Indonesia
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2008/01/kairos-and-kenosis.html
With the recent transformation of satire and theology to an academic blog, I reason this black and blue blog now has a definitive purpose and direction in a greater measure than previously. As with this article I will share personal thoughts and reflections at an academic and yet personal level. I will use some but not several citations in articles and satire and humour will be used.
I have been comfortable with the purpose and direction of the black and red blog, thekingpin68, as an academic blog since switching it from a personal satirical blog in 2005.
Once I become a professor, I will not be able to post as many original articles, but will try to post articles from professional theological work and related. I definitely will not have the time to post as many comments on other blogs. I will no longer spend 20-30 hours a week on blogging while sitting at my computer working on a PhD. If I lose some future blog comments because I cannot comment as much on other blogs, that is too bad, but I will hopefully pick up more commenters, comments, and links through my work as a professor. As most of us bloggers realize, it is tough finding other bloggers to network with, and all of my supporters are appreciated. I will try and put the most effort into commenting on blogs where I am linked. It will obviously be quite difficult to find time to promote myself on–line in the future as I have been doing the last four years.
A blessing with blogging for me the last four years has been that for the first time in my life I am teaching and doing ministry regularly, so to speak. I unapologetically state I have no interest in becoming a Reverend or missionary. I firmly believe the Lord has guided me to a form of academic theological ministry. I have come across academics that struggle with the concept of a philosophical theologian that does not want to be a Reverend, but I think that is his or her problem, and his or her closed mind. I have assisted many persons off-line, and almost 40, 000 people in traffic have read my blogs and I am presenting a form of teaching and ministry to persons.
Browning states that in the New Testament (First Corinthians 12), teachers are an aspect of ministry. Browning (1997: 253). Two persons with Doctorates at church definitely confirmed I am teaching via these blogs. It is nice to be affirmed, although I do not necessarily expect it. W.L. Liefeld writes that ministry is a Biblical concept of service rendered to God or to people. Ministry is to edify persons with the goal of corporate maturity in Christ. Liefeld (1996: 721).
Teachers are very important in teaching Biblical doctrines.
Not all teachers in the New Testament were necessarily overseers, as in one with authority over a church.
Not all theologians, who are teachers of doctrine, need to be Reverends.
I reason there is a need in the Christian Church today for places where persons can discuss some of the difficult issues that are not usually discussed in sermons and Bible studies. I provide this ministry and learn much in the process. As long as persons are respectful we can agree to disagree as well.
Sadly someone lately has decided to attempt to post three comments after he was cut off of thekingpin68 blog for being disrespectful. He reasons Biblical Christians are sick and lost for believing in everlasting hell. Well, I presented him with Biblical, theological, and philosophical information that he did not adequately respond to.
My Dad co-owned a Chevron service station from 1973-1981. If a customer was abusive and disrespectful one of his lines was (paraphrased), ‘How did you get on this lot?', and the person would explain how. My Dad would then state, ‘Well, leave in the exact same way.’ This is a good line for me to use with blog trolls and persons that want to disrespectfully argue their agenda on my blogs. Please take your mouse and leave the same way you came, and do not waste your time trying to comment as anonymous after I would not publish comments with your name anymore. Someone attempted that this week. His comment went down like the Hindenburg.
I now really enjoy not publishing disrespectful comments, and I could really get used to sending comments to the Blogger lake of fire!;)
BROWING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LIEFELD, W.L. (1996) 'Ministry’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
How the Six Million Dollar Man should have been done.
"It is very nice to see how much thought you have given in regards to your calling to be a teacher as opposed to a reverend. Continue on in your blogging and in doing so you will teach and edify many, such as myself, Thank you.
ReplyDelete-Studious Student ThA TS ME-
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThanks, it just had to be stated eventually.;)
I feel the same way, Russ. Originally I felt my calling was towards pastoral ministry, but lots of time in prayer and seeking guidance from those who knew me best I determined that I should go in an academic direction.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I also see an academic career as a full-time ministry. I know how significant of a time that can be for people as they are coming into contact with all kinds of new ideas and things, and they need proper guidance as they are learning to deal with these things. The academic world can do a lot of damage to you if you are not properly equipped to navigate it.
Even though I went to a Christian university, those four years were still some of the most formative in my life. When I think back and remember how much some of those professors invested in me in order to prepare me for a life of service to God and his Kingdom, it inspires me to do the same for the next generation of young people.
That being said, I also plan to be involved in the ministry of whatever church I am a part of as well. I love teaching our adult Sunday School at the church I am at right now, and leading Bible studies, and I even hope to be able to preach once in a while.
Thanks, Jake, we agree.
ReplyDeleteI reason you have a lot to offer, especially in regard to historical writing.
I too aim to offer my services in a church context, especially when my sleep apnea is much less of a problem.
Easy reading, today, Russ.
ReplyDeleteSo, now we know. I figured you would take the role of C.S. Lewis. Teach, preach and apologize. Oops, that is not what apologetics refers to.
Cheers, Jim.
ReplyDeleteThe new article on thekingpin68 is a bit more difficult reading.
Russ
Those photos are funny.
ReplyDeleteThe video plays for a millisecond, then stops. I refreshed the page, but the same thing happened. I'll have to try again later.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe video is working fine here.
I just received this email. I had to edit it somewhat, since, when I tried to simply copy and paste, the light-colored, pastel letters in the background of the body of the email were interspersed in the message; so I had to delete them:
ReplyDeleteSubject:
Boy hatches chicck from shop eegg
Sent By:
pursiness@giffin-papp.com
On: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:08:58 AM
Reply To: "Nori Kunz" pursiness@giffin-papp.com
Bachelor Degree, Master MBA, PHDD
Become a doctor and receive all the benefits that come with it!
Please leave below info in voicemail:
1) Youur name
2) Yourr country
3) Your phone no.
Call Now!! 24 hours a day! 1-309-419-1218
Ringed r.n.v.r. Amateur. Still, the spirit of macadam or
wood paving. The house, high and inartistic, and relatively
primitive conditions. Newlygotten at the wedding abe noddedthey
all noddedand then, hadn't really got enough against him.
don't you.
And no, I didn't call the number.
Nice scammer email, and well-written too.:)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
I wish you well and Gods speed in your calling Russ. God and your heart will direct your path. You have done well with your blog in conveying your heart and beliefs, along with giving insight to less learned as myself. I do not post often here or anywhere else for that matter, but know I am in the background reading and gathering your understanding. As you journey further down the road, post as time permits.
ReplyDeleteTim
Thanks very much for your support, Tim.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Nice picture of trees, I wish I could soak up some of that sun where those trees are!
ReplyDelete-Not Ready For Winter Yet-
It's Southern BC, we do not get much of a summer, we do not get much of a winter. We mainly alternate between spring and autumn.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see Indonesia, and the Southern Hemisphere.
Cheers.
Russ this is a very good item. I am pleased you have written this blog, and now others can comment as well. We have had discussions many times in the past years about how your profs feel about you not going into the pastoral profession, and rather have chosen the profession of 'teacher' rather than 'preacher'. It is now good to see your readers sending their positive feedback. You are teaching through your blogs and readers are responding.
ReplyDeleteKeep doing what you do best. God has led you this far and will continue to be your guide. Prayerfully that degree will be granted in the very near future. May God's blessings go with you.
Love Mom
Thanks for the support and understanding, Mom.
ReplyDeleteLove
Russ:)
Should a theologian sometimes be irreverent?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely!
Thanks, Chuck.
ReplyDeleteJeff recently was in a debate concerning Christianity and evolution and I contributed the following.
DW
thekingpin68 Says:
August 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm
McCain does more than balance the ticket with a woman. He solves his complicated religious problem with Pentecostals, who according to a recent Barna survey make up almost half of all born again Christians.
A reasonable educational point, Doug.
But wait until MSNBC find out. Expect all hell to break loose. She will be portrayed as a pro creationist - Neanderthal. Just wait. And, as well intentioned as they will be, thinking that they are doing Obama a good deed, it will drive the Evangelicals into the McCain camp. All of Senator Obama’s kind overtures to people of faith will be for naught.
McCain’s support of the unpopular Iraq war will continue to be used by the Obama camp.
Obama is a media darling that McCain is not.
Many in the media like to brand Biblical Christians negatively and dismissively as fundamentalists. Not all Biblical Christians are, as there are more moderate positions taken by some, especially those of us with degrees that deal with Biblical, theological, and philosophical subtleties.
I reason the Republican ticket is in tough, but having Palin on the ticket may help the cause.
and
satireandtheology Says:
September 5, 2008 at 4:28 am
It seem to me Jeff has attempted to present accurate scholarly research from the scientists he has read. There are intellectual debates concerning evolution which I am somewhat familiar with, but not expert on. There is not 100% agreement on evolution within the Christian Church.
Even if some creationists did hypothetically support a hoax in regard to evolutionary fact it does give the entire Christian faith a bad name. There are philosophical, theological, Biblical, historical, and archaeological supports the Christian faith and philosophy that would remain untouched even if some creationists and Christians committed intellectual fraud.
Some persons that dismiss Christianity can see any perceived error as a license to view the entire movement in a bad light.
Christian faith and philosophy cannot be so easily dismissed.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteOther than replying to any anti-Creation comments on my own blog site, I probably should stop getting into Creation/Evolution debates. They too often end in mud-slinging contests. And if the Evolutionist is an Atheist, they are not likely (outside of God working in them) to accept Creation, because then they would first have to believe in God. Also, though God can work through intellectual means, no one is saved on an intellectual basis alone. A mere intellectual decision does not make one a Christian. We need to always be ready to give a reason for that which we believe in, but, at the same time, heated arguments rarely do any good.
I could really get used to sending comments to the Blogger lake of fire!;)
LOL!
That video of the guy out-running the cheetah is cool. It's amazing what can be done via video and digital photos these days.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in regard to 1 Peter 3: 15 and 2 Timothy 2: 15, as we need to defend the faith.
We do this is in a respectful manner. If I was you I would concentrate more on building your own blogs than debating on other blogs and sites too much. Debating is very good for learning, but time consuming and often negative. If I do not know much about a topic I take the position of a student. If I know something well, I am usually very good at debating it, but it can become an exercise in futility when dealing with closed-minded persons.
Chucky read the debate and thought you did fine although he could not digest all your material!;) There is a lot to read. I am no expert on evolution, but you successfully pointed out that evolutionary theory is not always scientific fact. There is still intellectual room for the Christian to both trust Scripture and science.
I found your opponents attitude concerning Christianity largely dismissive and my comments have not been countered as of yet. I see he backed off a bit at the end there in comments.
Jeff, please feel free to post some of your evolution points on my blogs.
Russ:)
All that being said, if anyone wants to add their say on that Doug Wead blog, please feel free!
ReplyDeleteRuss,
Back to your article here:
When I got saved, I figured I should be a Pastor. I even visited classes in a seminary. However, someone told me that you can use your God-given gifts and talents to serve Him, and it doesn't have to be in an "official ministry"-type occupation, contrary to what some claim.
I have been told for years that I "missed my calling" as a missionary. Yet, I have witnessed on the street, on the Internet, passed out tracts, placed tracts, etc. I don't think you necessarily have to cross the ocean to be a missionary. In fact, someone said that crossing an ocean doesn't magically turn a person into a missionary, anyway; in other words, if you're not doing it now, crossing an ocean won't suddenly change you. Besides, the Great Commission tells every Christian to be a witness. Too many Christians act as if evangelism is not their "calling," when, in fact, it's a command.
If we are truly led by Christ, and if He truly fills our lives, then no matter what we do, it should then be in His will. Since Christ should rule everything we do, there should be no dividing line between the 'secular' and the 'divine.' And, one 'occupation' or 'calling' should not be considered superior to another one. We are all members of the same body, but we all serve different roles and have different tasks and different skills.
At this point, your ministry is Christian blogging.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is (for both of us and many of us) finding out how to blog in the most effective way possible.
Russ:)
Obviously your qualifications make a difference, but aren't all Christians or don't most of us have the capacity to be teachers of some degree or other, whether Reverend of not. As Scripture says we are all part of the Priesthood. I don't think it’s only that we have the capacity to, but we also have a duty to. For me that remains and is likely to remain in a solely online capacity, for reasons you know about. But the Lord's Word is not to be kept locked up for only our own profit and/or benefit, we should sow in and out of season, and knowledge especially True knowledge is ultimately for using for good. I'm waffling , ;-) but basically saying I agree entirely that one doesn't need to be a Reverend in the context you were writing about. We all have a place in God's grand plan, and providence places us where it has. We should make the most of where the Lord has placed us, for his glory, even if like me in a "prison cell" Paul did much from a Prison cell via the written word.
ReplyDelete~Deejay
I imagine there are some that know me that would disagree, but I reason that Christian blogging can potentially be a legitimate Christian ministry.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deejay.
Russ:)
Though I believe that Internet Evangelism is a valid mission field, I don't believe that a Christian should limit themselves to that. I think we should 'shake salt' around wherever we go: the store, the workplace, school, etc. When I go to the gas station, I tape a gospel tract to the gas pump; when I go to the store, I leave tracts on the shelves; when I go by a public telephone, I leave a tract there. I forced myself to sit through "The DaVinci Code" only so that I could run and stand at the doorway afterward and hand out 80 or so gospel tracts to those exiting the movie. Next month during Halloween, I plan to hand out about 150 gospel tracts.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, as I said, an online ministry can be an effective tool in today's technology age, and with web evangelism, we can certainly potentially reach thousands of people in other cities and countries, people that we would never otherwise be able to reach.
Rebecca Manley Pippert wrote "Out of the SaltShaker & Into the World," where she advocates friendship evangelism. Though some have knocked friendship evangelism (presumably because it takes a long time, and you only reach a few people at a time), I think it is very valid...but, again, I definitely don't think a Christian should limit their outreach to that.
Others have implied that our actions should be our evangelism, and not our words, saying that our words speak louder than our actions. Though our actions certainly should be a testimony for Christ, to refuse to tell others about Christ through our words is disobedience. So again, we must not limit ourselves to that. In fact, if only your actions are Christ-like, and your words never reveal you are a Christian, most will simply interpret that as your being a 'good,' 'moral' person, and may never guess that you are a Christian.
There are Christian cartoonists, Christian musicians, Christian actors, Creation Scientists, etc. Others are carpenters, plumbers, car salesmen, etc., but they advertise (on their cars, on TV, on their signs, etc.) that they are Christians. All of these contribute to witnessing opportunities.
As the old saying goes, "Bloom where you're planted."
Some say that, as you show faithfulness and obedience in the capacity where you are at now, God will give you more responsibility so you can then serve Him in a larger capacity. I don't know how biblically accurate that is, but it may be true (though, I would suspect that it is not always true here on earth, because I think that a janitor could be a Christian, and could be witnessing to many people every day, and yet, he could remain a janitor all His life, and in Heaven, God could likely, I think, reward him with much responsibility there).
I am currently looking for a job, as I anticipate being laid off with a large number of others at the newspaper. The other week, I was looking online for 'Christian jobs.' It listed organ players at churches, Worship Leaders, etc. I was a bit frustrated, because a 'Christian job' should not be limited to working at a church.
May St. Maximillian Kolbe keep an eye out for your efforts!
ReplyDeleteI should add that Maximilian Kolbe is patron saint of journalists and of ham radio operators, and is a serious contender for patron saint of the internet (he's also patron saint of addicts).
ReplyDeleteCiao!
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteImagine a Christian blogger that would refuse to discuss the gospel, the Bible, and salvation with anyone off-line, how ridiculous.
Cheers.
Russ:)
Mr. Ox,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your support and humour, and please have a very good weekend, and may the Holy Spirit guide us.
I should add that Maximilian Kolbe is patron saint of journalists and of ham radio operators, and is a serious contender for patron saint of the internet (he's also patron saint of addicts).
ReplyDeleteLMHO, Dumb Ox! Hilarious!
The Internet can certainly be an addiction!
Russ,
ReplyDeleteImagine a Christian blogger that would refuse to discuss the gospel, the Bible, and salvation with anyone off-line, how ridiculous.
Hopefully, no Christian blogger is like that.
Jeff, from your debate on the Wead blog:
ReplyDeleteYou were asked:
Where were the Christians to argue for Ota Benga’s life and culture, Mr. Jenkins? Especially when Christians had control of Benga, why did they continue the assault on his culture and heritage, driving him to suicide?
And how is it that Jeff needs to defend the actions of Christians in Benga? I thought he was to defend the gospel with an open mind. I thought you were discussing evolution.
Jeff, I think you should defend the Crusades. Plus the current Pope was in the Hitler youth, defend that Jeff!
Jeff, when someone needs to argue like your opponent is, he is in trouble, even with his knowledge of evolution. I have commented twice on there and that is it for that article unless I am challenged.
Empirical scientific FACTS should be taught in science class. Any scientific philosophical theory should be pointed out as such!
ReplyDeleteCreation theory, which may be true at points, at yet is non-empirical in regard to first cause, should be taught in philosophy and philosophy of religion classes. I agree with Chucky on this point.
This reasonable approach would see scientific, secular and religious worldviews taught in High School.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine, Jim Badger, emailed me, recommending the book "The Case for a Creator," by Lee Strobel (which I have not read), and he also mentioned Ben Stein's film. I then invited him to join me in that debate you are referring to. His reply was as follows:
"Hey Jeff,
I'll look at it but I'm not into debates. That book really is amazing. I haven't seen Ben's film yet but I will. The interesting thing about evolution is that it has become a belief or a religion. None of us were here to see the earth formed so it takes as much faith to believe evolution as it does creation.
But that's where the creationists drive me a bit crazy sometimes. The Bible is not a science book just like science is not something to be taken on faith. The creationists lose because they have twisted science into faith or a religion. If something comes along to disprove the notion of evolution, real science would chuck it. The fact is, the evolutionists use their faith in order to say "there is no God". They may believe what they want but that is not science - just somebody unwilling to believe in God hiding behind the notion of science. It's their excuse to live however they want to. But that is not science and when we die it will all get sorted out anyway, too bad for the evolutionists who use the scientific argument to justify sin. Evolution will hold no comfort for them. I told my children growing up not to get too worried about the MECHANICS of how things started, if God in his infinite wisdom saw fit to evolve man from an ape - so be it (he didn't) but we weren't there at the time and we are not responsible for that. That's how I'm able to like the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey - I see it the as a sort of scientific myth like Hercules was or Apollo, they don't bother me. It's all ancient thinking. That would drive an evolutionist crazy because of their belief system - but that's the rub for them. When did Darwin come up with these assumptions? The 1800's? How much of scientific theory from the same era do we cling to today? Not a whole lot! Kind of makes these "scientists " look silly given that they do cling to it. Funny thing, I'm reminded of when I worked a Dayco, there was this guy I was witnessing to who really pummeled me about evolution. I just gave him my honest answers and every time he saw me he said he got a headache. He eventually became a Christian (he's the one!) and it was probably just to get rid of his pain..........Jimb"
I know Kevin Miller who is one of the writers of Expelled. He went to Columbia Bible College when I did.
ReplyDeleteI know Kevin Miller who is one of the writers of Expelled. He went to Columbia Bible College when I did.
ReplyDeleteCool! I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan to at some point. I also want to see "Unidentified", "Fireproof," and "Flywheel." "Fireproof," and "Flywheel" were both made by the same ones who made "Facing the Giants," which was an excellent movie.
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI do not know about the last two movies you mentioned.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteYou said in an earlier comment,
Jeff, please feel free to post some of your evolution points on my blogs.
OK, this quote from a website may be interesting:
"Claim CC352:
Archaeoraptor was touted by scientists as the dinosaur-bird transition (Sloan 1999), but it was revealed as a fake, a composite of an avian body and a non-avian dinosaur's tail.
Source:
* Austin, S. A., 2000. Archaeoraptor: Feathered dinosaur from National Geographic doesn't fly. Impact 321 (Mar).
CreationWiki response:
While Talk.Origins is correct that the Archaeoraptor hoax was the product of a Chinese fossil hunter and not a scientific fraud, it is clear that they do miss the point.
1. The hoax was discovered as a result of the discovery of the other half of the slab, which showed that the hoaxers had to do sufficient manipulation of the original fossil in creating 'Archaeoraptor' that the hoaxers had to know that they were creating a fake.
2. Archaeoraptor shows that these fossil hunters are not aways honest. In fact it exposed the existence of an entire fake fossil industry in China that continues to operate today.
3. All of the other recent so-called feathered dinosaurs were found in China, and access to them is highly restricted. No one skeptical of the dinosaur-to-bird theory has been allowed to examine them, which is not uncommon in paleontology.
4. Some if not most of the recent so-called feathered dinosaur fossils were obtained through fossil hunters and not found by paleontologists, and should therefore be suspected as hoaxes until proved otherwise.
The real point of Archaeoraptor is that it casts a shadow over any fossils found in China. We know that there is a fake fossil industry in China and that Chinese paleontologists often find fossils at fossil hunter stores rather than in the ground. As a result any fossil from China should be in question unless proved not to be a fossil hunter fake."
(from: http://creationwiki.org/Archaeoraptor_was_a_fake)
A fake fossil industry.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Also:
ReplyDelete"When all is said and done the fossil evidence can be justifiably divided into two buckets, man and beast. The Australopithecines, (A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. robustus, A. boisei, Lucy, etc.) are all apes. Homo erectus and Neanderthal used tools and have brain sizes that overlap with humans. One has to ask, what's the difference?"
"And further, many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same stratigraphic level, but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated by vast amounts of time (and therefore appear at different levels in the Earth)."
(from: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emsum.htm)
I find this funny:
ReplyDelete"For perspective, 6,000 years represents the whole of recorded human history, going back to the earliest Mesopotamian civilizations. In that short time, humanity has built pyramids and airplanes, isolated DNA, and gone to the Moon. Yet our fully modern ancestors purportedly piddled around with flint hand-axes for 40,000 years, with the most significant change being the transition from unifacial points (flaked only on one side) to bifacial points (flaked on both sides). Any resourceful fellow from East Tennessee could develop the entire catalog of primitive tools in a single summer, yet we are told that it took the combined resources of the whole human race—New World and Old—a grand total of 1.2 million years?"
(from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313)
This is also interesting:
ReplyDelete"The dating of these stone tools and artifacts is established as follows: a cache of arrowheads or blades is discovered in one location (say, southern France). It then will be compared with other stone tools found in another location, such as eastern Germany. The set of tools that looks more primitive will be given the older date. European finds also are compared to American and Asian discoveries, the assumption being that modern humans evolved tool-making abilities at roughly the same time. This is pure speculation, however, as even our own experience tells us. In developed countries today, technology is abundant and frequently used, while in developing nations and poorer societies, basic, manual tools are still used (some cultures even persist in the use of “stone age” tools). In our own nation, there is a similar diversity. A well-endowed university has state-of-the-art facilities and equipment, and a smaller college in the same state or town may of necessity use “hand-me-downs.” If the world were destroyed today, and these same evolutionists examined our remains in the future, they would conclude that third-world countries predated the West by tens of thousands of years. Such is the foundation of archaeological dating of this sort."
(http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313)
"The actual facts, however (as opposed to the interpretation of the facts), support the Bible. Even though these artifacts and fossils are given late dates, the gradual evolution of culture that evolutionists expect is missing. Instead, cultures burst onto the scene, fully formed, with no trace of evolution. Henri Frankfort admitted: “We do not know [how] the change from old to new, from Old Stone Age to New Stone Age came about, for nowhere has a series of continuous remains covering the transition been recognized” (as quoted in McCone, 1972, p. 127). The famous cave drawings of Altamira, Lascaux, and Grotte de Chauvet appeared suddenly in the historical record, yet were so advanced as to be compared to the “greatest masterpieces of all time” (Wendt, 1956, p. 329). Art was not an isolated endeavor in parts of Europe or America; it appeared worldwide by 25,000 B.C. (according to evolutionary figures). Richard Klein and Blake Edgar refer to the period as the “big bang” of human consciousness (2002), and rightly so; seemingly all at once, humans began painting, constructing and playing musical instruments, and fashioning clothing and jewelry."
ReplyDelete(http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313)
"Human history actually is not “easily traced back further than 10,000 B.C.,” as John Clayton suggested. Instead, humans and their attendant culture appeared on this Earth quite suddenly—and quite recently. Evidence of humanity is practically nonexistent until 10,000 B.C. (again, using evolutionists’ dates), and is meager between 3,000-4,000 B.C., when humans began recording events in writing. Anything dated prior to 3,000-4,000 B.C. is speculative, and is based on evolutionary assumptions of “the way things should have progressed.” Clark, an evolutionist, freely admitted as much.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, the voluminous literature on the MHO [modern human origins—AB] debate paints a picture of informed and sophisticated interdisciplinary research in which data are absorbed and digested, arguments assimilated, and methodologies understood, compared, and evaluated. I suggest, however, that this is a gross oversimplification of a much more complex reality. We are, in effect, consumers of one another’s research conclusions, but we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions (1999, 283:2031, emp. added).
Despite the best attempts of those who desire to compromise the biblical record, the evidence stands alone. Human history can be traced back less than 10,000 years. It began when God placed man in the Garden, and the archaeological record begins when Noah and his family stepped off the ark onto dry land to repopulate the Earth. Accepting these facts as history is not an act of blind faith, but the exercise of reason and intelligence coupled with true science and a steadfast belief in God’s revelation."
(http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313)
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you providing information from your debate, which I also took part in, although I covered theology mainly.
For a Christian old earth perspective, I think this site is helpful:
Ross
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThat site has some helpful information, but, though I respect Hugh Ross, and have his book "The Fingerprint of God," I don't try to bend Genesis to fit the Evolutionary theory.
Could God Have Used Evolution?
ReplyDeleteby Sean McDowell
(The following article is from Christian Worldview Network)
“Why couldn’t God have just used evolution as his means of creating the world? Why do many Christians consider it a threat to their faith? What’s the big deal?” This is one of the most commonly asked questions about the origins debate, especially from young people. Many people wonder why Christians don’t simply accept Darwin’s theory as the means through which God created and then get on with it.
This is a question I have wrestled with quite profoundly. I have asked many theologians, scientists, and philosophers the question, Is Darwinian evolution compatible with Christianity? After much thought and research, the conclusion I have come up with is that they are not compatible. To accept Darwinian evolution would be a grave mistake. Let me explain.
Christianity and Darwinian Evolution: An Oxymoron!
The reason the two cannot be wedded together is actually rather simple: Darwinian evolution (as you may recall from 9th grade Biology class) is a blind, undirected, purposelessness process. As Richard Dawkins regularly points out, evolution is a chance process that has no end-goal in mind. On the other hand, when we design something it’s no longer blind and it’s no longer undirected—it’s purposeful. Thus, to say God used evolution is an oxymoron (designed-chance) like “Christian-atheist,” “jumbo-shrimp,” or “Microsoft Works.”
Think about it this way. There are two ways to build a computer (which, by the way, is far less complex than a single human cell). One option is to throw the parts on the ground and let natural processes alone do the work. Maybe with wind, rain, and a big earthquake the computer will be assembled by itself. If so, this would be a chance process. Most reasonable people will recognize that this will never happen, but it does illustrate how something could in principle be constructed by chance (ignoring the question of where the parts came from in the first place!)
But there is another way to build a computer: design. A computer designer makes individual parts and places them in the right arrangement so it will perform certain functions. A computer designer has a purposeful, directed plan for the computer—it is not the result of chance.
Can you see how this relates to evolution? God could either design the world or let it go by chance, but not both. As soon as God guides the process (design) it is no longer natural (chance). It is simply illogical to claim that God used evolution as his means of creating the world, for it would be an oxymoron: designed-chance.
Now, if by “evolution” we simply mean common descent, then sure—God could’ve used common descent. Common descent refers to the idea that all species are derived from a common ancestor millions of years ago (i.e., you are related to your pet snail!). God could have created all organisms with a common ancestor. But here’s the key point: His mechanism would not be natural selection acting on random mutation, for that is an un-designed process.
Consider Corvettes as an example. Corvettes have a common ancestor (the first year they were made). As Corvettes are designed over multiple years, we see similarities and commonalities with each successive model. But, of course, Corvettes were designed. If that’s what we mean by evolution, then sure, God could’ve used it. Many proponents of intelligent design actually believe this (for the record, I don’t).
Can Christians Believe in Evolution?
So, can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution? Sure. You can be a Christian and believe in all sorts of things that are false! But the real question is, Can Christianity be true and Darwinian evolution be true? I don’t think they can.
I think a lot of people want to find a way to reconcile the two because they believe the evidence for Darwinian evolution is so overwhelming that they want to “save room” for their faith by saying maybe God just used evolution. So, they want to maintain their faith without giving it up. But as I write in Understanding Intelligent Design (Harvest House, 2008), you don’t have to! There’s another scientifically and philosophically rigorous theory that is much more compatible with the historic Christian faith. You can check out the first chapter for free at http://www.seanmcdowell.org.
Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
(To see the article on its original website, go HERE
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI have heard Ross on-line debate two young earth creationists, and I thought he did quite well.
As far as Genesis is concerned as we have discussed previously there are many conservative scholars that reason Genesis uses significant figurative language at points which can allow for unknown periods of time in regard to creation. I reason Genesis does use figurative language at points and in Biblical studies the type of language used must factor into interpretations. I should point out that holding to an old earth, does not mean a scholar holds to old humanity. I like Jeff, reason humanity is thousands of years old, and believing in the existence if humanity thousands of years before recorded history is questionable.
There is plenty of room for debate and we can both quote scholars for old and new earth. But, I am going to publish a new article on thekingpin68 and will need comments there soon and not here.:)
I like Jeff, reason humanity is thousands of years old, and believing in the existence if humanity thousands of years before recorded history is questionable.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even realize we agreed on that point. Cool!
Jeff, we need to hold to where the evidence leads us. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)