June 17, 2009
June 17, 2009 | 20 Comments
Hour One: Thoughts on President Obama; Christians and the Lottery
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Hour Two: 24 Hour Days in Genesis 1?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
20 Responses to “June 17, 2009”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
June 18th, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
As a Christian, I voted for President Obama. Yes, he is more liberal than I would like, however he has a stronger testimony than John McCain, and showed more compassion than a mean spirited Sarha Palin. Also, as a Black American, we need him as a role model to save millions of young men who have lost their way, and yes the Republicans have done nothing to help Blacks or Christians. They are just the lesser of the two evils.
Tom
Durham NC
June 19th, 2009 @ 7:59 am
Tom’s comments represent the cultural division between black and white in society today. Certainly Tom is correct that the election of President Obama represents a wonderful example of the opportunity available in America no matter what your race. The more troubling statement is when he states, “Republicans have done nothing t help Blacks or Christians.” I don’t know how Tom comes to that concluseion but as a Christian myself let me say that my observation is that the Republican platform is more consistent with the defense of tradtional marriage between one man and one woman as well as the abortion issue. These issues transcend race. I would like Tom to explain what Democrats have done for blacks that Republicans have not done. Let me point out too that historically the Repblican party of Lincoln was the party to the man of African Americans. More recently the Civil Rights act of 1964 would not have been passed without the Republican support because the Democrats did not have enough votes. I suspect, however, that what I am pointing out may sound hollow not only to Tom or other African Americans. I suspect part of the divide is not merely Christian, but a difference in political philosophy. But there is not enough information to address that concern. But something else not mentioned is the 90 percent plus of African Americans who are Demcrats. By and large, Tom’s comments represent the fact blacks do not feel welcome in the Republican party. Republicans have failed to take steps to make the necessary changes. But let me caution here, that the Republican party is a secular organization, not a Christian organization. Perhaps the better answer is for those Christians in the Republican party to take a look at what has offended African Americans.
June 19th, 2009 @ 10:44 am
If Obama’s radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activist agenda doesn’t offend folks like Tom Jarratt, then nothing will. And how is Sarah Palin “mean spirited” may I ask? It’s a crazy suggestion. Let’s hope Sarah wins the Republican nomination in 2012. That is if Obama hasn’t completely destroyed the country by then.
June 19th, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis
June 19th, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
OK, on the lottery mentioned in the first hour, Dr. Brown left out one of the more important reasons why it’s wrong for Christians to play the lottery. All lotteries by definition involve a “zero-sum-gain” equasion. In other words, for me to win someone else has to lose. This is also the fundamental difference between lotteries and the stock market. The stock market is not gambling if it involves investment in stock as the capital is used to produce wealth. This doesn’t happen with the lottery.
Dr Brown said he would devote a future show to Christians and the stock market. That would be an interesting show and might I recommend launching such a show of this news:
Millions wiped out by church gambles
June 19th, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
This is the correct link to the story about the Sydney Anglican’s losing AUS$100 million by gambling on the stock market:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/millions-wiped-out-by-church-gambles-20090609-c29m.html
Make sure you also listen to the radio show linked on that same page labled “Jesus saves, the church invests”
June 20th, 2009 @ 7:33 am
The guy who rang in (hour 2) and said that the days must be 24 hours because God created plants before He created the sun and therefore plants could not survive many days without light, is ill-informed. God created light on the first day so there is no problem. God is well able to provide light without the sun, and once he created the sun it simply took over providing light for the earth. God is described as “light” after all.
June 20th, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Ewan,
Just a quick note re: my views of Genesis 1. Over 25 years ago, I concluded that Genesis 1 was there to teach us theology rather than chronology — that is, it was there to teach us truths about God rather than teach us details about the origins of the universe — and this was based on the study of the text in its biblical and ancient Near Eastern context as opposed to the study of the text in a scientific context. So, for me, the issue is not science but exegesis. (BTW, my own view was not that of the Framework Structure, but I see value in that approach as well.)
That being said, I do believe that it’s right to ask all kinds of scientific questions about how Genesis 1 and science interact, but I believe there should be caution in terms of trying to harmonize in an unnatural way.
More on this in the future, I hope.
June 20th, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Genesis is important because foundational truths come out the first book of the Bible. I agree that the Bible is not a scientific text and therefore our analysis should take this into account. At the same time, if we believe the Bible is true then it ought to be in harmony with science on some level. The problem can be defined as how doe we handle the apparent discrepancy of the natural interpretation of a 24 hour day in Genesis when current scientific thinking indicates the age of the earth is much longer than is consistent with six days of creation of 24 hours. What has helped me in this discussion is the simple observation that the sun and the moon were not created until the 4th day in Genesis. Our conception of a 24 hour day is tied to the the sun moon cycle. But if the sun and moon are not yet created then it seems there is no requirement to equate “evening and morning” as being 24 hours. Christians often become divided on this point even though those who hold to a day age theory often oppose the theory of evolution because it has direct theological implications which are at odds with core Biblical beliefs. (Such as man is evolving to a higher state instead of being a fallen creature in need of redemption.)
I have experienced extreme discomfort with many of the 24 hour six day crowd because of their unwillingness to consider they might be wrong. Christians sometimes are criticized for their theology driving their science. This is especially applicable to the theory of evolution. It would be a mistake to say our theology has no effect on scientific inquiry. Our world views do affect our scientific hypothesis. It is simply more acute when you encounter someone who is at odds with your particular world view. Creationism in science is a minority view in science. Creation in six days of 24 hour periods is even a smaller minority in science. Seldom do you see the 24 hour crowd acknowledge the gap between their position and traditional scientific notions of origins. Now there is nothing wrong with holding a minority view. The most important view is not numerical consensus, but the truth.
June 20th, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
1) No need to extend the 6 days beyond SIX LITERAL DAYS. If God could create Adam as a full grown man (in his prime) could he not create a world that looks as if it has been around for millions of years. So it takes light millions of years to get to the earth! Is the designer of the software constrained by the rules of the software? No…..God can bend and break the rules of our natural order.
2) Barak Obama is…..(drum roll)….i know it’s a hard pill for Americans to swallow………he is……I know Jim Crowe’s “One Drop Rule” is entrentched in our society…..Obam is….BI-RACIAL!! Obama has about as much in common with the average African American man as does an Aboriginal man from Austrailia. I’ll admit, it was cool seeing a BI-RACIAL man take the office (though I didnt vote for him) but lets get this straight…
In America we have been brain-washed to believe that race defines us. The fact is that culture defines who we are WAY MORE than “race” does. You can take a black man from Ghana and a black man from Atlanta….both are “black” but they have very little in common.
Obama was born to an AFRICAN (Kenyan) father and a white mother. He had a limited relationship with his Kenyan father and was raised in white society. Even if he was close to his Kenyan father, he has no cultural ties to African American upbringing and culture as Kenyan culture is very different (I am married to an African). Genetically he is BI-RACIAL (dont give me that one drop garbage….that comes from slavery and is not based on science but old Jim Crow racism) and was raised in WHITE culture. it wasnt until his adulthood (in trying to find himself as a bi-racial man in a country that doesnt allow bi-racial people to be who they are) that he embraced and sought to be a member of African American culture.
Why black Christians felt compelled to vote for him simply because he had a Kenyan father is beyond me….despite his moral stances, despite his track record. He seems to endorse everything God hates EVEN MORE SO than past liberal president: The division of Israel & Jerusalem (which would bring down so much wrath it would make our heads spin), the destruction of human babies & the promotion of homosexuality are hardly traditional “black cultural” norms. But again, blacks didnt look at his CULTURE (and how he was raised)…they looked at the fact that his skin tone is about a shade and a half darker than Bill Clintons???
June 21st, 2009 @ 1:18 am
Tony’s response reminds me of the discussion of whether Adam or Eve had belly buttons. Could God make it appear as if they had been born of prior parents? Yes, God is all powerful. Did they have belly buttons? We simply don’t know.
In the same way, God has the power to make the earth appear millions of years old. But why would that be? There appears to be no direct Biblical reason why he would break the rules. On the other hand, indirectly, it might be argued that the rules of the universe were being made as part of the creation event. And creation itself is a miracle. It is why there is something rather than nothing. Here is question. Were all the natural laws in effect at the time of the creation story?
When someone talks about a “literal day” meaning only a 24 hour day, it is problematic. It is a conclusion that is not supported for the first three days in Genesis. A better description of the “literal day” is a cycle. The cycle is composed of evening and morning.
On the first day light itself is called day in Genesis. Why then, is it appropriate to call a literal day a 24 hour day when the plain meaning suggests no points of reference to allow a 24 hour clock?
I am almost waiting for someone to come out with a “Creationist Bible” which adds the translation and says something like this: And there was evening, and there was morning—the first 24 hour day.
No translator to my knowledge translates the Bible in that manner, yet plenty of people defend a 24 hour day as the true meaning, yet few would dare to change the text. One of my biggest problems with the 24 hour day is that it creates a position to defend which is not a Biblical position to defend. I can appreciate those who want to see a 24 hour day because it illustrates the power and majesty of God in his creation. But I do not see God’s greatness being diminished any less by a creation st9ry which takes place over a longer period of time. (If no time duration of a day is given then one might also correctly suggest the day could be less than 24 hours)
I believe God is revealed in his creation. That the universe makes sense is more of a Christian notion than a secular one. The idea of a 24 hour day in Genesis runs counter to many notions of an ordered universe. A very young earth theory in some ways obscures important facts which lend support to the idea of creation. For instance, recorded human history even by secular standards does not go much beyond 10,000 years. It has become credible to mention a mitochondrial Eve as a common ancestor of all humans because of advances of DNA analysis and be taken seriously in scientific circles. A dogmatic insistence upon a very young earth says 10,000 years of human history is much too long and rejects such a claim and equally elevates a young earth frame as a priority above an analysis which does not necessarily require a time frame. So too do arguments of the universe’s structure and the nature of life being structured in a way that require a master designer (God) not require a specific time frame
June 21st, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Doug: Your response was well worded but lacked a single proof.
June 21st, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Guys you all believe Jesus litterally turned H20 into wine!! He turned water into wine! I think making wine usually takes a couple of days at the least and yet he instantaneously made wine from water. He walked on water, He ascended into Heaven, he brought people back to life. Elisha by the power of God was able to cause iron to float in water. What about Philip who was taken from one point in space and time and appeared in another. Some things are just mysteries and us trying to explain them should only be within the limits of scripture and not human theories regarding how to read the scripts. Its the job of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, not theologians. Whether they may have MDiv’s or Phd’s. We do not go beyond scripture. And when God says He made the earth in six days and rested on the seventh and blessed it, it is clear he is telling us plainly what he did. So let us with simplicity of mind accept the word of God as it is, and even if science says differently let us believe God. There may be a way of explaining how the earth could be instantaneously created by God to look ancient, perhaps for it to exist as it does God had to make it seem ancient. I don’t know, I do not have the answers. What I do know is that over and over again God has shown His word to be true through the fulfillment of his words spoken by the prophets. And so I totally believe Him. So secular scientists may present their evidence. For me it makes no difference, God’s word is true and he made it in 6 days. Yes its hard to believe, but so is the idea that a man walked on water, calmed the ocean and made water into wine, which naturally takes even the least of time to do (even for new wine). So great debate, but as for me I personally believe that God made the earth in six days. Trust in God the Holy Spirit’s teaching not disputable theories on how to read the scripts. No disrespect to any one
June 21st, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Whats weird is that the scripts explicitly say and the evening and the morning were a day etc. Clearly God is giving us his time frame here. We can theorize what that means or simply like children believe the simplicity of what God is clearly saying.
June 21st, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Thank you Mwiya. Furthermore, it is the Darwinists who rely on billions of years for life to arise. Why would we need to rest upon billions of years when we believe in God’s creative ability? We dont need billions of years for life to arise as we believe that the Divine Word was spoken, and it was so. Period.
June 21st, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
I posted the following response with numerous hyperlinks yesterday but it has not yet appeared perhaps because it has not been allowed by the moderator yet. I have noticed that if you post something without hyperlinks then it will go on straight away, but if it contains many links then it requires moderation for some reason. Anyway I am reposting my response now without hyperlinks so it should go up straight away. Hopefully the moderator will allow the hyperlinked version soon.
It is not the view of Biblical Creationists that God created a world that “looks old”. That would mean that God is a deceiver. As a Biblical Creationist myself I can say with all sincerity that the world only looks a few thousand years old to me. This idea that the world looks old is simply a product of cultural conditioning, not a fact. From the time most of us were born we have been bombarded with propaganda about an ancient earth and universe. In any case, there is much more evidence for a creation measured in thousands of years than there is for one measured in millions or billions of years.
Doug says that the first three days of creation week can’t be normal days because the sun was not created until day four, but all that is required for evening and morning is a fixed light source and a rotating earth. As I said before, God created light on day one so where is the problem?
Biblical Creationism is not a minority view in the church or in science if you consider the past 2000 years of history. It is only a minority view in the modern context. Christian old earth beliefs are the modern aberration.
I certainly do “acknowledge the gap between [my] position and traditional scientific notions of origins.” In fact I don’t know of any creationist who doesn’t acknowledge such – it is bizarre to suggest otherwise. The gap between the two views is due to differing presuppositions – nothing else. i.e philosophical naturalism versus special revelation.
There is no extra-biblical recorded human history older than about 4000 years. Dating of historical documents and artifacts suffers from the same problem as any type of dating methods – namely that assumptions are necessarily required in any dating calculation.
There is no need for a “Creationist Bible” because the Bible already makes it abundantly clear that the days of Genesis 1 are normal days. The challenge is for the skeptics to say how God could have made it any clearer. There are Hebrew terms for indefinite periods of time that could have been used if that was the meaning that God wanted to convey.
What is evident to me in these debates with Christians who side with the Bible skeptics regarding the age of the earth, is how poorly they understand the arguments of Biblical Creationists. Many clearly have not taken the time or made the effort to inform themselves of the actual arguments. It is much easier to just put up straw man type arguments. I suggest a book written by a friend of mine: Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (a Messianic Jew).
June 21st, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Thanks, folks, for the important interaction here. For the record, I have no scientific opinion as to the age of the earth, and I have never focused on the question, given my propensity to focus on issues of biblical interpretation and application. It’s an important question, for sure, but one that is outside of my areas of expertise.
June 22nd, 2009 @ 3:31 am
Hi Dr. Brown, I mentioned Refuting Compromise to you once before. Do you want me to send you a copy? If so, what address should I use?
June 22nd, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Regarding the lottery, all business involves risk. You make a risk in hopes of a payoff. Thats the basic premise underlying how one invests in the stock market. You may have a higher risk propensity and invest in riskier investments in hopes of cashing in larger returns. Venture capitalists for example do that sort of things with internet startups. If you have lower risk aversion, you’ll most likely invest in risk free assets like US Treasury bills etc. In any case one judges their risk and makes their investment. The same holds true for the lottery, you take a risk when you make the investment in buying your ticket in hopes that you will cash-in a return. The more you invest, the more you risk and the more you raise your chances of winning, however any increase in the likelyhood of you winning is very minimal, but you make the risk in hopes for the payoff of a larger return. Its the basic investing principle of higer risk higher return and low risk low return. When an investor invests in a company, the company can not guarantee that you will gain. There is risk involved in business operations and many unforseen circumstances may occur. Therefore the corporation takes for granted that you are willing to make a risk when you invest in them, they would like to increase the value of the company but it can not be 100% guaranteed in most cases.
The Lottery on the other hand is a game of chance, yes the risk return principle is at work here. But the reality is most people will loose out. In the stock market some level of understanding of how the markets work may help an investor make a well reasoned investment but still risk is involved. In the lottery, I dont think skill can win you the cash. Its just you accepting the risk and playing along. I see no wrong in this, especially if all involved consent to the rules of the game. What is wrong is if one has a family and because of addiction to gambling in the lottery they are unable to take care of their family. That is wrong, otherwise a few dollars once in a while is no real problem. Its within the christian’s liberty to do so, its only when it brings about a lot of harm on others when one should not engage in such gambling. And so if one’s conscience urges them to avoid the lottery because many people who play it are addicted and the christian’s participation in a sense funds the addictions of others, then the christian must not play for those reasons. The stock market is a little different because you have a stock broker or wealth manager manage your portifolio and so its harder for a person as an individual to squander their lively hood on bad investments in the stock market. (Assuming they have a responsible investment advisor).
June 22nd, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Ewan,
You can always send materials to me at our this address: FIRE School of Ministry, 745 Cabarrus Ave. W., Concord, NC 28027. Thanks!