You may also like...

103 Responses

  1. erunner says:

    Has anyone heard of the upcoming Psalm 83 war??? Someone close to me posted the following link and I quite don’t know what to think. Doesn’t make any sense to me. Feedback please.

  2. Rob Murphy says:

    Tim Keller interview is really good. I like this quote from Keller, it landed right where I live:

    “You must not force yourself to feel good too quickly—there are lessons to be learned and insights into life and your heart to be grasped. Also grief and anger can’t just be denied or stuffed, they need to be worked through with meditation, reflection, and prayer.
    And yet you must not, on the other hand, allow yourself to get stuck in grief and sorrow. Simone Weil talks about the temptation to become ‘complicit’ with pain and suffering, to semi-consciously decide to stay in it, because it is more painful to get on with life than to stay swamped with your problems.”

    Keller is very thoughtful and thought provoking. I enjoy his work.

  3. Nonnie says:

    The Keller interview is very good. I thought the following quote is very appropriate for our little community, considering the conversation of the previous thread.

    The interviewer said to Keller:
    “What encourages one person who is suffering may discourage another. You do a nice job of reminding of this reality. How can we better develop sensitivity that people truly are wired differently?”

  4. Michael says:


    Two words…bull pucky.
    I do admire the authors ability to drag yet another sensationalist piece of crap book out of this exhausted genre…

  5. Tim says:

    erunner –

    With respect to the “bull pucky” opinion, it may not be so quite far-fetched, though it’s not nearly as sensationalistic as what some make it out to be. Here’s a brief introduction I wrote about the psalm when I taught it in 2012:

    “Psalm 83 has gotten a lot of attention in recent years from a prophetic viewpoint. Although scholars don’t all agree, there’s no doubt that the psalm speaks of a war in Israel that is not described in the Scripture. Potentially, the original context for the psalm comes from 2 Chronicles 20, in which a confederacy of nations from the east rises up against the nation of Judah in an attempt to destroy it. King Jehoshaphat prayed to the Lord for help among all the people, and God gave a word through one of the prophets that the nation was not to be afraid, for the battle was not theirs but God’s. (2 Chr 20:15) The next day, the people kept believing & worshipping the Lord, and God caused the confederacy to collapse & start fighting among themselves. By the end, they had all killed themselves.

    Although this is a wonderful context to Ps 83, it’s somewhat incomplete. Certainly some of the nations of the confederacy of 2 Chr 20 are named, but there are many more here that are not. In addition, it would seem that there is more at stake than just the southern areas of Judah, but rather the entire land and population of Israel. Thus it seems that even though perhaps the war of 2 Chr 20 might have originally inspired the writing, the ultimate subject is still future. Bible prophecy does clearly show future battles for the nation of Israel during the years of the Tribulation (including the war of Gog & Magog), but it would seem that this particular war may take place before the Tribulation, and helping to pave the way for some of the specific things mentioned in those other wars to come to pass.

    Wherever you fall on the prophetic aspect of the psalm, there’s no doubt that this is a song of desperation and dependence upon the Lord. When your enemies surround you, what do you do? Cry out to God. That’s exactly what Asaph does.”

  6. Jim says:

    Funny-I went to the Keller interview first as well. His high view of God is the only rational view, and the only sane way to “understand” suffering. God has allowed us to understand very little about Himself, and it’s more than enough.

  7. Michael says:

    I think it’s very cool that most people went straight to Keller…

  8. Michael says:


    That was well done…good response.
    Even if I still don’t buy it… 🙂

  9. victorious says:

    The Gospel Coalition interviews my favorite Calvin loving Wesleyan.

  10. The Big Debate!!! Neither are really respected experts, right? I mean these are both cartoon characters defending the prospective sides. This doesn’t really matter to anyone, does it? If by chance, someone is paying attention, I hope Ken Ham mops the floor with him.

  11. Tim says:

    @8 – 🙂

  12. Michael says:


    I think the debate is a travesty.
    Ken Ham doesn’t represent my understanding of Genesis in any way, and my guess is that Bill Nye doesn’t represent the best of science.
    It will bring mockery and division and little understanding.

  13. That’s my thought too Michael. I don’t know anything about Ken Ham other than the silly photos I see from the creation museum, and all I know of Nye, other than he was a kid’s tv star, is that he really wants Christianity to go away. If I have to choose sides, I’ll go with the buffoon who is OK with keeping Christianity on the planet.

  14. erunner says:

    Thank you Tim. Having been in CC for over 30 years Psalm 83 was something I don’t recall being referenced as to end time events. Honestly, my gut reaction was “we’ve now discovered something unknown to the church for the last 2000 years and you’d better pay heed.”

    Most everything this person shares on FB has to do with the rapture and it seems they gather information from all sorts of web sites.

    I’ve gone from staunch pre trib to a I don’t know the last few years. I’ve seen so much in the way of prophecy and predictions that have not panned out I wasn’t interested in the next new thing any more.

    I believe that prophecy has its place in our lives but I don’t see appealing to it constantly to share the gospel with others. Thanks again for your response.

  15. Michael says:


    That was a good link…I shall hear that man more often.
    Thank you…

  16. Rob Murphy says:

    We showed Keller’s “The Prodigal God” a couple weeks back on Sunday night at our church and we’re doing our family Bible Study on his video series ‘The Reason for God’. My kids (ages 7, 13,14, 16) like Keller and follow along very well. I don’t know how anyone else looks at video studies, but both are so very good, I very highly recommend them.
    Seems like his style and content are landing right in the middle of my life lately.

  17. Rob Murphy says:

    Victorious @ 9, great referral to a very good article.
    Like this quote: I can’t do limited atonement or irresistible grace, to pluck at two of the most vulnerable petals of the tulip. I can’t affirm the perseverance of the saints as part of the predestinarian package, though I could re-state the core concern as something like the irreversibility of salvation, and (perhaps being a bad Wesleyan) affirm that.”

    especially as a parent I now identify with that more than ever.

    on Arminianism being semi-Pelagian:
    You need a more flexible vocabulary of heresiology. John Wesley’s longest treatise was on original sin, and he affirmed it, right down to the bondage of the will. He put a sermon on the subject into his Standard Sermons. The Wesleyan emphasis on sinners being enabled to respond to the gospel has nothing to do with a high view of human abilities, and everything to do with an optimism of grace and a trust in the Holy Spirit’s prevenient work.

    That last phrase “Optimism of grace and a trust in the Holy Spirit’s prevenient work” is so wonderful. I’d get shirts made, but ‘prevenient’ gets blown out by spell check.
    Very good article, thanks Victorious!!

  18. Steve Wright says:

    Someone gave me a copy of one of the books about Psalm 83 and, like Tim, I found it very interesting. I seek to find specific fulfillment in prophecy (which is a major reason why I am premill) and I think there may be a nice contribution to prophetic understanding by looking at that Psalm.

    However, as usual I am not a big fan of creating a cottage industry around it either.

  19. Steve Wright says:

    And I am with Erunner – I don’t know of traditional CC circles where Psalm 83 was given any real mention in the past…or for that matter traditional Dallas circles either.

  20. I don’t see how the psalm can be read any other way than a present tense imprecatory. (present tense to the writer) “Lord, these guys are beating the crap out of us (or threatening to) – beat the crap out of them Lord so everyone will know you alone are most high.” quoted from the MLD version 2014

  21. Tim says:

    @14 – My pleasure, e. God bless you!

  22. Steve Wright says:

    Well MLD, if it is, I guess the Psalmist did not get his wish…or else the LORD came up short on His end of the deal… 🙂

  23. Michael says:

    “O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant— the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites, Gebal and Ammon and Amalek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Asshur also has joined them; they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. Selah
    Do to them as you did to Midian, as to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground. Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, “Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God.”
    O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, so may you pursue them with your tempest and terrify them with your hurricane! Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O LORD. Let them be put to shame and dismayed forever; let them perish in disgrace, that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth.”
    (Psalms 83:1–18 ESV)

  24. Steve Wright says:

    I don’t worry too much about tense usage in prophetic passages either, given the way Isaiah 53 reads with the interplay between future, present and past. And I think we can all agree on Isaiah 53 as prophetic and agree on how and when it was fulfilled.

  25. EricL says:

    The collapse of Winepress Publishing is a great thing, since this Christian publisher had been taken over by “Sound Doctrine” some years ago- though most folks dealing with Winepress didn’t know about the takeover. The saddest part of that story are all the poor authors who got sucked into the vanity press scam (paying thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to get their books printed) and are now facing more difficult decisions. A friend’s mom got sucked up into it. They called her and told her to get her pallets of books picked up from their warehouse within a week. I offered what advice I could, as a fellow writer, but her and her husband have some tough decisions to make.

  26. “I guess the Psalmist did not get his wish…”
    Perhaps he didn’t – God is not like a genie popping out of a bottle … or perhaps god handled i in a way of his choosing.

  27. Michael says:


    That was a terrible story…and thank you for providing me with the link. 🙂

  28. Do you think the psalmist got his wish in psalm 137 to have the babies heads bashed against the rocks – or was it perhaps mediated in a more gentle fashion?

  29. Paige says:

    Went straight to the Tim Keller article and subsequently forwarded it to friends….

    I feel so sad for the brief life of Phillip Seymour Hoffman….. never saw any of his works-movie roles. A physically, mentally and emotionally healthy person is not attracted to life threatening meds. The artificial Hollywood world he lived in didn’t attend to those life threatening needs. Our polluted environment leaves many people constantly looking for that missing something….. I feel grief for those thus afflicted.

  30. Steve Wright says:

    Was linked to this fairly recent interview with Hoffman with some ominous quotes about what his life was like when he was in the middle of a role.
    Thinking of these musicians and their sacrifices, how do you negotiate your artistic passions with your everyday lives?

    Hoffman: I don’t do it very well. I’m not a good example. I think some people do it well. I know some actors, they know how to have their life, they can compartmentalize it in a way. But me, things kind of go to pot while I’m doing a show, and then the show’s over and I can get back to my [life]. But I know that that’s kind of the deal I make when I do those things. I think that’s also to me what the film was about. Again, it takes something from you to give on that kind of level. To commit that much. What are you willing to risk? What kind of life are you willing to lead to have that? For any serious person doing this, I think that is a question you have to answer. Or at least know that it’s a question.

  31. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – Not sure how the Persian army treated the Babylonians when they conquered them. I’m assuming it might have been fairly cruel though….

  32. Went to the Keller article first…good stuff there!

    Went to the Perry Noble article and……glad I never watched or listened to Perry Noble.

    Cover Oregon…just the tip of the iceberg. The ACA was one big scam from the get go. For years, anyone that questioned it was ridiculed and belittled. Then the rollout happened and the bad news happened daily and everything gets delayed on a regular basis. This “law” is a farce, any law that can be ignored when it isn’t convenient for your political ambitions should never have been allowed. The best thing that could happen is to repeal this law and come up with one that actually helps those it was supposed to help in the first place. Rant over.

    The Church that gets it was a good article!

    From the Mormon missionary article: “The church announced over the summer that it would allow missionaries to better utilize social media and the internet to find potential converts.” More fuel for asking Mormons how magnets work…

    The church is going to have to figure out how to address marijuana…sooner rather than later, seeing as how DC city council is talking decriminalization. Coming soon to your state, too.

  33. Steve Wright says:

    Derek – I responded to you in Open Blogging. FYI

    As to the ACA, the nonpartisan CBO announced today that 2.5 million jobs are going to be lost due to this debacle. (My guess is they will again have to revise themselves upward from even that huge number)

  34. The Belarus Connection.
    “U.S. intelligence agencies last week urged the Obama administration to check its new healthcare network for malicious software after learning that developers linked to the Belarus government helped produce the website, raising fresh concerns that private data posted by millions of Americans will be compromised.”

  35. gomergirl says:

    re your #7… I went for the pot first. not sure what that says about me… 🙂

  36. Nuts says:

    Re-Cover Oregon: Impeach Kitzhaber


  37. Michael says:


    LOL! 😉

  38. Josh Hamrick says:

    Ham is handling himself well. So is Nye, really. It’s been a pretty good conversation, not on any super-high level, but on a fairly elementary level. Both have presented their side accurately.

  39. Michael says:

    I thought Nye wiped the floor with him…I don’t affirm everything he espouses by any stretch of the imagination, but that was brutal.

  40. Josh Hamrick says:

    Wow. I didn’t see that at all. Ham presented his view exactly like he wanted to do. I think.

  41. Wait, you guys are actually spending time watching it? I am disappointed in both of you. You guys must be voyeurs.

  42. Josh Hamrick says:

    I am. i like train wrecks.

  43. Josh Hamrick says:

    I’ve actually watched every second of it. 🙂 Slow night in NC.

  44. Michael says:


    Actually I’m very ignorant about the topic that was discussed and I thought it would be worthwhile to hear the arguments on both sides.
    I want to learn…so I take the time to listen.

  45. Michael says:

    Josh, his arguments for the age of the earth were almost laughable.
    I truly wish that someone had been there to explain that not all Christians, and some of our best theologians, do not believe that the Genesis account is a “literal” historical record of creation.

  46. Josh Hamrick says:

    I’ll say this too, Nye has done an admirable job of presenting his love of science. Ham is not a man of science, he is a man of faith. He presented his faith, and the Gospel, quite well. He convinced absolutely no scientists. None. He’s just not capable of that level of discussion, but perhaps he planted a seed that will allow some to look into the bible, and if they do, God can change them.

  47. How are you going to learn from those two? Nye is a mechanical engineer – the other guy is something else.

    Perhaps it is better than watching Duck Dynasty – but educational it is not.

  48. Josh Hamrick says:

    No, you are right in that, Michael. His insistence on 6000 years is untenable. He did do a good job of casting doubt on “billions” of years though.

    If a high level Christian Scientist were there it would not have been a fair debate. These guys were actually pretty well-matched.

  49. Sorry, there are old episodes of Twilight Zone that I haven’t seen in years. Enjoying them right now.

  50. Josh Hamrick says:

    They are both smart, in their own way. They both gave facts that I didn’t know in their opening statement. They both sort of fell apart in the unprepared question-answer session.

  51. Josh Hamrick says:

    This was WAYYY better than that time Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort debated those atheists.

  52. Josh Hamrick says:

    I watched every second of that one, too. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!?!?!? 🙂

  53. Steve Wright says:

    Forgetting for the moment how Ham a) might present and defend his beliefs and b) might run his ministry….

    Is there anything that the man claims to believe that sets people off here?

    Is it simply the young-earth perspective per se (again not talking about his arguments for it)

  54. Josh Hamrick says:

    He is exclusively young earth. He was basically asked about other Christians who believe the earth is older and he said, “They have a problem with the bible”. That’s a bit off-setting.

  55. Josh Hamrick says:

    Also, I may have misunderstood Nye before, or maybe he was misquoted, or maybe he was trying to be funny and it just didn’t come through. He said tonight that faith and science can co-exist, and then named a few great modern scientists who are what he called devout Christians. So, I take back the stuff earlier about him wanting to do away with Christianity.

  56. Michael says:

    I simply can’t handle anyone who is so hard assed about their position that they won’t recognize that equally conservative, equally Bible believing Christians come at these secondary issues from a different perspective.

    The thing that TOTALLY chaps me is that they act like they are the last true defenders of the faith…and that’s a crock.

  57. Josh Hamrick says:

    You hit on it there, Michael. You said “secondary” issues. He certainly doesn’t see the age of the earth as a secondary issue, and that kinda misplaced priority is always gonna cause problems.

  58. Steve Wright says:

    but perhaps he planted a seed that will allow some to look into the bible, and if they do, God can change them.
    Josh, I engaged in a facebook thread of a young man I have a pastoral relationship with when I saw someone come in and try to steamroll over his belief in the name of science and theistic evolution. I dropped a few scientific points along with the simple reminder that the moment you start talking about theistic evolution you have left evolution as it is taught and understood today and encouraged him to ask his evolutionary friends how much room they would give him to allow for God to guide the process of evolution.

    That was pretty much it. I think just 2-3 posts max. No argument but later I found out a relative of this person goes to our church and apparently it made an impact – and though he knew who I was through this relative, he did not know the ‘Steve Wright’ he was discussing with on facebook was the “Pastor Steve” the relative had mentioned before.

    God can do a lot with just dropping a seed now and then….

  59. Josh Hamrick says:

    Absolutely, Steve. And as much as Ken Ham makes me roll my eyes, I noticed early on that realized many new eyes were gonna be watching and he made sure to talk of Jesus coming to earth and dying for our sins. I appreciated it. Certainly didn’t help him in the debate, but it is a seed.

  60. Steve Wright says:

    So again…it is the presentation, not the view per se. Am I correct?

  61. Steve Wright says:

    I hardly every reference the age of the earth, but I shoot down evolution most every chance I get in a message.

    I think the Creator is not a secondary issue by any means…all the more so in going through the Old Testament..especially my current book, Isaiah (midweek..Romans is Sunday)

  62. brian says:

    Things I liked about Ken Ham, he sponsored the debate and he paid for the live streaming and he only had one commercial before the debate. He asked some profound questions about why are we here, ultimate meaning etc. Dawkins poo poos these “big questions” thats because he is a pompous blank. Ken Ham delivered a clear evangelical Gospel several times during the debate etc.

    Things I liked about Mr. Nye was he was cordial and respectful of faith traditions not like some of the “new” atheists who insist on thinking all theists are raving lunatics. He presented the evidence from his perspective quite well and hammered at many of the points that I struggle with. I was much impressed as I thought Ham would clean Nye’s clock. I was wrong.

    I enjoyed the question answer and cross examination, I think epistemology was dealt with to some degree and without the presuppositional merry go round. It does come down to one’s view of authority, and “truth”. In my opinion science does not seek to answer ultimate truth per-say revelatory knowledge still needs to be interpreted by fallible humans so both have problems with how we determine truth or fact if you will, though I do think they are not always the same thing. You can have a bunch of facts and arrive at an untruth.

  63. Steve Wright says:

    Josh, was The Flood brought up much tonight?

  64. brian says:

    If you dont mind It was brought up at least 10 times or more and was a central part of Nye’s 1/2 hour long presentation.

  65. Steve Wright says:

    Thanks brian!

  66. brian says:

    Actually it played a bigger part then even the creation narrative 1-3 in time spent by both of the men.

  67. Josh Hamrick says:

    Yes, the flood was kinda the main topic…and on that front, Nye won the debate. Ham is just not a technical guy. Nye isn’t really either, but seemed to be more prepared to shoot down a 4,000 year old flood than Ham was to defend it. Again, the flood wasn’t the main problem, but Ham’s insistence that it was 4,000 years ago was problematic.

  68. brian says:

    I think it was seen as critical because both groups were trying to present their mechanism for geologic change, population dispersion and species formation according to geographical location.

  69. Josh Hamrick says:

    And I agree with brian’s take at 63. That is pretty much how I saw it, too. (Except I didn’t expect Ham to win. I sort of expected him to stand there and slobber 🙂 )

  70. brian says:

    But Mr. Ham has a point there are very serious theological implications if evolution through natural selection is the mechanism that has created the variety of life we now observe. What is troubling was the historic and observable science statements Mr. Ham insisted on during the debate. It is also notable that Mr. Ham defined what he means by “kind”. The idea that processes of change were in hyper drive for a small amount of time during history then slowed down to what we now observe was also troubling. Nye did a good job pointing this out in my opinion.

  71. Josh Hamrick says:

    “But Mr. Ham has a point there are very serious theological implications if evolution through natural selection is the mechanism that has created the variety of life we now observe.”

    Oh no doubt! But there are many people who believe in something other than young earth creationism, that do not believe in natural selection.

  72. brian says:

    Please forgive this but I am asking as a suggestion Pastor Steve pointed out last night, I am sort of dense when it comes to using hyperbole and sarcasm, I mean I use it to much and dont know when to stop. Sort of like someone who swears all the time and is not even aware of it but others are. I am making a very conscious effort to try to moderate that. Is this dialog less sarcastic and more even handed?

  73. Josh Hamrick says:

    brian, honest truth, just from me…most of the time I don’t understand what you are getting at. In this thread, you have been very clear, and I for one appreciate it.

  74. brian says:

    Yes there are and that is a good point. But if, I hate to use this phrase, “Darwinian” evolution is valid (true). Then there would be serious issues with many theological aspects of the bible. I think Mr. Ham is correct, though to hardnosed about some of the particulars. If that makes sense.

  75. Steve Wright says:

    It is also notable that Mr. Ham defined what he means by “kind”.
    I would see that as a huge error. Nobody can define “kind” with any precision no matter their view on the other stuff. The Bible just does not define it.

  76. Josh Hamrick says:

    I though Ham’s discussion of “kind” was fine. It didn’t see to be a major point. He just noted that “kind” doesn’t necessarily mean “species”. He more gave examples of how this could be, rather than giving a rigid definition.

  77. Steve Wright says:

    Josh…I probably should have watched the thing if I was going to get into it, huh? 🙂

  78. brian says:

    When one says that one “kind” does not change into another “kind” it is helpful to have some point of reference so Mr. Ham said he concluded it was at the family level biological classification. That was very helpful to me.

  79. brian says:

    There are many things we know to be true that the bible does not define.

  80. Steve Wright says:

    My point about ‘kind’ is that it probably does refer to species in some contexts, especially Leviticus. Then you have very broad inclusive context for the word with the Flood. The creation narrative is a third example.

    I do agree it is an error for a Bible expositor to equate the word “kind” to species as the latter is technically defined in our day.

  81. Josh Hamrick says:

    “Josh…I probably should have watched the thing if I was going to get into it, huh?”

    Nah, I’ve enjoyed being the onsite reporter 🙂

  82. brian said, “. It does come down to one’s view of authority, and “truth””

    Yup, That’s been the bedrock and major premise of my Belief System: Everything, I mean everything comes down to:

    Absolute/Objective vs. Relative/Subjective Truth and Authority.

    That tenet of my philosophical belief system only strengthens the more these sorts of discussions are had, as that dynamic is demonstrated over and over and over by all sides.

  83. Josh Hamrick says:

    Gotcha Brian. My take on the “kind” talk was from the Noah discussion. I get what you are saying now.

  84. brian says:

    Nice discussion I hope you all have a nice evening.

  85. Jonny says:

    I disagree with #48.
    It was indeed educational on both sides of the issue for me.

    I agree with Michael that “Bible believing Christians come at these secondary issues from a different perspective.”

    I myself am an ancient eons earther as opposed to a young earther. And yet I am a believer in Jesus Christ.

  86. Steve Wright says:

    A question for all who are “old-earthers”

    Do any of you BOTH deny theistic evolution and also deny the gap theory? Or do you hold to one or the other along with your old-earth doctrine.

    Genuinely curious…will read tomorrow.

  87. Steve, I wouldn’t classify myself as an old-earther. I would, however, fully admit that the infinite details of creation are not included in the first chapter of Genesis. If we are going to learn more about the make-up of our universe, we’ll have to dig deeper than what is written there. If a more technical layout is unnecessary, I am perfectly fine with leaving it at Genesis. If we do want to more of the technical stuff, we have to understand that some things may look older than we would expect them to look, etc. I am OK with that too, as I actually think the first verse of Genesis covers it all.

    I don’t think the Bible is wrong, or that good science contradicts the bible. I just don’t think the bible was even attempting to answer every question that modern humans are asking in regards to science.

  88. erunner says:


  89. Wow, e…was that aimed at me? 🙂

  90. erunner says:

    Oops…. thought this was another blog! :mrgreen;

  91. brian says:

    “A question for all who are “old-earthers”

    Do any of you BOTH deny theistic evolution and also deny the gap theory? Or do you hold to one or the other along with your old-earth doctrine.

    Genuinely curious…will read tomorrow.”

    I would say it like this I do not “believe” in an old earth I think that it is supported by evidence from several valid sources that have shown themselves accurate in other venues where there is do encroachment to biblical history. I do not “deny” theistic genesis, but I think evolution through natural selection best explains what we now observe.

  92. RiBo says:

    I agree with brian. There is overwhelming evidence of an “old earth” and rather an old universe. Too much to ignore, too much to explain away as some trick of the devil. The other option is to say God created it “old” already, but that’s quite a leap. The simplest and most obvious answer is: the earth and universe is old and Genesis, while imparting some truth, is not a science journal that documented in fine detail “how” it all happened, just that a creator “God” spawned the Universe (“cosmos”) and earth (“world”) etc.

    Personally, I don’t take a position on the “gap theory” other than to follow the current evidence we have that shows the earth and universe is really old. I personally don’t need Genesis to make perfect sense b/c there’s nothing you can do to resolve a “walking” God in the “garden” and a talking snake and a “tree of life” and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil etc. The creation account in Genesis screams metaphor.

    I agree with brian that there are many verifiable facts and evidence of evolution. My science friends who are Christians*, even by your standards, see evolution in general as fact-based.

    I disagree with my atheist friends who express certainty or near certainty that “God” (in whatever form, in whatever name you call it) didn’t create our existence. I think it is more probable that an uncaused cause spawned the first “something” and that there really is no such animal as absolute “nothing”…something’s been around…everything we observe is causal.

  93. who cares? says:

    Terrasaurus Rex? Brian, are you onboard with Robertson’s other beliefs? Natural selection: God naturally selected Terrasaurus rex to evolve into Pat Robertson.

  94. brian says:

    LOL now that made me smile thanks, no I just found what he said rather interesting. Im not much of a right wing watch viewer as they tend to cut things down and at times out of context.

  95. steve says:

    I watched the debate with my kids. After discussing it, we concluded:

    1. the debate was poorly titled – it was not about creationism, but rather “young-earth creationism”

    2. it was telling when Bill Nye couldn’t answer where the atoms for the big bang came from, or how consciousness came from matter – you need faith either way, no matter how you interpret the details of the process

    3. neither man responded directly to the specific examples of holes in the other man’s theory – that was disappointing…

    4. Ham did a good job of separating historical science from observational science – while those lines are more blurred than he set out, they certainly exist more than Nye kept hammering on by basically saying that if kids believe in creationism then our society will not be able to invent new computers, travel to space, construct bridges and high rises, etc. – that was maddening actually, as I expected Ham to be the blindly black-and-white guy…

  96. Mark says:

    RiBo said an explanation is that god created it old “but that’s a stretch ” why is that a stretch? God created rivers, no? Wouldn’t created rivers already flow in created canyons? Showing layers of earth? God created mountains. Wouldn’t mountains already lay on faults and fissures in the earth? There are simple explanations for everything in the bible that points to literal creation timeline and young earth. Scientists just don’t want to accept that God is God and could have created earth any way he pleased

  97. Comments on Open Blogging are closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading