1010414

More can be found on their website. https://isgenesishistory.com/ 

The introductory page makes it clear.

“Will strengthen confidence in Scripture, clarify understanding of the relationships of revelation, science, history, and faith, and enhance understanding of difficult questions all while being both beautiful and entertaining.” – E. Calvin Beisner, PhD

Is Genesis History? features over a dozen scientists and scholars explaining how the world intersects with the history recorded in Genesis.  From rock layers to fossils, from lions to stars, from the Bible to artifacts, this fascinating film will change the way you see the world.

The film’s goal is to provide a reasonable case for Creation in six normal days, a real Adam and Eve, an actual fall, a global flood, and a tower of Babel. Dr. Del Tackett, creator of The Truth Project, serves as your guide—hiking through canyons, climbing up mountains, and diving below the sea—in an exploration of two competing views … one compelling truth.

This says it all, but who are the experts?

Experts Interviewed

Many people don’t realize just how many scientists and scholars see Genesis as the key to understanding the world around us. Each of these experts has spent decades working in his respective field to better understand how it relates to the history recorded in the Bible.

 

Those who fllow Young Earth Creationism will recognise most of these names. It’s true that they have Ph.D.s and have worked for years in their chosen fields, but…..

I’ve met five of them, but none have more than a few academic papers to their name – which, in the case of geology, do nothing to refute “old earth ” geology. At times their treatment of standard science is duplicitous.

And so another page deals with their answers to “questions”.

https://isgenesishistory.com/category/questions/

I’ll focus on one – the theologian Douglas Kelly

 https://isgenesishistory.com/when-did-the-church-stop-reading-genesis-as-history/

Dr. Douglas Kelly explains the history of the church’s relationship with Evolution and the Bible.

DEL: Where do you see all of the sudden the thought beginning to work its way in, that there is something less than historical record found in Genesis?

DOUG: Dr. Nigel Cameron, who did a book a number of years ago which unfortunately it’s out of print, Evolution and the Authority of the Bible, in which he shows convincingly to me after serious study on his part that the whole church as far as commentators and creeds on into Protestant confessions held straight six day creation, until the European enlightenment. And particularly two things happen, well many things happened in the European enlightenment but two things particular reference to creation. One is there was the introduction of the thought of vast geological ages being evidenced by geological structures. That was happening largely in the 18th Century, late 18th Century. And then in the 19th Century of course we have Charles Darwin. It was not that theories of evolution were totally novel. They weren’t, because if you go back to certain pre-socratic philosophers, Democritus, Lucretius and others, they held some kind of evolution, but that Christianity had purged that out and said it’s ridiculous and it goes way underground.

DOUG: It’s able to come back to the surface by the European enlightenment. Geology first and then with particularly Darwin and his grandfather was teaching Erasmus Darwin but Charles Darwin’s major work came out in 1859 and sold out in about two days because people were so desperate to find an intellectual alternative to divine creation. Well Cameron shows that when about five years, five or six years after Darwin’s book became popular i.e. by the late 1860s there was scarcely a protestant commentator, a protestant commentator that didn’t accept some form of evolution or at least say this is a matter best left to the scientists. Let’s deal with the spiritual.

DEL: It happened that fast.

DOUG: It happened that fast within six or seven years. Now there were exceptions. Good Bishop Wilbur Force resisted it, but that’s how quickly it happened.

I facepalmed at the last sentence “Bishop Wilbur Force”. It clearly they meant Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, son of William Wilberforce.

1869_Wilberforce_A504_001

Wilberfoce was competent in science and attended geological lectures by William Buckland for three years while at Oxford. His 1860 review of the Origin of Species was competent though rejecting evolution.

Kelly studied for his Ph D in Edinburgh under T F Torrance, the leading 20th century Scottish theologian, who had a sound view of science and theology!

In 1999 he published a YEC book supporting a six day creation , full of poor theology and worse science.

The quotes by Kelly here are weak. He is wrong to say theologians held to a six day creation until the Enlightenment. See my chapter here; Genesis 1 & geological time from 1600-1850 Until there was geological evidence for an ancient earth theologians took varied opinions but after 1780 few opted for a young earth. What Kelly does not say is that after 1800 very few theologians, Protestant or Catholic accepted a 6-day creation. That includes conservative protestants and evangelicals on both sides of the pond. By 1870 most accepted some kind of evolution.  This is just for Britain, the situation in the USA was similar  – at least til the Scopes trial. Evolution and religion in Britain from 1859

So lets get on with this blog  on

6 Reasons Christians Should Embrace 6 Day Creation

Watch the film

https://isgenesishistory.com/6-reasons-christians-embrace-6-day-creation/

The blog  has a clear purpose – to give 6 reasons why Christians must accept a 6-day creation.

When Is Genesis History? opened in theaters last year, we had no idea it would be the top grossing Christian documentary for 2017. We were even more surprised when our distributor said they were bringing it back to theaters on Feb 22, 2018 for an Anniversary Event.

Why did this film resonate so much with audiences?

Perhaps it demonstrated that it’s intellectually reasonable for Christians to embrace 6-day creation.

By ‘6-day creation,’ I’m referring not just to one’s view of Genesis 1, but to an entire chronology of historical events. These include the immediate creation of everything in six normal days, a Fall that brought corruption and death into the universe, and a global Flood that destroyed the world.

I recognize that among some Christians this is not a popular view of history. Instead, some have adopted the framework hypothesis, analogical days, or the cosmic-temple model to interpret Genesis 1.

They then accept the conventional chronology of universal history. This includes the slow formation of everything over billions of years starting with a Big Bang, the corruption and death of trillions of creatures before the arrival of Adam and Eve, a Fall that introduced death only to mankind, and a local flood during the days of Noah.

It is the events included in 6-day creation that are essential for Christian theology.

I realize that intelligent and godly Christians hold to this model of Earth history. Nevertheless, many seem unaware of the actual events they must inevitably adopt when affirming a 13.8 billion-year-old universe.

After all, one cannot extend history for billions of years without attaching new events to it. Those events have theological consequences.

This is why thinkers like Geerhardus Vos, Louis Berkhof, and D. Martin Lloyd-Jones embraced 6-day creation. They understood it is the events included in 6-day creation that are essential for Christian theology.

Note that included is not only a 6-day creation, but also a Fall which brought death into the world. This latter is a plank for YEC as the death of Christ is often presented as reversing the effects of the Fall, thus giving more plausibility to YEC. Note how the expression “corruption and death” is put forward in contrast to a “good2 and “very good” original creation.

Then Six theological reasons for YEC are considered.

Here are six theological reasons worth considering:

N.B. Here I give the blog in “quotes” , the rest are my comments

1. God’s Goodness Must Be Reflected in the Original Creation

Ligon Duncan observed in an interview for ‘The Gospel Coalition’ that affirming the goodness of the original creation is non-negotiable. As the Westminster Confession states, the goodness of the original creation is the manifestation of the glory of God’s own goodness. (WCF 4.1)

 

If the expression “original creation” was not used, most , if not all Christians subscribe to this. Creation,( however it came about, however old it is), “is the manifestation of the glory of God’s own goodness. (WCF 4.1)”. However the use of “original Creation” is used to imply that creation took place in a matter of 144 Hours. That most Christians disagree with.

they then ask;

What does that goodness look like? It is full of life-giving power and bounty.

I find this photo an odd one to show the earth without corruption 🙂 In fact it shows beauty and tranquillity and so much of our scenery and wildlife shows the beauty and wonder of Creation. Here are two taken from near home I quickly found at random . It is difficult to see it as “not good”. I try hard to see the corruption here.

DSCF5863DSCF8789 (1)

 

This is what we see in Genesis 1. God pronounces His original creation ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ It was a world of plenty and beauty without animal carnivory (Gen 1:30) and without corruption and death (Rom 8:21).

Yet this picture of an artistically-designed, beautiful world only fits within the chronology of 6-day creation.

 

P1010028.JPG

I’d be very surprised if any reader does not see this as a “picture of an artistically-designed, beautiful world”. Just look at the colours and delicacy of the plant’s structure and the exquisite tiny flowers coming into bloom. Many will recognise it as sundew (drosera rotundiflora) which is common in boggy areas. I found this ten miles from my home in a gorgeous boggy lake full of drosera and surrounded by Bog asphodel.

P1010023

Beautiful though it is, the sundew is  – er  – um -” a product of the Fall and Curse” as it is a  carnivorous plant and gains some sustainence from catching insects with those tentacles in the leaves. as well as that the boggy area is a morass of dead plants and animals in varying stages of decomposition. So if the sundew and bog asphodel are beautiful they are the result of the Fall and Curse!! This rather contradicts the claim that “this picture of an artistically-designed, beautiful world only fits within the chronology of 6-day creation”.

Further they are right to say “This is what we see in Genesis 1. God pronounces His original creation ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ It was a world of plenty and beauty …..” We see this good and very good all around us, and especially if we are tuned to see the wonder of creation in both large and small things.

DSCF1153

But then they say “It was a world of plenty and beauty without animal carnivory (Gen 1:30) and without corruption and death (Rom 8:21).” Well, we see a world of plenty and beauty WITH corruption and animal death. We must ask how the Fall and Curse changed creation. The photos I chose all show a world of plenty and beauty with carnivory present! Gen 1 vs 30 has to be squeezed very hard to make it affirm carnivory. I’ll deal with Romans 8 later.

If one adopts the conventional chronology, one must accept that the Earth was absent from the universe for its first 9 billion years. After a galactic cooling event, the Earth slowly formed through billions of years of uninhabitable environments. God eventually created the first complex marine life, then progressively created or evolved different types of organisms. These experienced death and massive extinction events that led to the destruction of trillions of living creatures.

All this happened long before the appearance of Adam and Eve.

I realize that some Christians may not be interested in these sorts of details. Yet anyone who chooses to accept an old universe implicitly accepts the historical events that go with it. It is a history filled with lifelessness and death, not the goodness of God.

This flight of fancy begs some questions. Yes, we have a long evolution over 13.4 billion years and during most of that there was no life – but why is that bad? To correct an error of emotive appeal, the earth was not “slowly formed through billions of years of uninhabitable environments”. Yes, earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, but life was almost certainly there by 4 billion. There has been life ever since.  But even “lifeless creation” has beauty and wonder.

119

Now this is the “lifeless” view from the present summit of Mt St Helens taken in October 2009. The foreground is “lifeless” lava and glacier! Behind the area was wiped clean of most life in May 1980, but is now regenerating.

2. Adam’s Sin Resulted in Universal Corruption and Death

According to the conventional chronology, corruption has always been a part of the universe. This can be seen in the fossil record which supposedly represents 540 million years of animal suffering and death. It provides snapshots of a world often full of thorns and thistles.

It’s a funny use of corruption, when it is used to denigrate the endless cycle if the universe changing over time. The universe has a history of stars being born and dying, but why is that corruption? The next sentence is rather inaccurate. The fossil record goes back 4 billion years, not 540 million!!

In this view, Adam’s sin could not have been the ultimate cause of universal corruption. As an historical event, his disobedience occurred long after “corruption” was present. Of course , their assertion is that the earth is young and geological and cosmological ages are wrong. But no evidence for that is given. Neither do they point out that arguments for these vast ages go back 300 years or so, so cannot be laid at the door of Darwin.

By ‘6-day creation,’ I’m referring not just to one’s view of Genesis 1, but to an entire chronology of historical events. These include the immediate creation of everything in six normal days, a Fall that brought corruption and death into the universe, and a global Flood that destroyed the world.

Where does it say the Fall brought “corruption”  to the universe. It is simply not in any version of Genesis 3. Yes, Genesis 3 speaks of thorns and thistles (vs18) but not animal death, earthquakes or anything else. They really need to show that DAY must mean 24 hours. For 2000 years Christians have varied on this and though until about 1680 most reckoned the earth to be young, a significant number did not on theological grounds as they had no scienitific evidence to guide them.

Further the popularity of their view of corruption stems from Milton’s poem Paradise Lost, rather than a theological consensus.

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/why-the-apple-didnt-kill-adam-and-eve/

However animal pain and death is a problem to all who beleive in a benifient God. As Darwin asked about the Ichneumon fly and a cat playing with a mouse

ichneumon

 

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/parasitic-wasps-and-the-death-of-jesus-with-hat-tip-to-darwin/

Ultimately there is no resolution and either the Curse or “billions of years of suffering and death ” does not get God off the hook!! It is a hard thing to accept that God created a world with death and suffering, but equally hard if God introduced death and suffering because a pair of nudists went scrumping.  It is irresolvable.

Or even more starkly 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1158800625775206400

This is what Paul affirms in Romans 8:21. It is what Christian theology has always affirmed: Adam was given dominion over the entire creation at the beginning; when he sinned, the entire creation was subjected to corruption as a consequence of its unique relationship to him.

Here we have the usual appeal to Rom 8 vs21. It is the standard interpretation but not unanimous. This turns on the translation of several Greek words. The word translated creation is ktisis, which can mean humanity in both parts of the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers. Few accept that today, but it was the view of the 18th century commentator John Gill and the 17th century John Lightfoot, who dated creation to 3926BC, making him more young earth than Ussher.

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/mis-reading-romans-chapter-8/

Too many “orthodox” (i.e old earth) theologians seem to go for a Fall in creation as did the commentators Sanday and Headlem and also NT Wright  in Evil and the Justice of God p 117 and p109.

There is a lack of clear thinking in this area, but it must be said that if the earth is even a few million years old, then death is of the order of creation and not due to a Fall. Creationists cash in on this lack of clarity. Perhaps I spent too long in scorching temperatures in the Namib Desert sorting out the geology !!

3. The Pattern of Creation-Fall-Redemption Culminates in the New Creation

If the universe contained death and corruption that wasn’t the result of Adam’s sin, what does that mean for Jesus’s redemption of both man and creation?

This is a superficially appealing argument, BUT it shifts the emphasis of the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross from the atonement of human sin to sorting out the mess of the Fall and Curse.

Consider His miracles: He was re-forming the world according to the goodness of the original creation. Whether Jesus was healing the sick, raising the dead, or feeding the hungry, He was showing that redemption results in tangible bounty to actual people. It is a goodness that culminates with the new creation. Passages in the Prophets and Revelation suggest a return to the space-time goodness of the original creation.

Yet it is only the chronology of 6-day creation that provides the historical framework for this pattern to have meaning.

If the original creation was not good, or if the Fall did not transform that creation into something evil, then what is the real nature of our redemption? And what is the real potential of the new creation?

For the bookends of creation to match, they must be mirrors of each other. This is only possible with 6-day creation.

This is a bit rambling.

4. Scripture Must be Used to Interpret Scripture

In the Odyssey, when Penelope wants to prove her husband’s identity, she requests he shoot an arrow through 12 axe handles placed in a row. She knows he is the only one who can do it. In the same way, although different interpretations claim to be accurate, only those which pass intact through the entirety of the Bible are true.

This is what we see with the events associated with 6-day creation: they are affirmed throughout the entire Bible.

Whether it is Moses connecting creation week with a normal week in the fourth commandment; or Isaiah affirming God created man at the same time He created the heavens and the earth; or Jesus explaining the global destruction of the Flood in light of His second coming; or Luke tracing the history of the world through a single genealogy; or Paul relating the work of Adam to the work of Christ; or Peter showing the relationship between the creation, global flood, and judgment to come, there is only one historical sequence that consistently fits: 6-day creation.

This is not what it says as it is an appeal claiming that THEIR interpretation is correct and the others wrong. To interpret Scripture one must use other parts of Scripture, but alway consider the context and genre and use extra-biblical information, especially on the cultural context.

5. Essential Doctrines are Embedded in History

Last year, I had lunch with a friend who takes a more liberal view of the Bible. As he heard what was in the film, he said, “if there really was a global flood, that changes everything.” This is similar to the line of thinking we see in Acts: if a man really rose from the dead, that changes everything.

Paul establishes the necessary connection between the events of history and Christian doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15. Peter does the same in 2 Peter 3 with creation, the flood, and the final judgment.

Yet it is only within the historical framework of 6-day creation that all these events cohere to the fabric of time.

For instance, if the thick fossil-bearing rock layers are the result of a global flood, they are a physical reminder of God’s global judgment on the earth in the past—as well as in the future.

If, however, one adopts the conventional chronology, those huge layers are merely a testimony to millions of years. God’s judgment is erased from the earth—and perhaps overlooked in the future.

This is based on an obvious assumption  and that is that the history of the New Testament is the same as early Genesis. It is hard to say they are. This overlooks so many differences. I note that they look to God’s judgement in the Flood as if this were a proof of a young earth.

6. Presuppositional Thinking Helps Us Understand the Discipline of Science

Finally, what about science itself?

When I started researching our documentary, I came across a book entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Although there is much that could be said about Kuhn, his method is easy for philosophically-minded Christians to grasp: he applies presuppositional thinking to the discipline of science.

Anyone who has read Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til can see the similarities between them:

Both point out that data is not “value-neutral,” but that people bring a ‘set of glasses’ toward the interpretation of the world around them. Both recognize the intense commitment people have toward certain views to the exclusion of all others. Both note that groups consistently interpret what they observe in light of their base presuppositions.

Night Sky

Now what makes Kuhn interesting is that he explores the history of science in light of this thinking. The result is that he effectively questions the absolute epistemological authority of modern science.

This is a total misreading of Kuhn. He argued that accumulated evidence changes the “paradigm” of scientists  eg geocentricity to heliocentricity. It was not a case of changing “presuppositions”. It can also be done on geological time and evolution (though Kuhn did this v badly), plate tectonics etc. People did not change their views on geological time due to changing presuppositions, but accumulated evidence gleaned from a methodologically naturalistic perspective. Thus scientists gradually changed their views on the age of the earth, from a few thousand in 1660 to millions in 1800 to billions by 1910. It is often overlooked that many of these geologists were Christians.

Having read both Van Til and Kuhn I cannot see the similarities, though I have to admit I’m a fan of neither!

 

In Closing

I regret the abbreviated nature of these thoughts. They are only a few of the many I arrived at during my three year process researching this film. I have explored them at greater depth in the Is Genesis History? Bible Study that accompanies the film.

In closing, it is my strongest conviction as a Christian that 6-day creation is the only longterm viable option for Christian theology. As D. Martin Lloyd-Jones said, “I have no gospel unless Genesis is history.”

They have not made their case!! To claim Genesis is history as we know it today is to make the Gospel incredible and thus no gospel.

Michael’s Conclusion; is Genesis History?

In the normal sense NO and it does not claim to be. To ask this question and to put it in a way that you must answer YES is to misunderstand early Genesis and the rest of the Bible.

It stems from the view that the bible is written in the same way from Genesis to Revelation and all is equally “history”. The Bible is variable on history. When we study the Gospels and Acts we find that is akin to our historcal understanding today and that of its time. It can stand alongside Caesar’s Gallic Wars as a narrative account. This, in itself, does not mean it is accurate history and Caesar was prone to massaging the facts for his own purposes. Opinions vary on the historical reliability of the New Testament, but I am persuaded that it is reliable history, and to some I take a hopelessly conservative position.

Once we consider the Old Testament things change. and its historicity and reliability  becomes less the earlier the events are. From Saul onwards i.e. after c1000BC the account fits with other contemporary accounts. But this is far less so for the Exodus and conquest, though some link it to contemporary events. For the Patriarchs – Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, the sitz-im-leben is the early Second Millenium, but there is no supporting evidence. Hence some say the Patriarchs are non- historical figures. I disagree there.

And so we come to Genesis 1 to 11, the substance of these films and blog. It is fair to say they were seen as history until the 18th century, but discoveries of an ancient earth – both geological and anthropological challenged that.

Most important is to see the historicity of Jesus Christ and not a pair of anti-diluvian nudists.

I reckon G M Hopkins gives us a better way to consider Genesis

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/gods-grandeur-gerard-manley-hopkins/

(Some) American Lutherans Become creationist

 

Caution Creationists3

Martin Luther was the first in the Reformation in 1517, and what followed laster , in a sense, always looked back to him whether Calvin or even Anglicans. The subsequent history of the Lutherans in Europe is most significant, but not relevant here.

As many Germans emigrated to north America they took their Lutheranism with them. As an aside the early USA nearly made German, rather than English, the official language. That is a topic for an alternative history. As groups who emigrate tend to be more conservative than those left at home this was the case of Lutherans .

Lutherans varied, but in the Midwest many took ultra-conservative views on inerrancy and even on geocentricity as this long quote from my book Evangelicals and Science shows

LUTHERAN GEOCENTRICITIES
Whereas no other Protestants questioned the Copernican system in the
nineteenth century, some conservative Lutherans in themid-west rejected
heliocentricity in favor of geocentricity. To go back to the sixteenth century,
Martin Luther (1483–1546), possibly dismissed Copernicus’s theory
of a heliocentric universe, and perhaps that fact explainswhymodern geocentric
beliefs seemto have beenmore common among Lutherans. Exactly
how strongly Luther objected to Copernicanism is difficult to ascertain as
his comments are to be found only in his Table Talk, which was collected
together by his followers and may not be reliable. At the end of the sixteenth
century both Tycho Brahe (a geostatist rather than a geocentrist)
who rejected Copernicanism and Johannes Kepler were Lutherans, but
even so Lutherans were more hostile to Copernicanism than Calvinists.
As a result of German immigration to the mid-west strong Lutheran
communities formed especially in Missouri and Wisconsin. One of the
leaders was German-born Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (1811–1887)
who came to St. Louis in 1838 to be a pastor. He also founded a seminary,
a publishing house, and a theological journal and was president of the
German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other states
(forerunner of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), which dates from
1847 and a leading figure in the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference
of North America, which was formed in 1872. (Noll, 1992, p. 216)
These bodies were largely self-contained until large-scale immigration
from Germany ceased in the 1930s, and they kept aloof from the indigenous
American evangelicals. Even in the 1930s they were reluctant to pray
with other Protestants and more recently would not allow Southern Baptists
and others to receive communion with them. Walther disparaged
Copernican astronomy in the pages of the synod’s official publication, Der
Lutheraner. The theologian F. A. Pieper (1852–1931) also rejected Copernicanism,
as did August Graebner (1849–1904), who insisted that if the
Copernican systemdisagreedwith the Bible, “the heliocentric systemmust
fall” (Numbers, 1991, p. 106). Several other works were published like J.
C. W. Lindemann’s (d1879) Astronomishe Unterredung zwischen einem Liebhaber
der Astronomie und meheren ber ¨uhmten Astronomen der Neuzeit, worin
deutliche Auskunft gegeben wird ¨uber die Untr ¨uglichkeit des Kopernikanischen
Sonnen-Systems published in1873. Hencemost geocentricworks published
in America between 1870 and 1920 were written by members (mainly
clergy) of the forerunners of the LCMS and that geocentricity was widely
taught within the synod. These were discussed by Friedrich E. Pasche’s
1906 book Bibel und Astronomie, which also discussed about sixty passages
from the Bible that indicate an unmoving earth and/or a moving sun. In
1915 he also wrote in English, Fifty Reasons:Copernicus or the Bible. Philosophy
and vain deceit, or true science? Which Is Right? and showed that there
were fifty reasons why Copernicanism was wrong!
During the twentieth century these Germanic Lutherans slowly gave up
geocentricity, but not their insistence on a young earth. which is to be seen
in the numbers of Lutheran flood geologists in the inter-war years and
the division of the Lutheran Church into the Lutheran Church Missouri
Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA)
in the 1970s, which was over inerrancy and biblical literalism.
THE RETURN

In the early 20th century many mid-west Lutherans rejected  Evolution and geological time  as did Theodore Graebner in many books. He also accepted Mccready Price’s odd ideas.

Thus in the 60s the Lutherans were polarised into the ultra-consevatives and liberals and moderated. By the 70s there was a split with the more liberal ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. (LCMS) .

Lutheran-church

The LCMS was very conservative opting for inerrancy in its strongest form. It was also opposed to evolution and the telephone numbers of geological time!! some members rejected this, but the common policy of the church and its colleges was young earth creationist.

This is where I come in. In 2000 Concordia College, Mequon, Milwaukee in Wisconsin hosted a conference on Design. All the ID crowd were there, Behe, Mayer, Dembski et al, and others including Michael ruse, Ted Davis etc. It was a good conference but I found that unless you agreed 200% with ID you were an out cast. However I found concordia only taught YEC, which disturbed me. As Concordia renewed contracts annually it was difficult for an academic to dissent as his contract would not be renewed. Hence if a prof suggested that the earth might just be a million years old, he was liable to lose his job. That is hardly the environment for open critical academic thinking.

Since then I have casually followed goings-on of the LCMS and saw no loosening on their anti-evolution and YEC stance. And so last month it became official doctrine

At the 67th Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on Tuesday [23 July 2019], the theologically conservative denomination adopted Resolution 5-09A, titled ‘To Confess the Biblical Six-Day Creation.’”1

This clearly makes it impossible for any pastor, or  academic at a college to be anything but YEC. I suppose they will have to keep quiet, if only to keep their jobs.

Most important, is that a significant US has insisted on YEC as in its basis of faith. Here the Southern Baptists are not far behind , especially if Alber Mohler gets his way.

At best LCMS has made a secondary issue a primary one, but what it has done is to exclude all those devout Christians , who do not accept YEC, for the simple reason that is is utterly wrong.

We shall see what happens, and whether the Southern Baptists follow suit. (Ironically it qwas a Southern Baptist minister who guided me to christian alternatives to YEC while I was at L’abri many decades ago.)

creationist binjgo

Well, now you can read Creation Ministries International gleeful commentary on it…………..

As for me, I shall remain a heretic, who actually subscribes to the Nicene Creed !! I am grateful for all Anglicans and those from other churches who have taken a sensible, rational and truthful approach to science

BmZJVIpCEAEmHN_

Source: Lutherans take stand on creation – creation.com

Is Genesis really poetry?

One of the many creationist groups is Biblical Creation & Apologetics Ministries, which has a facebook group which mostly reprints articles from Creation ministries and answers in Genesis. Unlike many they do allow heretics like me to post on their page !!

You can read them here

https://www.facebook.com/pg/BiblicalCreation/about/?ref=page_internal

One of their latest (27/7/19)  is on whether Genesis is poetry. This question polarises conclusions to either being poetry and thus not true , or not poetry and true. This is slick and unconvincing to many, but good for the faithful.

https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalCreation/photos/a.207326895983895/2250443738338857/?type=3&theater

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Biblical Authority: Is Genesis Poetry?

The idea that ‘Genesis doesn’t tell us how God created’ is one of those vague half-truths that fails to address the specifics of either the passage or the issue that the statement is trying to comment on. To be precise, we want to know whether Genesis contradicts the prevailing ‘billions of years’ framework for the history of nature. For that, we need to know: what does Genesis 1 tell us about the history of nature, if it tells us anything? There are good reasons to think Genesis 1 does indeed refer to the past (see Genesis as ancient historical narrative [http://bit.ly/2ydR7KM]). And there are several crucial historical questions Genesis 1 does answer.

1. Who created? God.

2. What did God create? The heavens and earth in their vast array.

3. By what means did God create? He spoke, and things came to be.

4. How long did God take to create? Six days (e.g. Exodus 20:8–11).

5. When did God create? At the beginning (with no prior beginning for any class of creature explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1, which includes the earth, the sky, all forms of animals and plants, and all stars).

https://creation.com/genesis-not-poetic

And here in slow motion dealing with each point

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Biblical Authority: Is Genesis Poetry?

The idea that ‘Genesis doesn’t tell us how God created’ is one of those vague half-truths that fails to address the specifics of either the passage or the issue that the statement is trying to comment on. To be precise, we want to know whether Genesis contradicts the prevailing ‘billions of years’ framework for the history of nature. For that, we need to know: what does Genesis 1 tell us about the history of nature, if it tells us anything? There are good reasons to think Genesis 1 does indeed refer to the past (see Genesis as ancient historical narrative [http://bit.ly/2ydR7KM]). And there are several crucial historical questions Genesis 1 does answer.

1. Who created? God. My answer

Absolutely. This is fundamental to any theist. We may be baffled at who God is – and I am – but God is creator of all

I go further and insist on creatio ex nihilo – creation from nothing

Perhaps it is best summed up in William Temple’s equations

God- world = God

World – god = 0

You can follow this up in most Christian writers of creation

2. What did God create? The heavens and earth in their vast array. My answer

Yup, the whole lot.

But now we diverge.

3. By what means did God create? He spoke, and things came to be. My answer

Genesis and the rest of the Bible affirms that God is creator but doesn’t say how. Whichever passage you turn too in the old or New Testament, there is AFFIRMATION of god as creator, often in poeticised form, but never  a description of how God created.

To say “He spoke, and things came to be.” is a paraphrase of the refrain in genesis One and says nothing about how god did it. At worst it is parroting meaninglessness.

Calvin

calvin

in his commentary on Genesis in the 1550s realised this ( as did and do all intelligent Christian writers) when he wrote

He who would understand astronomy and other recondite arts let him go elsewhere.

For 2000 years theologians have grappled with this question and their conclusions are usually reflect the science of their day.  To my knowledge none say how God did it.

Perhaps they should have considered aspects like the nature of the firmament and the problem of Day 4

storehouse-300x165

 

He spoke, and things came to be. is simply a cheap rhetorical advice designed to convince/browbeat those of little understanding

4. How long did God take to create? Six days (e.g. Exodus 20:8–11). My answer

That is a simple answer to a complex question. We can approach it in three ways;

  1. we can look at genesis in a simple way without reference to anything else and say “ah, it is 144 Hours.”
  2. We can start from modern science with a 13 billion year old universe and the rest and say “science says this and thus Genesis is wrong and has no value.”
  3. Or we can consider how Christian theologians have considered the time factor of Creation over the last 2000 years AND consider the developing scientific understanding over the last 3000 years.

5. When did God create? At the beginning (with no prior beginning for any class of creature explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1, which includes the earth, the sky, all forms of animals and plants, and all stars). My answer

Of course god created at the beginning!!! The question which has baffled theologians and scientists for 2000 years is WHEN.

Until the 17th century there was no scientific evidence on the age of the earth or universe. Even so Christian scholars varied on the when of Creation. Many from Barnabas and Theophilus until Ussher went for a few thousand years ago, with Ussher an his immortal 4004BC.

They saw Genesis one in a variety of ways, some took each day as 24 hours, others say God created chaos first and then later ordered the chaos (e.g. Prudentius in the 4th century.)

Things began to change in the 1680s and credit goes to Edward Lhwyd for his observations of “fallen” blocks below Snowdon in Nant Peris. As only one had fallen in living memory and there were hundreds, he concluded that the earth might be a lot older.soon others found more evidence.By 1800 few educated people and fewer “scientists” thought the earth wasn’t ancient, though opinions were divided whether it was millions or a few hundred thousand!

Geology exploded after 1800 and Anglican clergy, like Buckland,

bucklandWilliam Smith's A Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales with part of Scotland (1815)

Conybeare and Sedgwick made major contributions. When Darwin went to Wales with Sedgwick in 1831 few accepted Ussher’s date.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

However the actual dates were impossible and various rough guesses were made from 20 million to several billion. That gordion knot was untied with the advent of radiometric age dating in 1907 and since 1946 the age of the earth has been known to be 4.6 billion.

 

These published papers of mine deal with aspects of this

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/09/26/does-geology-destroy-god-genesis-and-geologyseven-papers/

2876Featured Image -- 5288

Astronomers were slower! By 1800 they knew the earth had to be millions beca=use of the distance of some stars being 2  million light years away. More came with Fr le Maitre’s ideas of the 1920s which led to the concept of a Big Bang, which superceded steady state understandings after controversies fuelled by Fred Hoyle.

Featured Image -- 11353

Even so the date of the formation of the universe was in question with dates between 8 and 20 billion years but by 2000 this had settled to 13.4 billion. If you wish for more on this yopu will need to follow it up elsewhere.

Yet all this science is rejected by creationists. Surely ALL geologists and cosmologists can’t be wrong!!!!

SH16DARWIN2

Is Genesis poetry? my answer

An answer-begging question with the implication that Genesis will loses its value if it is poetic. It would be correct to say that early Genesis is NOT poetic, but contains aspects of poetry in chap 1 and various imagery and old Ancient Near Eastern ideas to convey what the author intended. Psalm 8 and the end of Job are clearly poetic in the way they deal with creation. That does not make them untrue.

One of the best evocations of God as creator is the poem God’s Grandeur  by G M Hopkins. Through his poetry he brings out the Christian understanding of Creation

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/gods-grandeur-gerard-manley-hopkins/

Yes, Genesis has a narrative style, but that does not mean it is historical. Scholars have discussed this for centuries. Few, if any, scholars of repute reckon it gives a historical account and see it more as a statement of faith in a creator written from the culture of the writer, rather than giving historical and scientific evidence. It is a ringing affirmation that God is the Creator. Again so much has been written on this by Christians from the perspective of catholic, Evangelical or more liberal. visting the sites of the american Science Affiliation, Biologos, Faraday Institute or Christians in Science give many good articles.

 

But with a refrain at the end of each day, genesis one has a poetical slant

 So God made the ….. And it was so.
 God called the ……………… And there was evening and there was morning, the  nth day. 

 

 

 

Lost World of John Walton – creation.com

Last month Creation.con decided to shred me for my blog on Premier Radio.

This month month it is the turn of Prof J Walton of Wheaton College, Chicago on his trilogy of Genesis one,

Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe800px-Creation_Museum_10

the Fall

 

and the Flood.

A book for sale at the Ark Encounter gift shop. You can see on the cover that the felines all came from a single common ancestor cat on the Ark.

 

The god folk at Creation ministries are not happy bunnies and they also don’t like Steve Moshier on geology

Enjoy the read and see how they are stuck in an inconsistent position and do nothing for the Gospel.

Better is to read Walton’s books

Source: Lost World of John Walton – creation.com

Michael Roberts gets slaughtered by Oz Creationists!– rebuttal of 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist – Part 1 – creation.com

 

315500_393800870693304_2100848630_n

Last year Premier Christian Radio asked me to write a blog “10 questions to ask a young earth creationist”.

I attempted to focus on the essentials

I duly did that and here is what they published

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist-premier-christianity/

I published my first draft as a blog and it is slightly longer and fuller. Even so there was much I left out and wanted to expand. Here it is

https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/is-the-earth-old-or-young-questions-for-creationists/

In the ensuing three months from publication I hadn’t heard much, but now I am being honoured with a two part rebuttal from the lovely people at Creation Ministries International.

Here is the first installment

Source: Answering the Premier Christianity article by Michael Roberts – 10 questions to ask a young earth creationist – Part 1 – creation.com