Almost a year ago, I did a brief post about where the water came from in Noah’s flood. As I noted in my earlier post, there are a few questions about this subject. Yesterday, another brief article related to the same subject was posted. Check out Tas Walker’s “Where did all the water come from?“
Technorati Tags:
Biblical Creationism
In this past spring semester of 2009, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary offered a ThM level seminar on Biblical Creationism. Along with six other books and a few articles, Coming to Grips with Genesis was required reading. At the end of the seminar, we gave a brief synopsis of the material. The consensus opinion of the seminar participants was that CTGWG was the most beneficial and comprehensive of the texts discussed. To read more about our evaluation, go to Coming to Grips with Genesis in the Classroom.
In addition, the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal will have a thorough critique of CTGWG in the next issue of the journal, to be released later in the summer. Dr. Matt Postiff has prepared a comprehensive critique for this issue of the journal. If you do not subscribe to the journal, now is a good time to subscribe. Recently, we have set up the journal so that you can subscribe to it online. To take advantage of this online ordering, click here and follow the brief instructions.
Technorati Tags:
24-hour day interpretation of the creation account, Alternate interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3, Biblical Creationism
The links for the three articles that I wrote for SharperIron in March to April of this year have changed.
As you may know SharperIron 2.0 went through a major makeover at the end of May. With the update to SI 3.0, one of the transitional hiccups is that the article collection remained on the old database. Though some progress has been made in moving the pre-June 1 articles to the new database, work is currently being done to complete the transition (for more information, go here). The progress that has been made included my three articles. The current links are as follows.
Technorati Tags:
24-hour day interpretation of the creation account, Alternate interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3, Biblical Creationism
At the conclusion of Coming to Grips with Genesis, all of the book’s authors signed a document entitled “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Christian (Biblical) Worldview.” Along with the other authors, I signed this statement because I am committed to a consistent, literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and wanted to issue a challenge to other believers to embrace the same view that is consistent with the historic belief of orthodox Christianity. Because the Zeitgeist of our age has created a philosophical environment conducive to a reinterpretation of the creation account, some evangelicals are willing to reinterpret the early chapters of Genesis in something less than a consistent, literal view; however, others are willing to take their stand with a literal understanding that was widely embraced by Christians prior to the rise of modern geology and astronomy (see chapters 1-3 in CTGWG). Are you willing to stand with us in embracing a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 by signing CTGWG’s “Affirmations and Denials”? If you have a graduate degree in biblical studies and are willing to take five to ten minutes to read the “Affirmations and Denials” and complete the necessary information to sign this document, click here.
Technorati Tags:
Biblical Creationism
As our politicians prepare to take US citizens on an expensive spending spree to correct anthropogenic global warming (it is always easier to spend the taxpayer’s money), it is distressing to see the hype about global warming. However, besides some biblical issues, what exacerbates the situation for me is that there is scientific work that shows man’s activity is a minor issue in global warming. Though I have given my perspective on the absurd and unbiblical basis for global warming in a number of posts (for starters, click here), Dr. Larry Vardiman wrote a concise and informative article that appeared in yesterday’s July on-line issue of Acts and Facts. To read this article, go to “Will Solar Inactivity Lead to Global Cooling?.” In addition, while you are at ICR’s website, I would highly recommend that you sign-up to receive each monthly issue of Acts and Facts. To receive the monthly on-line issue of this educational source, simply go to the top of the page and click FREE SUBSCRIPTION.
Technorati Tags:
Global Warming
?
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International is pictured above. He is a key scholars in the modern biblical creation movement (aka, young earth creationism). I have used his books and articles in my class and various seminars on Biblical Creationism. An informative article about how Dr. Sarfati became a biblical creationist has been posted again (originally posted in 2005). It would be profitable for you to read how a scholar of his magnitude with a secular upbringing and education became a staunch supporter of biblical creationism. Check out “Now a Creationist.” In addition, you would be wise to read the concluding bibliography and pick up some of his books and articles.
A growing number of evangelicals are questioning the global nature of Noah’s Flood. This is unfortunate because the scriptural evidence clearly supports a flood that affected the entire earth. For a brief and helpful defense of the global nature of Noah’s flood, check out Dr. John D. Morris’s “The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood.”
On Friday, March 20, I began a three-part series at Sharper Iron defending the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account. As I noted in my first part, because the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has a legacy of interpreting Genesis as a historic narrative, the prevailing interpretation of Genesis 1:1???2:3 has been that it is a record of God???s creative activity in six, consecutive, literal days followed by a literal seventh day of rest. The point of my first post was to provide a fourfold biblical justification for the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account.
With my second post, I summarized four of the most prominent alternative views that have arisen largely as a result of the advent of modern geology and its claims about the (old) age of the earth.
With my third and final part that is posted today, I present three areas of weakness and a questionable presupposition that each view shares. To read this third post, go to “An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 3).”
Should students in public schools be encouraged to critically examine Charles Darwin???s evolutionary hypothesis? After months of debate, the Texas Board of Education affirmatively answered this question. According to their recent 13-2 decision, students should be encouraged to think critically about current scientific “theories.” While Christians should applaud this decision as upholding academic freedom, supporters of evolution are not quite as optimistic. According to Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pro-evolution lobbyist group National Center for Science Education, this decision is ???a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory.” To read more about this decision, check out “Evolutionists, Atheists Admit Defeat in Texas.”
On Friday, March 20, I began a three-part series at Sharper Iron defending the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account. As I noted in my first part, because the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has a legacy of interpreting Genesis as a historic narrative, the prevailing interpretation of Genesis 1:1???2:3 has been that it is a record of God???s creative activity in six, consecutive, literal days followed by a literal seventh day of rest. The point of my first post was to provide a fourfold biblical justification for the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account.
With my second post that is posted today, I note four of the most prominent alternative views that have arisen largely as a result of the advent of modern geology and its claims about the (old) age of the earth.
To read this second post, go to “An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 2).“
Technorati Tags:
24-hour day interpretation of the creation account, Alternate interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3
