Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Parody on Global Warming

'Twas the night before Christmas
Through our nation and more,
Not a creature was stirring,
Not even Al Gore.

The snow although charming
from Seattle to Maine,
For sure global warming
Ain't here if I'm sane.

We hope it's none harming
No shivers and fright
Farewell global warming
And to all a good night.

-G.G. 12/24/08.

Monday, December 22, 2008

The Role of Faith

John W. writes:

“Now faith is ... [believing] the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:1-3).

Whether we look through a telescope or microscope, creation shouts the glory of her Designer and Creator!

Yet, It amazes us that unbelieving scientists can have "faith" in the mechanism of Darwinian evolution when that theory is so lacking in convincing evidence. For example, Michael Behe and others have pointed out that recent advances in microbiology prove "irreducible complexity" in the code of life, such as in the DNA molecule. Darwin might be excused for supposing that the cell is "simple," but that's not an option today. Non-atheistic scientists point out the obvious: Where did all the information come from at the genetic level? No naturalistic explanation is acceptable.

What all the scientific knowledge and technology in the world cannot produce (life from non-life) is supposed to have arisen without cause, design, or external intervention. Here is faith in a model of origins that suppresses the obvious general revelation of God.

"...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:19-22).

This confirms that popular "belief" in evolution is not inductively shown from scientific data. but is based on philosophy and the determination to be "gods" who are free and self-determined.

May Christians confidently choose to welcome general and special revelation as described in Psalm 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge..."

As the writer of Hebrews declares, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:1-6).

Thursday, December 4, 2008

After its kind

A note from Margaret:

Thank you, Gorman, for mentioning "evolution" in connection with the museum at Drumheller. I have been thinking about evolution lately, too.

When Glen was in high school, he was taught the theory of evolution by a teacher who could made it sound very reasonable. One of the "proofs" had to do with "tigons" and "ligers." Lions and tigers can interbreed, was the argument, and that proves they have a common ancestor. Ergo - evolution is a fact.

But that's not the whole story. Biologists are well aware that MALE tigons and ligers are always sterile. Only the female is fertile; so they cannot interbreed. One evolutionist speaks ruefully of this "natural biological barrier against hybridization," because it effectively prevents "successful breeding." In other words, no matter how hard men try to manipulate the breeding of lions and tigers (which do not interbreed in nature), they cannot produce a new "kind" that can reproduce itself.

I find that exciting, because it fits so well the story of Genesis 1. All the kinds created by God were to reproduce according to their own kind; and that is something tigons and ligers cannot possibly do.

Humans, on the other hand, are all one "kind." In spite of the enormous diversity that exists between the races that have descended from Adam, there is no "natural barrier" to prevent interbreeding. In fact, the offspring of two different races usually exhibit the kind of "hybrid vitality" that biologists expect when the gene pool has been strengthened and lost genes restored. Humans - no doubt about it - have a common ancestor. They reproduce according to the "kind" that God created a few thousands years ago.

I believe the "natural biological barrier against hybridization" was put there by God. It ensures that the "kinds" God originally created will not be used to create another "kind." Tigons and ligers are evidence that the barrier works. They CANNOT reproduce according to their own kind, because lions and tigers do not have a common ancestor.

The laws that govern the physical universe are absolutely dependable. (That's why I sort of envy your place of residence near the path of the total solar eclipse that is forecast for 2017. I'd love to see that.)

But the biological laws that govern life are just as dependable, and I'm grateful to you for the reminder...

- Margaret Collier

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Summary Point # 16

This view of Genesis [young biosphere creationism] can accommodate a short or long period of time before the first day. Where the Bible remains silent, we may cautiously look to science and make our guesses. In any case, we must glorify God as Lord of the vastness of time as well as the vastness of space. But no room can be allowed for biological development during the vast time period. The biology and dry land geology of our earth is recent--less than 8,000 years old.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Summary Point # 15

The ex nihilo creation of the universe is not a suitable example for men to imitate in their weekly work pattern, because men cannot create anything ex nihilo. Therefore, it is reasonable that God's six-day example was limited to "making" or working on preexisting materials--like man does in his daily labor.

This work, on the already existing planet, is recorded for us beginning with the first earth day. Exodus 20:11 does not refer to anything that God created ex nihilo before there were any earth days, namely the universe of stars, planets, and angels. The fourth commandment is not even primarily a passage on origins. It is much wiser to build a cosmogony from passages specifically centering on that subject.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Summary Point # 14

The words "heaven" and "earth" are each defined in two ways in Genesis, one of which is specified by God Himself during the six-day activity as atmosphere and continental land. Therefore, the definitions assigned during those six days must modify the passage in Exodus when referencing the very same six days. This is basic hermeneutics 101 or if there is a "grade school" hermeneutics it would be centrally emphasized there. Exodus 20:11 refers only to the work of the six-day period which pertained to earth's air, land, and sea for "work" is the setting of the fourth commandment. The "uninhabited and empty" earth was being "filled" with biological life. To apply Exodus 20:11 to the stellar heavens violates the context, for it has nothing to do with the original creation of sun, moon and stars, completed in verse one, but only the "work" of the following six days. Air and land, having been defined by God Himself during those referenced six days, simply leaves us with no other option.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Summary Point # 13

All the "days" of Genesis were literal, solar time periods. God cited the six days [Gen. 1:1-31], followed by a Sabbath [Gen. 2:1-3], as an example for man to work and rest. The Hebrew asah when translated, "worked on," "brought forth," "established" or "did" in the origins passages [1:7,16...], better reflects the meaning of the Hebrew word in that context.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Halley and Northrup



Re: August 31 posting.

Thanks, John, for the references to people who held my view before me. I also remember when writing the Age of the Universe book making a deliberate decision to avoid the commentaries and expositions until after I had absorbed the Scripture for myself. So I depend on good friends like you to do research for me "after the fact."
 
(Age of the Universe, Page 82) Some say, "Your interpretation is new. The church has never understood it this way," My answer is "No, it is not new. True, it has not been widely known and several sources supply only pieces of the whole, but consider. Would anyone guess the argument of this chapter before satellite exploration? Hardly. Similarly, would the early or medieval church concern themselves with galactic distances and the speed of light before Roemer measured it in 1676? I insist that one need not know the facts of astronomy to conclude the interpretation offered here. Job 38 was here from antiquity and all the arguments presented are valid for any time period. I have not concerned myself with the history of relevant interpretations but I will mention the well known commentary of Jamieson, Faussett and Brown,which (in part) supports my thesis. Similarly, Halley's Bible Handbook (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1962 pages 59-61) states regarding the fourth day:

"On the "first day" (light from sun, moon and stars) must have penetrated the earth's mists (1:3) while they themselves were not visible. But now, (on the fourth day) due to the lessening density of the clouds,... they became visible on earth."

Probably hidden away in some dusty volume is the entire thing in one piece, like scrolls found in pottery in an archaeology site.
 
(And from page 179) Following are quotations from Dr. Northrup which are listed below for the following purpose: It should be significant that the conclusions I have presented in various papers since 1985 or so and verbally for decades before that, were arrived at completely independently from Dr. Northrup even though they sound so similar. My suspicion is that numerous people who do not publish at all but who have examined the text have also come to the same conclusions. No one has a patent on Bible interpretation. Halley's handbook has a brief explanation which has some differences but again is similar. I include Dr. Northrup's interpretation to show how independent students can come to precisely the same conclusions from a search of the Scripture without the slightest knowledge one of the other. This is important for it shows that the truth was there, available to each without derivation from a common source other than the Bible itself. It is also encouraging that I, with a careful use of prayer, lexicons, dictionaries and other tools available to any student but with zero knowledge of Hebrew, can derive the same conclusion as he, an expert in the original languages. This should encourage other students to "search the Scriptures" which is the privilege of every believer even without academic letters. I have referred to Dr. Northrup earlier within this text (see pages 54 and 73).
 

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Affirmation from

From J.B. Woodward:

As one of Gorman's readers, it has interested me to come across other scholars who have held to one or more of his propositions. Although Gorman's book was born out of his personal Bible study, there are many other confirming witnesses.

Note this entry in the The Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia. It was written by Ashley S. Johnson in 1896. Under the topic, "Creation," the author gives the following summary:

Date. The date of creation cannot be determined. The first statement of the book of Genesis places the time in remote and impenetrable antiquity.

Creator. The writer of Genesis offers no proof of the existence of Jehovah or of the fact that all things were made by Him. (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:10; Hebrews 11:3).

Light. The process of creation had probably been going on for ages before light was created by the fiat of Jehovah (Genesis 1:1, 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

Days of Creation. The fact that the creative work had been going on for unnumbered ages, leads the reverent student to the conclusion that the "days" were ordinary periods of twenty-four hours each, and that each product of Almighty power was finished and appointed to its sphere on its designated day. The phrase "evening and morning" occurs six times in the first account of creation, and it cannot be understood except in the light of the above statement.

[emphasis added]

Johnson, Ashley S. "Creation," Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia. Blue Letter Bible. 1 Jul 2002. 31 Aug 2008.
.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Summary Point #12

Whether celestial bodies were created on day four of Creation Week (Gen. 1:14-19) or simply unveiled then, an observer on earth would visually experience no difference at all, hence, God's textual description could be identical either way.

Therefore, the record of day four provides no compulsion to think "created" (ex nihilo) in Genesis 1:16 when the verb (asah)is allowed its contextual force.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Summary Point # 11

Job 9:7 declares,

"(God) speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
He seals off the light of the stars."


Although a different context, this quotation from Job perfectly explains the "making/doing" of the great lights and stars of day four of the Creation week. The "sealing off" was reduced (diminished) on day one (Gen. 1:3) and unsealed completely on day
four (Gen. 1:14). God sealed, then unsealed the stars.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Summary Point #10

In Luke 23:45, the sun "stopped shining"; its "light failed" at the crucifixion. All agree the sun was then hidden from visibility, not extinguished. Like the three days of darkness in Egypt (Exodus 10:22), and the darkness predicted at the Second Coming (Mark 13:24), these illustrate the darkness before day one of the creation week. The sun had been created and was shinning (Gen. 1:1), but "darkness was on the face of the deep"--the ocean of planet earth (Gen. 1:2).

Monday, August 4, 2008

Summary Point # 9

9) No suggestion is indicated in the record [in Genesis 1] of a temporary illumination for days one to three. That is a forced construct imposed on the text to rescue a mistaken concept. Then another construct is needed to undo the temporary light so the sun can take over on day four. Those imposed ideas (eisegesis) simply are not in the text but are inane inventions. Accept the obscuring cloud of Job 38 made translucent for day one and then transparent for day four and all major problems are solved and completely rational. It is undisputed that God created an earth that was dark. It is
also undisputed that the atmosphere was clear on day four. The atmosphere that produced the darkness on the ocean surface at some time had to be cleared as a logical necessity with no other options; it is supremely reasonable to have it cleared progressively until complete on day four giving visibility to stars. On day four, the great lights and stars are described as having been "given forth" (nathan) in the air. No artificial, temporary light is needed.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

A Bribe for All Seasons

Mutually Incompatible Philosophies:
Why They Seldom Resolve.


"You must not wrest judgment; you must not respect persons nor accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous" (Dueteronomy 16:19).

This essay has nothing to do with bribes of money or material nor of literal extortion. My thesis proposes that social forces can function in almost the same ways as do literal material bribes.

It is a biblical principle: Bribes blind the mind of the wise. He does not say, "A bribe blinds the minds of foolish people." No, no, it is wise people. Extortion turns wise people into fools (Ecclesiastes 7:7).

Wherever there exists competition for position or power, or even a desire for acceptance with those who are highly positioned and powerful, there exists a kind of extortion and bribery to conform. Many examples could be provided--political, religious, social, academic, intellectual and scientific. Church organizations, the neighborhood gangs, or the corporate ladder are all subject to this hazard. Competing intellectual ideologies of all kinds are fueled by it. Current clothing styles worn by celebs bribe high school students to conform and the celebs themselves are bribed by the hunger for success.

The "bribe" may consist of a lucrative job or a political advantage. It can also be social advantage such as belonging to the "in" crowd. Even the children's playground can be ruled by the bribe of social acceptance. The big man on campus, whether in Congress, or Harvard, or kindergarten--if they weild social influence--can blind the eyes of the persons influenced. They are intellectually forced to join a political party, or to take their first puff of a cigarette or disclose a secret to the most popular five year old.

The prospect of tenure can bribe a professor to promote the party line. The prospect of becoming a cardinal can bribe the bishop, or an offer of a church pulpit can bribe a Protestant to accept the doctrinal distinctives of a mother organization. The prospect of marriage can bribe the maiden into compromise. Herd mentality creates a bribe which sends young warriors into conflicts which might be good or might be very, very bad.

If someone has written books, or given lectures on a position and then is confronted with challenging information, the bribe of social peer acceptance by the various social structures surrounding them looms to force "hang on to the party line" whether it is a book with its errors or perverted morals of friends. The same dynamic shows up when a person living in immorality is rebuked. They usually resist change due to per pressure.

Having lived "x" years supporting a denomination with certain distinctives, and an assured income which would be jeopordized from that source, how could one ever think of changing or even modifying doctrines when retirement looms?

Extortion turns a wise man into a fool and a bribe corrupts the heart (Eccl. 7:7). My title refers to conflicts in philosophy or ideologies. So, with the above illustrative background let us apply this principle more directly into that area of personal theories or developing ideologies.

T.C. Chamberlain wrote an article on geology in about 1905. The article (quoted below) was provocative but so good that it was published in the Journal of Geology 1995 as an historical essay. It describes what can happen to a theorist if they do not "hang loose" during the development of a theory. What Chamberlain says about geology, I want to apply to chosen life styles or religious affiliations or all the examples preceding. The principles below apply to many venues.

He writes on the subject of geology (italicized, bold) but I am asking readers to insert their own discipline, religion, thought system or philosophy in place of the word "geology."

The Model Builder

In geology [Or in my current philosophy whether created by me or as merely a persuaded follower of someone or some other doctrine. - GG] In geology there are lots of unknowns. The moment one is offered an original explanation for a phenomenon, which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more and more dear to him. While he persuades himself that he holds it still as tentative, it is nonetheless lovingly tentative, and not impartially and indifferently tentative. So, soon, as this parental affection takes possession of the mind there is apt to be a rapid passage to the unreserved adoption of the theory. There has been imminent danger of an unconscious selection, and of magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of phenomena that fail to coincide. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily in the embrace of the theory and feels a natural coldness toward those that assume a refractory attitude. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires. There springs up also, unwittingly, a pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to make it fit the theory. When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation are all dominated by affection of their favorite theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to a position of control in the process of the mind and observation. Induction and interpretation are guided by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily grows to be a master that leads its author whithersoever it will.. The subsequent history of that mind in respect to that theme is but the progressive dominance of a ruling idea.

Briefly summed up the evolution is this: A premature explanation passes first into a tentative theory, then into an adopted theory, and lastly into a ruling theory. When this last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone.

The article generated tremendous amount of response but disappointingly the reaction largely was, "We hardly ever follow it and we do not follow it now. It takes too much time."

Well, obviously God wants us to resist the forces, "the bribes" (intellectual, social, political, financial, moral), or whatever leads us into any kind of error or darkness.

Pride and selfishness has an automatic blinding quality because it provides a kind of extortion, which forces the person to hold tight to the error he/she is holding. There is fear that the social Gestapo accompanying that ideology, or doctrine, or prevailing theory will ostracize or (figuratively) execute any person who deviates from the accepted norm; that fear controls the choices. Some would rather risk hell, holding on to an error, than give a thorough, unbiased search for truth. Often the sheer numbers of devotees is enough to convince many that a certain doctrine is true. Few will risk social rejection here on earth when there are 850 prophets of Baal unanimous in their enthusiasm and also aided by the political powers of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings 18).

The basic need for us is humility. But that requires a thorough repentance which never comes without help from God. It requires bowing the knee to Jesus Christ, making Him the boss of our lives and asking Him fervently for help.

I say it with compassion, dear reader of any description and in any area of competition for position, power or social acceptance: If this shoe fits for you, then by all means wear it. God will reward you as He did Elijah in His good time. I do not know a single person (including myself) who is not tested with bribes and powerful temptations. Few have the moral strength to choose life when the various bribes hang overhead. "After all, I've poured my life into this belief system. How can I change now?"

But the competing ideologies cannot all be right which means millions of intelligent, dogmatic people need the humility to consider, "I could be one of those millions who are mistaken." For some it might be only a few peripheral areas while the basic theology is okay. With others the entire system has to be scrapped. For example, Saul of Tarsus was turned 180 degrees through his personal encounter with the Truth (Acts 9).

In many denominations, organizations or social arrangements, one is surrounded with an unconscious aura of the fear of change. Therefore, it could be safer to stay away from such organizations or social coteries because it automatically locks one into error if error exists. So much is invested that this becomes a subtle extortion or bribe preventing an honest search for truth.

This need not contradict the maxim, "in essentials, unity; in distinctives, liberty and in all things charity."

Now please reread Chamberlain's article again with your particular persuasions inserted for the word, "geology." Evolutionary theory fits this shoe. So does the approval of live-in sexual relationships without marriage. So may a dogmatic rapture theory or a humanistic political party. So does almost every mutually incompatible philosophy. But human nature is stubborn, unwilling to bow the knee and admit reality. That is why these conflicts seldom resolve. Humble hearts are rare. Let us heed this summons to be teachable and prayerfully follow truth at any cost.

- Gorman Gray

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Summary Points # 7 & 8

7) In English we "do" our dishes and "do" our hair (transitive verbs). Neither the dishes nor the hair are created by "doing" them, and, likewise, the stars were not created when God "did" them (for signals and seasons). Asah is transitive in Genesis 1:16.

8) The luminaries (lamps or lights) were "set" or "given forth" in the atmospheric expanse in the same way that rainbows are "set" in the cloud (same word, nathan). Their function described on day four was for seasonal markers. The Bible was written for men, so the viewing platform is the surface of the earth, where man was to dwell. God Himself talks to Job about the constellations, obviously viewed from Job's perspective (Job 38:31-33). To suggest an isolated planet earth created first, followed by celestial bodies and then earth itself accelerated into orbits later, from its patent absurdity, justifies incredulity from the scientific community.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

comment from Margaret

Margaret has left a new comment on your post "Summary Point # 6":
 
I think it's a mistake to split the first sentence of v. 16 in two, as if the first half were the whole thing. God made those lights DO something. He gave them a role to play. He made them govern the day and night. As Ps. 104:19 puts it, he appointed (asah) the moon for seasons. The word (asah) is used in a similar way in 1 Kings 12:31.
It should be noted that "asah" is NEVER translated "create". That is not what it means.
So, just as God made (caused) Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, so he made (caused) the lights to rule the day and night.
How?
The gradual lessening of the atmosphere that started on day one progressed through day two and continued until day four, when the atmosphere finally became transparent. And there were the lights, in the firmament of heaven, controlling such things as seasons, days, months and years - just as God planned for them to do.

I think your blog is a good idea, Gorman. I hope more people get into the discussion. You are very stubborn, but you allow other people to be just as stubborn. I approve of that.
 
Margaret

Monday, July 14, 2008

Summary Point # 6

Ordinary readers might not make that connection (about God "making" the dry land by causing it to appear as He "made" the sun and stars by causing them to appear) and might conclude that the text plainly reads that God "made" the stars on day four by which he thinks "created out of nothing." They are not expected to notice this indirect reasoning, however compelling it may be.

Hence a better translation for "made" on day four is needed, which does not mislead casual readers (Gen. 1:16). "God brought forth, or prepared, or did, or put into execution, or established, or produced, or performed, or brought about, or put, or arranged, or provided, or set in order two great lights and the stars" on day four--take your pick. Or make up a word which is a blend of all those choices and
suitable to the day four context. It will probably be close to "did." "Made" is okay if accompanied and understood with the Jonah caveat. The verb is commonly translated over six dozen ways including those cited above. "Do" or "did" is, by far, the most common translation.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Summary Point #5

5) On day two, God made the air (the expanse where birds fly) which "continually separates" the ocean waters into the clouds in the hydrologic cycle. Jonah, the prophet, informs, "Yahweh made (asah) the sea and the dry land." That being the case, then we must ask just how God "made" the dry land on day three? "Let the waters be gathered into a sea, and let the dry land appear." God made the dry land, not by creating the dry material, but by uncovering, exposing, and manifesting the submerged continent.

God made the great lights and stars the very next day, not by creating them, but by uncovering, exposing, and manifesting the obscured lights. They appeared, just as the dry land "appeared," thus completing the "separation of day and night." The immediate context, of "making" the dry land, clearly justifies a similar picture for the "making" of the great lights and stars on the next day. The stars emerged from the clearing atmosphere like land emerged from water the day before.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Summary Point 4

4) The expression "evening and morning" is meaningless except on a rotating sphere with a single light source. God began clearing the dense blanket on day one to diffuse visibility, then completed it on day four. Like Gideon's lanterns, Moses' veil, or the pillar of cloud hiding Shekinah glory, so stars were veiled until day four.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Summary Points 2 & 3

2) After that basic celestial creation, God hovered like a patient, brooding bird at night for an undefined time until the first day of light over the ocean which took place less than 8,000 years ago.

3) We conclude that planet earth existed as a coherent body after the verse one creation, rather than an "unformed" fluidic mass, by use of the "subtraction method" (starting at the "very good" completed sixth day and carefully subtracting each days specified work until the command, "Let there be light.") Then we look at the remaining scene to determine inescapably that planet earth was completely formed, ocean covered, although sterile, at verse one and if earth was complete, then the "heavens" were complete, being part of the same expression. If earth had been created before the heavens then a logical Holy Spirit would say, "In the beginning God created the earth and the heavens," not the reverse. The planet was "uninhabited and empty" of life. Later the "empty" condition was replaced with "full" when God commanded living things to "fill" the air, land and waters. The six days all relate to the biosphere.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Summary Points # 1

I will be posting summary statements that appear at the close of the book The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits. It is intended as a discussion starter. Each paragraph, therefore, should not be considered complete as an argument. But many subjects are epitomized, thus providing many topics for discussion. Obtain the book from the web site www.ageoftheuniverse.com. Visitors to this blog are invited to comment, improve, elaborate or disagree. (Friendly respectful language only will be posted but all views are welcome.) Paragraphs are numbered for easy reference.

1) It is a grave and grievous error to conclude a mandatory young universe. God created the universe and planet earth in the undefined past, probably long before the six days of biosphere work of Genesis. To view Genesis 1:1 as a topical summary is erroneous and destructive to the true testimony of the creation account. The planet was ocean-covered, but kept in total blackness by a blanket of thick darkness somehow made of "waters that were above" and wrapped around the planet, like a swaddling band and blanket are wrapped around a newborn babe. The planet Venus, with a clouded atmosphere, has never experienced a true "first day" on its surface, and, therefore, has no terrestrial reference to season, years or celestial orientation. Although its atmosphere differs completely in composition (and there may be considerable translucence) it illustrates earth‚s condition of "darkness on the surface of the ocean" before day one which had a totally opaque cloud cover. Omission of this primary creation passage in Job 38 cannot fail to leave a flawed interpretive legacy.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Endorsement

Here is a recent note from Kurt Vanderber:

"I just finished your book and must say it is awesome! I have never committed to a specific camp on the age of the universe, but I must say that you have presented overwhelming evidence for an undefined age of the universe/early stage earth. I thank you for clearing up Genesis 1."
- professor of mathematics, State University of New York (Cobleskill, NY)


Blog launched

As I receive correspondence from readers of my book, The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?, I've seen the value of making this dialog open to those who are learning about origins. Issues, resources, and disputes can be explored here in a more interactive way. You are invited to read and respond to these entries as we seek to clarify and defend the Young Biosphere model of creation.