Showing posts with label Justin Brierley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justin Brierley. Show all posts
Monday, June 6, 2022
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Tuesday, April 12, 2022
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Peter J Williams & Bart Ehrman • The story of Jesus: Are the Gospels his...
Over the years, Dr Ehrman has debated many famous and capable Christians over the years. I highly recommend them.
Vs James White
vs. Michael Brown
vs. Dan Wallace
vs. William Lane Craig
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Responding to "Do we live on a young or an old earth? - Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink"
This is by far not the first time I've seen Ken Ham debate this. And he seems intractable as ever. It's like he does not listen to any viewpoint other than his own. Don't get me wrong. I do think that Ken Ham loves God and that he is a real Christian although I disagree with him on his conclusions. My biggest problem with him is that he does not see that other Christians can love God, respect the Bible, and yet disagree with him. For Ken Ham, his Young Earth Creationism is a litmus test for orthodoxy. He doubts your sincerity and your salvation if you disagree with him on the age of the earth. This is not a salvation issue. As Frank Turek once pointed out, Jesus is not going to kick you out of heaven if you get this wrong. But I want my views to be true.
In addition, I see no reason to conclude that believing the Bible means denying science or common sense one way or the other. Although I do not agree with Ham that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also know that does not mean that Ham , or those who agree with him, are stupid and/or evil. Simply put: the conclusions you draw depend on the assumptions you make. Ham's conclusions are based on his Biblical interpretations that I do not agree with.
Ken makes some of the following assumptions. Green means that I can see how one can see that. Red means I think he is reaching.
1. The six days of creation are six twenty-four hour days like we experience now.
The Hebrew word "yom" was translated "day" but at it's core it means "a period of time". God is all powerful. Any period of time would have suffice. 1 Billion Years. 1 trip around the sun. 1 second. Or even 1 attosecond, God can do whatever He wants to do - even six twenty-four hour days. The Bible does not clearly tells us how those periods were measured. Given that there is no mention of "evening" on the 6th day, the terms "evening" and "morning" may be symbolic. I don't know and no one can honestly say they know.
This is where science comes in. It can help us understand what God did and how God did it.
2.The genealogical lists in Genesis list every individual in the line
Given that all the other genealogies in the Bible demonstratively do not include every single people in the line, there is no reason to think that the lists in the Bible are complete. It is a newfangled idea to list everyone in a family tree because back in Biblical times each genealogy has a point that is not to show just who was related. You can see this by just comparing different list. For example look Jesus' line in Matthew vs Luke vs the lists of Kings in the Old Testament. You will see that some are longer than other because each list was making a different point. We cannot use those years to count the age of the Earth.
3. Accepting an Old Earth model means accepting macro evolution
No reason to conclude that.
4. The Old Earth model represents people compromising the word of God to fit in with the world.
No reason to think this is true for everyone.
5. Ken Ham disagrees about when and how the Bible should be taken literally and worries that people would be tempted to compromise on other parts of Scripture if they are good with compromising on this one.
This is why we need to pray and follow the truth, not stick to what makes you completely.
6. We don't need Hebraic and Greek Scholar to be the final authority on what the Bible says because we can read and understand the Bible for ourselves.
I agree because we are responsible to know God for ourselves.
7. Implying that there was never anything that died (animals as well) before Adam's disobedience in the Garden, plunging the world into the inevitability of sin and death.
This one has a theological bent built on the doctrine of Original Sin. While I accept the doctrine of Original sin, I think Ham is also assuming that an Old Earth means that macro Evolution must also be true and all living things evolved from a single lifeform while all others died out because they could not adapt to the changing world. I'm not willing to buy that. Truth is I am only sure that the Bible istrue but it does not give us enough to jump to conclusions when it comes to the timeline. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden and we don't really know if the animals were eating one another or not. More revelation and facts are needed.
On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) must also make assumptions, as well as scientists who study other fields. Some assumption that are sometimes made in OEC include:
1. The speed of light is constant no matter where you are in the universe, how fast you are moving yourself and has always been the same.
This is a standard scientific assumption. It's the insight that Einstein had that lead him to postulating Special Relativity. And it can be bolstered by experimentation. In college, I observed this in several experiments and the speed of light was near constant. I'm willing to base my life on this one. Why not? Our technologies that harness electromagnetism definitely are based on this idea,
2. The amount of Uranium 238 equaled the amount of Uranium 235 in the earth's crust when the earth first formed. And their decay rates have remained constant.
Because we know the ratio of Uranium 235 to Uranium 238 in the earth's crust today and the rate of decay for both based on the half-life of each element, we can calculate the age of the planet if we assume both elements were in equal amounts in the beginning, I go along with this until either the assumptions are proven wrong or a better theory comes along. Besides, it makes the math work out.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Friday, July 12, 2013
Why I Believe | Reflections
Here is a great interview of Dr Kenneth Samples talking about how he became a Christian and why he believes.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
On Air Debate with Bart Ehrman about the book Forged (Aug 6 revised) Podcast Now Posted | Bible.org Blogs
On Air Debate with Bart Ehrman about the book Forged (Aug 6 revised) Podcast Now Posted | Bible.org Blogs
Website for the program
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Unbelievable? 27 Jun 2009 - PZ Myers & Denis Alexander on Faith & Science
Here is an oldie but goodie. I missed this episode of Unbelievable? with Justin Brieley, but I could not pass this up. Atheist Biologist PZ Myers is an outspoken critic of Christianity. He believes that faith in God and science are contradictory. He debates theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Is science is at odds with Christianity as PZ claims?
They touch on Fine Tuning, Rationality, and whether God is an inference to the best explanation.
Unbelievable? 27 Jun 2009 - PZ Myers & Denis Alexander on Faith & Science
Monday, October 11, 2010
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Justin Brierley
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Justin Brierley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)