Hawaii 2010

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from Don in AZ. Make your own badge here.

Monday, October 21, 2013

A "Hot Spot" Subject



Moses was not there at the creation, neither was Ken Hamm. Moses spoke and wrote Genesis after the trauma of leaving Egypt and becoming a people living near Mt. Sanai. Genesis 1-3 is an inspired account of a Creator, and His creation. It tells about all the important parts of this world God made, it probably does not do it in a strictly scientific manner.

The Hawaiian Islands were all created by one hotspot in the Ocean floor by the shifting of the techtonic plates very slowly to the northwest, thus Kauai the Garden Island is lush and fertile and the newest island looks like a moon scape in some places, yet even in lava just a decade old the ferns and coconut trees are beginning to show, some were even planted by man and the long process of creating a lush, food growing island took place over the last 40,000 to 70,000 years, pretty fast as Islands go, but way to long for young earth creationists.

Yesterday I shared the long struggle with a love for the scriptures and the cognitive dissonance that began in the sixth grade when I learned this cool jingle of a song. "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnance".

Young Earth creation science sort of set down the guantlet and told conservative Christianity that if we give on the historicity of Genesis in all its points we will slip slide away from the cross and resurrection.

Faith and Science, true observation and the development of theories about the past, natural science, geology, they are all part of the dominion covenant and yesterday was the first time in 38 years of preaching that I told them that Hawaii helped me to embrace the idea of an old creation and has not destroyed my faith in an inspired Bible, a living God, and loving Savior, and a future existence in a restored Creation.

3 comments:

KC Bob said...

Agree with your take Don. A literal view really never did it for me. Love seeing the bible in much grayer terms. Here is something I wrote a few years ago:

Let's take a look at this passage in the fifteenth chapter of 1Samuel:15..

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Reflecting on this passage let's consider two ways to understand it literally:

1) The passage is literally (and historically) accurate in that Saul and the Israeli army followed Samuel's instructions and committed genocide against the Amalekites. Furthermore Samuel believed what he said was divinely inspired.

2) The passage is literally (and historically) accurate in that Saul and the Israeli army followed Samuel's instructions and committed genocide against the Amalekites. Furthermore Samuel not only believed that God actually spoke to him but in fact God did speak to him and he accurately understood what God said..

Do you see the difference in the views? They only differ in the way that God's interaction with Samuel is understood. One view says that if the scriptures say that God told Samuel then he actually told Samuel. The other view understands that, while Samuel actually believed God ordered genocide, Samuel may not have actually heard God's voice on that issue. One view paints a black and white view of these interactions and the other accepts a bit grayer view of it.

Using one view it would be accurate to say that God once ordered genocide.. using the other view one could only say that men once believed that God ordered them to commit genocide. I think that it is an important difference because of the way that one view portrays God as a somewhat tribal and nationalistic deity that is not concerned about humanity as a whole but just special people belonging to a particular race.

Don said...

Very good explanation Bob, Thank you

Lynn Beck said...

To both Bob and Don - Well said and very helpful!