Is the earth old or young? Questions for creationists

TEN QUESTIONS TO ASK A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST?

Don’t worry if you meet Christians who say to be a real Christian you must believe in a Young Earth, or if the local village atheist tells you that as a Christian you must believe that Creation took place in 4004BC.

At first sight it may seem that to believe the Bible we must believe in a Young Earth. After all Genesis One writes of creation in six days not billions of years. But for the last 2000 years most Christians have not believed in a Young Earth and it is only in the last half century that it has become a big issue for some Christians.

Here I will ask questions of Young Earthers, and why they reject all the geology which tells of an ancient earth. To put it simply; is the earth young or old?

1. Is the Gospel more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?

Rock of Ages cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee

The centre of the Gospel is the crucified and risen Christ, and everything in the Old Testament leads up to that and Jesus, not the age of my rock collection, is the heart of the Christian Faith. Jesus is the Rock of Ages, but ages of rocks are worked out by geologists and at times that can be difficult and maybe the ages shift after corrections. I was lucky to be the fourth geologist ever to go to the Richtersveld in South Africa. The geology was fantastic, but I questioned some ages and after a few weeks I decided that some rocks were only 900 million years old rather than the 2,400 million previous geologists claimed! Not a bad reduction. I am pleased to say that my conclusions are accepted by all geologists today – but I could have got it wrong. Not bad for a 23 year old. (This won’t happen in Britain as hundreds of geologists have visited every outcrop!)

But I haven’t changed my views on the Rock of Ages.

2. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical? Some try so hard to claim that there is science in the Bible and that according to the Bible the earth is spherical. Not so fast, please. Genesis dates from before 1000BC and the first demonstrations that the earth was spherical were by the Greeks in about 500BC. Before that all thought the earth was flat. This is what the writer of Genesis thought, as did people from Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia.

How the ancient Israelites imagined the earth and heavens

 

Some force the issue by claiming Is 40 vs22 points to the earth being spherical. The translations rightly say a “circle” not a sphere. It is not possible to read a spherical earth into Genesis 1 vs 6- 8. This is because the Bible is not interested in science and so I give two 400 year old quotes. Galileo said “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go.” And Calvin said “He, who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” Thus we go elsewhere to astronomers  – and to geologists for the age of the earth.

3. How could people in 1000BC or even30AD grasp the idea of geological time? The answer is simply NO, as no one had suggested it and any suggestion of millions of years was not in the running. Many people today find the idea of the earth being billions of years old almost unbelieveable. Tracing out the history of geology, geologists gradually began to see that the earth was older than Ussher’s age of 4004BC after 1680. Looking at the rocks in Nant Peris in Snowdonia the Rev John Ray, a great botanist, began to wonder if the earth was older than Ussher had suggested. He was tentative and rather sceptical, but was asking the right questions. By 1800 most thought the age of the earth was in millions and that included most Christians. In the 20^th century radiometric age dating showed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That is based on the physics of radioactivity and has nothing to do with evolution. If the dates are wrong then so is all physics.

The geological column and time

4. Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way? Different biblical writers use language in many ways as we do, using narrative, poetry, simile, metaphor. And then the narrative could be history, story, or parable. At times narrative, even when historical, may contain poetry. Thus Genesis One appears to be narrative at first sight but then each day is written in a poetic-like form; “Then God said, ‘Let there be…” followed by “And God saw that …. Was good” with a refrain “And there was evening and morning…” Just because poetry is used does not mean it is “untrue”. Psalm 23 is pure poetry using great imagery to bring out the love of God.

 

5. Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian? In a sense, neither the age nor the shape of the earth matters. In about 360AD St Basil of Caesarea wrote in his commentary on Genesis that it did not matter whether the earth is spherical, cylindrical or a disc, even though at that time most scholars opted for spherical. Thus for a Christian the earth could be 10,000, 10,000,000 or 10,000,000, 000 years old and it does not matter which, as the Bible is not clear on the matter. But to go against the proven results of science is simply folly. The earth IS 4.6 billion years old. For 250 years now geologists have only found evidence for an ancient earth and none for a young earth.

6a. Surely Death came in when Adam ate the fruit in Eden? Often people assume that death came into the world for all living things when Adam ate the “apple”. This is often called “the Curse”. If this is correct then, no animals died before the Fall so the earth must be young. Now that is the end of any Old Earther!

BUT!! What does Genesis 3 say? It says nothing about animals and whether they only died after the Fall. So this has been read into Genesis and cannot be read out of Genesis 3. (Exegesis) Thus the Bible is silent.

To expand, this view comes from John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost and just should not be part of Christian belief.  

But nowhere is that said in Genesis 3, as no mention is made of the death of animals but only of Adam and Eve.

6b. If there was no curse, why did Jesus die? The New Testament is very clear; Jesus died to forgive humanity and every book of the New Testament supports that. This comes down from “God so loved the world” John 3 vs 16 to God so loved me. To say Jesus died to reverse the Curse, takes away from the central Christian belief that Jesus died for sinners, both corporately and individually. It means that the Atonement instead of dealing with human sin, only deals with an postulated event of Genesis 3.

7. Is Young Earth the traditional Christian view? Many think so, but NO! The early Christians, right up to 1800, were not clear on the age of the earth as that depended on how literal they thought Genesis was and they had no geological evidence to guide them. Until the rise of geology many thought that the earth was thousands of years old. As geology began to show an old earth, most Christians accepted that as it did not affect Christian teaching. From 1850 onwards few Christians were Young Earth and it only came back in for some in the 1960s, with the coming of Young Earth Creationism in Morris and Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood. Before then even most American evangelicals thought the earth was old.
8. Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief? I once did a field trip with an atheist geologist and as we chatted he said that belief in an ancient earth leads to atheism. We argued and got nowhere! Yet when you read a history of geology you soon find many geologists were Christians, from Steno in 1680 up until today. Most notable were the “reverend geologists” of the early 19^th Notable among these were Adam Sedgwick, William Buckland and William Coneybeare. Sedgwick gave us the Cambrian system and with others the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian. Buckland introduced the idea of Ice Ages to Britain. All were devout Christians and did not see how an ancient earth undermined the Christian Faith

William Buckland dressed for the field in 1842

9. 0 Did Christians oppose Old Earth Geology in the past? No and yes. Some did but most did not. I have to admit that this came as a surprise to me. From my superficial reading of science books and on religion and science I thought Christians opposed geology. But changed my mind as I did a historical study. Over several decades I have researched this question and read old theology books, journals, books by the hundred. I had to change my mind. I found that there were two myths; the first was that the churches opposed geology and this was used by atheists to say Christianity is wrong and secondly by some Christians to say geology was wrong and has atheist presuppositions.

I found that in the 17^th century Christians believed in a youngish earth as there was little geology to guide them. As geology was studied more in the 18^th century more and more educated Christians realised the earth was ancient. In the 19^th century a few argued for a young earth, but nearly all had no science, let along geology. Most Christians, often after study, concluded the earth was ancient. Very few Christians opposed geology fro the last few centuries.

10. Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong? I don’t know how many geologists have studied rocks and the strata in the last 350 years. Today there are 12,000 fellows of the Geological society of London and so there must be over 100,000 qualified geologists in the world. All except for about 20-30 “Young Earth” geologists accept the vast age of the earth. A few geologists in the 18^th and 19^th century also reckoned geological time was wrong.

Undoubtedly geologists make mistakes today and did so in the past. I can give a dozen examples from Charles Darwin alone. But his and other geologists’ mistakes are minor.

So far no “Young Earther” has given an argument against geological time which has any validity.

Conclusion;

I will repeat. The heart of the Gospel is Jesus, the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks.

Geologists were not following an atheist philosophy to destroy Christianity but careful observers, many of whom were Christians, developing the science of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton in their study of rocks. From their many mistakes they built up a complex picture of the earth developing over billions of years and gave a beautiful picture of the age and structure of the earth. Though I left professional geology decades ago I still get a wow-experience when I look at the geological structure of the earth as I did when walking in the Lakes and Dales in recent weeks. It’s like unravelling a slow-motion revelation by God.

I hope these answers to ten questions show that old earth geology is to be embraced as not only is it not opposed to Christianity but reveals a fantastic picture of the history of our planet over 4 billion years. Every time I go out and casually observe the scenery I see how wonderful this picture is, Last week it was a walk over some Lakeland mountains where I say fascinating volcanic rocks from 450 million years ago and the effects of the Ice Age.

I have omitted all discussion of geology but this is a good blog by a Christian geologist https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/100-reasons-the-earth-is-old-2/

I graduated in geology fifty years ago, a few weeks after becoming a Christian. I worked as a geologist for a few years and then was ordained. I have kept up my geology and find the geological picture produced by geologists as fascinating, coherent and full of wonder, showing the Creative work of God.

Thus when I visit a place like Cwm Idwal in Snowdonia, as I do every year, I sea shear beauty, the wonder of God the Creator and its geology going back 450 million years when these volcanic rocks erupted. To me they are all one.

 

 

 

Great to say Hubble’s law is to be renamed to include Fr Lemaitre’s name. The priest-physicist who effectively gave us the big bang.

It rather squashes the usual science versus religion outlook!

via Give Credit where credit is due!

Divest your church this Season of Creation: 1 September to 4 October 2018 – Bright Now

The month of September has been designated the Season of creation which is a magnificent idea as so often God as Creator and his Creation has been sidelined, almost to the point that the Gospel is just about Post-mortem salvation, with only a narrow concern on personal ethics. Or the more “liberal” who have a social concern but are indifferent to the environment and thus Creation.

In my church we are having Sept 2 to Oct 14 as our Season of Creation as it is bounded by Harvest Services and a Pet Service. That gives great opportunity to consider a variety of themes on God as creator, human responsibility to Creation, whether plants , animals, minerals,water and the need to ensure that there is enough for all.

There is much to consider apart from the Big bad wolf of fossil fuels, which at times become THE only issue.

As part of the Season of Creation Operation Noah  has launched a campaign to encourage parishes and local churches to divest from fossil fuels.

This follows the partial divestment by the General Synod of the Church of England in July 2018. Operation Noah did not thinkt hey went far enough

This is the blog of the new campaign  http://brightnow.org.uk/action/divest-your-church-season-of-creation/

As our scorching summer gradually begins to fade into autumn, the Bright Now campaign is inviting local churches to support the movement for fossil free Churches. Could you join us in this next stage of the campaign? ………………

Source: Divest your church this Season of Creation: 1 September to 4 October 2018 – Bright Now

Their aim is to encourage all to divest totally from fossil fuels as soon as possible. In their reports Bright Now of 2013 http://brightnow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bright-Now-Report.pdf and Fossil free Churches: Accelerating the transition to a brighter, cleaner future on June 2018 http://brightnow.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Bright-Now-Transition-Report-2018-web.pdf they give very clear and forceful arguments which divestment should be done immediately, with a large number of references.

If these two reports are the only things you read, then you will conclude that for the sake of the planet and humanity, immediate divestment is the only ethical action. Here they are in line with groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, McKibben’s 350.org and many fossil fuel campaigns.

However I consider the whole Operation Noah  and Bright Now campaigns and reports to be very inadequate and misleading, and thus fatally flawed.

Major Issues simply disregarded

First there are aspects about fossil fuels and energy which they simply ignore.

1. Fossil fuels are more than fuel
2. Renewables will not be able to replace fossil fuels for decades
3. Fossil fuels vary in dirtiness

Now to consider each in turn.

1. Fossil fuels are more than fuel

Fossil fuels are used for far more than providing energy as this picture shows.

Fossil fuels are used for Medicines, Cosmetics, Plastics, synthetic rubber, cleaning products, and asphalt. They could have included artificial fertilisers without which many in our world would starve and the making of essential chemicals like chlorine which means that our water is safe to drink.

  This gives some of the things made just from petroleum. Try to eliminate all these from your daily life!!

In fact about a third of each barrel of oil produced is , on average, not used for fuel. As for gas, some is used  to make plastics, fertilisers and other things.

Yes, I know, many plastic things are awful, especially the excessive use of single use plastic and it is great that these are campaigned against.

For those who do not have perfect health (or even eye-sight) we depend on plastic for so many things medical.

Perhaps  readers could get up one morning and vow to use nothing dependent or made from oil, gas or coal.  First, you will have no heat, Secondly no water, thirdly no electricity, fourthly, no clothes from artificial fibres, fifthly you can’t take your medicines, sixthly you can put your glasses on etc etc.

Renewables will not be able to replace fossil fuels for decades

It would be fantastic to get rid of all fossil fuels by the end of the year. That will not happen and cannot happen for several reasons.

Renewables are dependent on energy storage to tide one over when wind and solar produce no or little power. Batteries or other storage systems are simply not in place and hardly on the horizon.

Even if they were in place ramping up would take decades and not years.

Often we are told that renewables produced 30% of our power this year. This is true, but often no power is produced as on a cold windless winter’s night. Further electricity is only a third or so of our energy usage – industry, heat, trans[port and when that is taken into consideration renewables produce less than 10% of Britains’s energy.

This shows how energy is sourced on a world perspective

This earlier chart for 2015 shows how small the renewable contribution is. Note the question

This shows the change in the mix for UK energy this decade. The largest changes have been the decline of coal and rise of gas.

And a reminder that energy transitions take decades, not years.

I rest my case that divestment from fossil fuels is anything but premature and also folly  resulting in worldwide suffering. In fact I consider it a poor form of virtue signalling and is better for those divesting than our fellow humans who struggle with insufficient energy as well as everything else. I include those  in fuel poverty in our towns and cities.

Fossil fuels vary in dirtiness

There is no doubt that fossil fuels are dirty. Some of us remember the London pea-soupers. I think the last was early 1963 and the soup came within a hundred yards of our house in Surrey. I won’t forget the petrochemical smog around Chamonix when we were walking by a glacier, or the pall of coal smoke hovering over Llanrhaidr-ym-Mochnant while climbing the Berwyns in winter. Far worse is an open fire heating a hovel, but that is preferable to hypothermia.

Of all fossil fuels coal is by far the worst and emits more CO2 but also particulates, ash and radioactive particles. We know of diesel. The cleanest is gas and all scientific studies conclude that gas is by far and away the cleanest fossil fuel, except for one researcher – Robert Howarth. (However, the 2013 Bright Now report accepts Howarth’s outlying ideas due to relying on questionable secondary sources. But they did acknowledge that the switch to gas has reduced emissions.)

From this, it is a pity that Operation Noah did not prioritise getting rid of coal.

 

Having considered their serious omissions I will now consider some

Bad arguments

Discussed in my blog https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/the-church-of-england-and-divestment-july-2018/

The ON reports very much follow a leave it in the ground stance and say

5. The vast majority of known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if we are to have any chance of meeting the Paris Agreement targets. The reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone would take the world beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

This is in two parts. The first is a sweeping statement on the Paris Agreement and fails to make any distinction between the 3 fossil fuels. The fact that emissions of CHG from coal are vastly greater than oil, which is turn is greater than gas is simply ignored as is the proportion of each fuel which should be left in the ground. Also ignored is the wide-spread rejection of coal. This seems to be a rewrite of the Paris agreement and rather alters the meaning. Further no one has put it that baldly. The original source on keeping fossil fuels in the ground comes from a paper in Nature from University College London researchers. They distinguished between the three fossil fuels
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107131401.htm
A third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves globally should remain in the ground and not be used before 2050 if global warming is to stay below the 2°C target agreed by policy makers, according to new research by the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources.

This puts things in a very different light both on the timeframe and which fuels are to be left in the ground. In other words, coal needs to be left there but oil and gas will be used to 2050 – and will have to be simply to keep the lights on. There is clear to anyone who understand than energy transitions take DECADE not YEARS.

This attitude is often accompanied with the mantra keepitintheground which is great for chanting but does not solves problems of energy or emissions.

As serious is the lop-sided bias of Operation Noah reports, as I discuss in my blog referred to above. The authors seem to ignore anything apart from the most strident keepitintheground position, preferring the one-sided approaches of  the most strident greens and ignoring the more moderate (and in my view more constructive ones) of Lord Deben, Sir David Mackay, Dieter Helm and various others. It is wrong not to mention and consider them as it prevents the average churchmember and minister from considering a variety of viewpoints which are all concerned with doing the best for the planet and to fulfill the Paris agreement.

At best this is a case of shoddy argument, but is very misleading and prevents an honest discussion as other well-evidenced arguments are simply not presented.

Some may consider it to be duplicitous and slightly less than honest.

What has happened is that the churches’ witness for the environment , and particularly fossil fuels, has been hijacked by a group who are prepared to give a highly biased and often inaccurate argument for divestment. I also note that some members of Operation Noah are prepared to break the law to make their point.

It is very difficult for someone, even if they have some technical skills, to counter such strident arguments which are buttressed by claims to be ethical.

It is a pity that there are insufficient people in the churches, who have the technical expertise to present a more reasonable argument rather than virtue signalling.

 

I rest my case and there is much more i could have said………….

 

 

Perhpsw the church can learn form McDonalds, but we need to give a better diet!!

 

via Lessons from McDonalds

A new argument against evolution

Not quite a new argument. It has been around for decades as I found on an Evangelical Alliance conference in the 1990s.

Some were aghast I thought it was totally wrong

But such is the nuttiness of Creationists – or – how they misread the Bible

Primate's Progress

This from the Hebrides News:

If, as evolutionists claim, all of mankind evolved from the same primitive life-source, then how did we end up with 7,000 different languages? The Bible teaches in Genesis 11: 7-,9 that God created all the different languages at Babel…

If mankind had advanced through a so-called evolutionary process, then there should still be developing languages today. However, the stark fact is mankind’s languages are vanishing from civilization at an alarming rate – thus proving that evolution is a lie. And if evolution were true, then the process by which mankind has obtained 7,000 languages would be continuing today. Has the evolutionary process ceased? According to the Bible it never happened in the first place.

The Earth, of course, is 6,000 years old. As for purported evidence to the contrary,

View original post 256 more words

How should we respond to this transgender moment?

A sensitive treatment of a difficult subject

 

 

Source: How should we respond to this transgender moment?

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank;

So Charles Darwin begins the last paragraph of The Origin of Species. Now entangled banks are very common in Britain especially at the side of roads and country lanes. As a youngster Darwin must have ridden or walked past many near his home in Shrewsbury, including those on the way to Woodhouse when he went to see his first girl-friend, Fanny Mostyn Owen.

To me our entangled banks are a joy throughout the year and are very good for the succession of wild flowers, which cannot be reached by those despoiler of nature with their mowing machines.

Here are some taken in May 2018. The first five were taken on the lane by Millbeck just below Skiddaw which I climbed today. The last two are near Goosenargh by Preston. Here one can only see spring flowers and related plants, with no visible fauna. Also invisible are the microbial and fungal life which are very much present and essential to thriving life. To few are aware of them.

I could have identified every flower and fern, but have left that to one side. To me there are two routes to the appreciation of nature/creation. One is identifying every creature, whether plant, animal or fungus and the other is more emotive and reflective and that is, to use a contemporary term, to “bathe in it”. In other words we simply enjoy what we see and experience and to be filled with awe and wonder.

I have long felt that Darwin went down the second route as he wrote the final paragraph of The Origin. It wasn’t entirely his own as it has echoes in an earlier piece by Sir David Brewster.

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Yet he seems to follow the two routes flitting like an insect or wren between the two. Perhaps we ought to flit like that as well and move easily from aesthetic awe to a scientific understanding and not see them in conflict. He starts like a nature mystic, worthy of any tree hugger and then flits to science as “all been produced by laws acting around us.” And then after more sciency stuff, like our wren he flits back; “There is grandeur in this view of life.”

When we read the sixth edition, we find “the Creator ” is mentioned but in 1859 he wrote “having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that,” without mentioning God, leaving the source of the breathing as unspecified. However, whether we prefer the First or the Sixth edition, it is clear that Darwin did not see the natural world as a machine which simply needed disecting to be explained, but that the sum total of living things (biosphere!) fill us with wonder and awe and this is prior to scientific explanation.

 

We could write and argue for hours on whether or not Darwin believed in God as Creator, but he had the sense of awe, which any theist should have. Though I must add I have known too many Christians who don’t give a damn about nature or creation.

So years after Darwin a Jesuit priest took up poetry and many of his poems are nature/creation inspired. His poem on the kestrel The Windhover renamed the raptor to be more acceptable to Victorian sensibilities! Undoubtedly his finest poem on creation is God’s Grandeur;

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge |&| shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

Hopkins starts with an awareness of natural beauty which he saw daily in the Vale of Clwyd. He moves to damaged creation, which I reckon are the mines at Halkyn mountain to the east. They are still devoid of beauty

Not a pretty site!!

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast |&| with ah! bright wings.

Yet Hopkins has hope in the renewal of creation and, unusually, theologically looks to the Holy Spirit

 

There is so much here and I explored it in another blog; https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/gods-grandeur-gerard-manley-hopkins/  . In this sonnet written five years before Darwin died he evokes the grandeur of God in creation, the frequent pollution by humans, ending with the optimism of the earth’s renewal. Perhaps all doomster environmentalists should ponder the last four  lines and look with hope to a restored creation.

It is no surprise that so many Christian look to God’s Grandeur today.

And so to the Bible on Creation. Apart from Genesis there is so much on creation in the Bible, especially in the Wisdom Books and the Prophets. Some of the finest writing on creation is the end of Job. Many of the psalms are nature psalms and one of the finest and briefest is Psalm 8

 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted 2 by the mouth of babes and infants, thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established; 4 what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? 5 Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. 6 Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea. 9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!

The main theme is wonder at creation, and the psalmist almost sees creation as a reflection of the Glory of God (God’s Grandeur). The reference to babes and infants shows it is no erudite worship but available to all. It poses the question what humanity is,and then echoes Genesis with humans being given dominion over creation. That is often contentious as so often that dominion has been bully-boy tactics rather than loving nuture.

These three writings from such different writings and settings all speak of the glory and wonder of the natural world. Darwin in the sixth edition is the weakest theist, but brings out so much of the wonder by focussing simply on an entangled bank. Hopkins and the Psalmist go further and thus I conclude with the Psalmist

O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

I was stoned, wrote the Apostle St Paul

I WAS STONED, wrote Paul.

Yes that is what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 11 vs 25 – or a literal translation is “Once I was stoned”!!! In the greek it is ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην,

This was used in the New International Version of the Bible in 1984 and created some amusement. The NRSV has “Once I received a stoning”, which is a convoluted translation. Most versions have “once I was stoned”, but;

God’s Word translation has “Once people tried to stone me to death”

The Message bible; “pummeled with rocks once.”

New International Reader’s Version; “Once they tried to kill me by throwing stones at me.”

 

Thus it was revised in the NIV as the New Testament scholar Douglas Moo pointed out;

“In the 1984 NIV when Paul says (in 2 Corinthians 11:25) ‘I was stoned,’ we changed it to ‘pelted with stones’ to avoid the laughter in the junior high row of the church.”

Well, “I was stoned” is a succinct literal translation and correct on all grounds bar one, and that is the contemporary understanding of the expression “I was stoned”

It highlights a problem of all translations. There are other instances where the original meaning can be lost in translation e.g. If your son asks for some fish , will you give him a snake?” In some countries a snake is more of a delicacy .

It reminds of two devout Christians in a university Christian Union in the 60s. They took Paul’s injunction “make love your aim” to heart and jumped into bed……………

Of course it is worse if we read the King James Version which was archaic posh English of 1611 and so much of English has changed. No wonder fundermentalists who only use the KJV get so many things wrong!!

As for myself I have only be stoned once, like Paul – by pygmies from the Congo 😁

Not kidding either.

Creatio Ex Nihilo and Creation Care · For The Love of Wisdom and The Wisdom of Love · Thomas Jay Oord

Thomas Oard is an interesting theologian from the wilds of Idaho. He olves hiking in the hills of Idaho as much I enjoys exploring the hills of the desolate north of England

 

This article is provoking but at present I cannot accept it at all. I feel it has several weaknesses

1. He makes too much of creation not being explicit in the Bible. To me every reference to creation and created things in the Bible is clear that they are from God and separate from God, an implicit way of saying Creation ex nihilo
2. To say it undermines Creation Care is to say it implies a rather over-powering god (Calvinist) who entails that human efforts are of no avail.
3. I would say his alternative means we would be less creation -caring as we are not dealing with “stuff” created from nothing by God.

 

 

Source: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Creation Care · For The Love of Wisdom and The Wisdom of Love · Thomas Jay Oord

Fixing Easter Day; God’s April fool

Pinched from a Kiwi posting tomorrow already.

 

It is theologically very subtle!!!

 

After many years, an agreement has finally been reached to fix the date of Easter to April 1, whatever day of the week that is. Churches can decide to celebrate Easter Day on the Sunday nearest to April 1 if that is what they prefer.

Source: Fixing Easter Day