Crap I hate about Creationism

[abacabb3]

I can't help but notice that these days being a YEC is some sort of Orthodoxy. I'm almost all the way there, but I am really not that concerned about it. I just don't see the Bible dwelling on it.

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support. The responses I got back were mockery. The "literal" interpretation is that he must be a dinosaur. Then they went back to talking about dinosaurs.

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I can't help but notice that these days being a YEC is some sort of Orthodoxy. I'm almost all the way there, but I am really not that concerned about it. I just don't see the Bible dwelling on it.

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support. The responses I got back were mockery. The "literal" interpretation is that he must be a dinosaur. Then they went back to talking about dinosaurs.

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

It sounds as if you're more irritated about the root cause of the conflict: Biblical illiteracy, poor exegesis, and bad teaching based on the first two.

 

[abacabb3]

It sounds as if you're more irritated about the root cause of the conflict: Biblical illiteracy, poor exegesis, and bad teaching based on the first two.

True, I think YEC is easier to grasp than profound theological concepts, so people want to read it into everything.

 

[JM]

I personally don’t care either way. Like much of the Bible I see it as allegory and literal at the same time. I confess YEC when asked but admit I could be very, very wrong. “Orthodoxy” is a watchword used to gain admission to a society of religious elites, the holy in-crowd. You know that…

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

True, I think YEC is easier to grasp than profound theological concepts, so people want to read it into everything.

i confess to being a YEC myself, but hesitate when somebody spews the Usher Chronology at me. Bishop Usher made a few assumptions that are not warranted by either the OT or Hebrew culture.

 

[hedrick]

I agree about rampant bad exegesis, but that’s true across the spectrum, whether YEC or flaming liberal. One hopes it’s not true of Reformed YEC’s, but I fear that being Reformed in no guarantee of competence.

However there’s a specific context to that piece of exegesis, beyond historical ignorance. One of the common challenges for YECs involve dinosaurs. The usual view is that they lived from about 230 Mya to 66 Mya. But YECs presumably have to see them as coexisting with people. So many think it’s important to find them in the Bible. Hence that understanding of that passage. I think this is a natural consequence of the arguments over YEC. Of course I think the whole idea is based on and leads to bad exegesis, but that's me as a mainliner.

 

[abacabb3]

Well, I think you have 3 other guys agreeing with you on that point.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support.

You're both right . "Dinosaur" is the Johnny-come-lately term used to over-write the word dragon. Everyone was calling them dragons before modernists came along and told them to call the beasts dinosaurs, instead. "Dinosaur" may be a new word, but it does not represent a new concept. The Bible does say that Satan is a dragon, and the riddle at the end of Job may be about Satan. Hence, the riddle at the end of Job is about a dragon, which means it's about a dinosaur. It evinces the fact that humans had a concept of dinosaurs/dragons back then.

And if you get lost in another corner, next time try rotating about 180 degrees, man.

You want to talk about bad exegesis, let's talk about the behemoth, or was that supposed to be about Satan, also?

Job 14:15-18:

“Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron."

People call it a hippopotamus. The thing has a tail like a cedar and they're calling it a hippopotamus?! What giant vegetarian animal with a tail the size of a tree does this remind you of? If you say "Satan" I'm going to belt you. Think, man! I can't do it for you.

 

[KWCrazy]

The Bible didn't incorporate every bit of information that was known or would be known into its text. The Holy spirit will reveal all, but only when we ask the Lord through prayer and in His time. There are mysteries that we may never fully understand in this life. What we need to know is that God is good and that Jesus is Lord. Everything else is details.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

The Bible didn't incorporate every bit of information that was known or would be known into its text. The Holy spirit will reveal all, but only when we ask the Lord through prayer and in His time. There are mysteries that we may never fully understand in this life. What we need to know is that God is good and that Jesus is Lord. Everything else is details.

In Reformed as well as other circles we call this sufficiency, that is to say that the scriptures are sufficient for mankind to know the will and salvation of God, but are not an exhaustive knowledge.

After all, it is absurd to speak of finite beings (mankind) as having an exhaustive knowledge of the infinite God.

 

[DeaconDean]

Young Earth, old Earth, I don't care.

As I read Genesis 1-2, I'm not concerned so much with "how long, or how short" it took as the message of who did it to begin with!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[gord44]

Young Earth, old Earth, I don't care.

As I read Genesis 1-2, I'm not concerned so much with "how long, or how short" it took as the message of who did it to begin with!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Probably the best way to look at it.

 

[abacabb3]

People call it a hippopotamus. The thing has a tail like a cedar and they're calling it a hippopotamus?! What giant vegetarian animal with a tail the size of a tree does this remind you of? If you say "Satan" I'm going to belt you. Think, man! I can't do it for you.

Again, most exegetes historically have viewed Behemoth as Satan. Personally I think Behemoth is the entire demonic realm, because the term is plural in Hebrew. Again, when the Bible calls Satan a dragon or a snake, that does not mean he literally looks like a dragon or a snake. The people out there that want to call Leviathan a dinosaur are making an archaeological statement...they think we have, more or less, fossils and bones of creatures very similar to the real world Leviathan.

I hate to break it to you, but I seriously doubt that there will be anything like a bone found from the actual Behemoth or Leviathan, because they are demonic, not physical creatures.

I got into much more detail on the topic here:

http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/05/15/reformed-commentary-on-job-chapter-40/

Anyone who reads Job 40 and 41 and learns nothing about how God is sovereign, even over the demonic realm, totally misses out on the whole answer to Job's dilemma.

 

[Skala]

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

On the contrary, if the earth is young, and large creatures existed sometime during its lifespan, then of course people (and the church) had an idea that (what we call) dinosaurs existed.

/kenthovind mode ON

Not only are there cave paintings of dinosaurs, but every ancient culture has stories and legends of dinosaurs, the ancient Chinese calendar has 12 animals, one of which is the dragon (a dinosaur?), and some historic people are famous for killing dragons.

/kenthovind mode OFF

 

[abacabb3]

Not necessarily Skala. The Earth had trilobites, but they don't earn a mention in the Scripture. Cats are not mentioned ONCE in the Scripture, to my dismay. So, dragons and such can be real, but that does not mean God would include them in the Scripture.

 

[Wgw]

I can't help but notice that these days being a YEC is some sort of Orthodoxy. I'm almost all the way there, but I am really not that concerned about it. I just don't see the Bible dwelling on it.

So, on Facebook someone asks who Leviathan is in Job 41. Everyone is giving the answer that he's a dinosaur, of course!

I wrote back that historically, exegetes have found that Leviathan is Satan, and I named Aquinas and Joseph Carryl in support. The responses I got back were mockery. The "literal" interpretation is that he must be a dinosaur. Then they went back to talking about dinosaurs.

FYI YECs! For 1900 years when the Church had no idea dinosaurs existed, they profited from Job 41 and its meaning. Archaeology didn't unearth for us new information that helped us finally understand a part of the Bible that was useless until then.

/end rant

YEC is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy.

 

[abacabb3]

A lot of things aren't But yes, YEC is too new to be a historical teaching of the church

 

[Wgw]

I was of course referring to the Orthodox Church specifically. Although in general one would be hard pressed to find an Orthodox Christian who denied the apostlic origin of any of our beliefs.

 

[abacabb3]

How about all that mystical stuff lifted from 6th century Psuedo-Dionysus...c'mon!

 

[Wgw]

How about all that mystical stuff lifted from 6th century Psuedo-Dionysus...c'mon!

The label "psuedo" is much derided in Orthodoxy, but at any rate, apophatic theology substantially predates the 6th century. Orthodox mysticism is essentially indistinguishable from OT mysticism.