I’m not a fan of either position Robert Rowe or Dr. Josh Bowen. I think they are liberal in their perspectives, but it is interesting what Dr. Bowen says about him in his video. A slightly liberal Christian perspective vs Liberal Atheist scholar perspective: Continue reading Robert Rowe on The Flood
Here is a random collection of articles on the topic of Genesis 1-3. Steve Hays: Introduction to Genesis Is Genesis preexilic? From first day to fourth day Very good East of Eden The Fall Cain & Abel Change in the … Continue reading The Creation Account
Here are a few links presenting the position that Genesis 1 is teaching creation from nothing. Dr. Vern Poythress: Genesis 1 Triablogue: Does Gen 1 teach creation ex nihilo? The days of creation Vocalization and Genesis 1:1 Continue reading Creation Ex Nihilo and Genesis 1
A few nights ago I was in an argument with a friend that has given up inerrancy to force a Flat Earth cosmology into the text. He assumes a universal background continued into the early church and sticks to his talking points. I just deny the existence of any universal agreement on anything. He ignores evidence to the contrary and acts as if those ANE worldviews have no political reasons. Jason Engwer has done a masterful job in showing this is naive. He was responding to John Loftus and it shows liberals and atheist feed off each other. The liberal … Continue reading Flattening out the Facts
The idea that it is the universal background of the OT that the world was Flat and had a metal dome isn’t universally accepted. Dr. Vern Poythress in his book (P. 96) “Redeeming Science” gave his thoughts on this issue: 8 Sometimes it is said that the language in the Bible arises against the background of ancient “cosmology” that postulated underlying waters, then solid earth, then a solid “firmament” dome for the sky, then the sea above the firmament (Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above. Part I: The Meaning of raqia‘ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal … Continue reading Universal Background?
The common claim that the entire ANE all believed in a Three Tiered Cosmology and that it is even thought in our own Bible is a common annoying claim. Those who present such ideas miss the simplest observations to maintain their narrative. Steve Hays once wrote: Critics of the Bible like to belabor the triple-decker universe. This overlooks a number of considerations. 1.The Bible employs a double-decker formula (e.g. Gen 2:4) as well as triple-decker formula (e.g. Exod 20:4). Given this stylistic variety, there is no reason to privilege the triple-decker formula over and above the double-decker formula. Continue reading The triple-decker universe
Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography. The common alternative to Concordism is Accommodationism. This view is defined different way according to different individuals. The term is used to explain how an infinite God can communicate to creatures. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes used as a ploy to deny inerrancy. It is used very loosely. God communicating in Human language is an example of accommodation. He uses such things as the Covenant is another example of accommodations for us. It is … Continue reading Accommodationism
The view that looks most promising to me about the tree of life is that it wasn’t some magical tree that supplied immortality. The tree of life is apparently some kind of sacrament (that is, there is no reason to believe it is magical) that would confirm the man in his moral condition: hence he needed to gain (or retain) access to it by obedience and would have been rewarded by being confirmed in holiness forever. This is why God does not want him to have it after his sin (Gen. 3:22): he would then be confirmed in his sinfulness … Continue reading Tree of Life
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.