What Happens when Oil Runs Out?

[doubtingmerle]

You know, it's getting a bit old that every time your appeal to authority fails with me you just turn around and call me a liar.

You are lying. I did not appeal to authority. I was responding to your lies that the International panel on Fissile Materials was "a lot of public affairs experts and a few physicists and even a nuclear physicist." That is a lying misrepresentation of the group. Many of the guys have a PhD in physics with a lifetime of work in nuclear physics. You are lying when you say they are just public relations guys. And when I point out they are credible, you lie about me and say I am appealing to authority.

This is why I stopped the conversation with you before. You lie about people and know that you are lying about people, and when we point out your lies, you double the number of lies.

And when we point out that you just doubled the number of lies, you double the number of lies again. If all you are going to do is lie about people, I do not have time for this.
.

Alexander Glaser is an Associate Professor with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and its Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE)....​

He's a bit like me: hates bad nukes and nuclear bombs, wants to see GOOD nukes and anti-proliferation reprocessing of nuclear fuel loads. Love it! Go Alexander, I wish you well.
Alexander Glaser

The fact that they have political opinions does not negate the fact that they are experts in nuclear physics.

M. V. Ramana (India) is a Professional Specialist with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security and its Nuclear Futures Laboratory. He has a Ph.D. in physics (1994) from Boston University and has held research positions at the University of Toronto and MIT. His research has focused on India's nuclear energy and weapon programs.​

This guy reads like a Who's who of anti-nuclear activism: generic degrees in physics but no degree as a nuclear engineer and no time in the industry. Instead he's a fear monger rabbiting on about the same old myths. As one reviewer of his book wrote:

The fact they have political opinions does not negate the fact that they are experts in nuclear physics.

You have strong opinions about nuclear. If having a strong opinion disqualifies you are you then disqualified?

Kudos for the research done to explain nuclear energy and it's components in a very lucid way.
However the strong anti nuclear establishment bias vitiates this effort and detracts. From the quality of this work. A pity!​

You tell us you have not even read the work. If you had read it, you would find that one of the six chapters is even written by a person in favor of breeder reactors.

can you tell us why they wrote the...words "small nuclear explosion"?

Because they are explosions, they are nuclear, and they are small. What other words would you use for an explosion that is small that is caused by a nuclear reaction? I think "small nuclear explosion" sums it up nicely.

And you ignore that the phrase that ties your drawers in a knot is in a section that explains what I just said. But you ignore all that, and scream that they are talking about it triggering a nuclear bomb when they are not saying that. You simply make this stuff up and go into a screaming fit, when nobody is saying the thing you are screaming about.

Stay calm and stop screaming, please.

Also, let's operate under some really crude assumptions here. There have been 2 bad "nuclear explosions" (actually reactor meltdowns) in about half a century of nuclear power. Let's pretend (and this is a BIG pretend!) that we're stuck with old Generation 2 Light Water Reactors, and have not progressed to passive safety sodium or liquid salt reactors. Let's pretend that we HAVE to have 1 nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl every generation forever if we're going to maintain the modern world on nuclear power. (An INSANE pretence). Would that be better or worse than climate change? How bad is that radiation? How many people died as a result of Chernobyl? Would you live there if a really good job came up and your family and friends would move there? How radioactive is it, and is there actually any scientific basis for maintaining such a large exclusion zone?

What's worse, catastrophic global warming or 1 Chernobyl every generation?

You have a very valid point. A very valid point. One can argue that although nuclear reactors have risks, the benefit from them is so great we need to take the risk. That is a very valid argument, in fact, is probably the position I would take.

But I refuse to have any part of your screaming fits if anybody so much as wants to discuss the associated risks. You refuse to involve in any kind of rational discussion of the risks. Why? What are you hiding?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I live in texas and with fracking we are producing 43% of americas oil.......
Fracking an old oil well has nearly 100% chance of hitting oil and can produce 1000-1500 barrels a day
Vs the old 30-50 barrells a day.....

Please give me a reference for this claim.

Fracking does very little to help existing conventional wells. It can help the last little bit of oil come out faster, but it is never going to do the things you claim.

The fracking miracle consists of using fracking to access "tight oil", that is, oil that is locked in shale where it would normally take ages to come to the well. Fracking opens up cracks to make the oil flow through the shale. A well like this operates a few years, and then quickly goes into terminal decline. As we have already exhausted the best locations to frack in shale, and the existing wells are either declining sharply or soon will go into decline, the short lived shale story will just be an asterisk in the oil story, perhaps delaying the peak in oil by a decade.

See Peak oil is not a myth.

and http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...g-s-collapse-heralds-the-arrival-of-peak-oil/.

 

[Traveling teacher]

I will get some more info......
since fracking starting in Texas 6-8 years ago we have tripled our daily production.....
Texas RRC - Crude Oil Production and Well Counts (since 1935)

Talking to a few oil well workers this is what they tell me.....
Fracking produces 500-1500 barrels per day of production...
It costs 10 million $ to frack a well vs. 1$ million for the old conventional well.,..
Very few oil companies do the old convention....most is fracking......
The well can produce 20-30+++ years just like the old wells......
Production will decrease in the first 3-5 years and need to be refracked in 5-7 years to increase production.....

 

[doubtingmerle]

I will get some more info......
since fracking starting in Texas 6-8 years ago we have tripled our daily production.....
Texas RRC - Crude Oil Production and Well Counts (since 1935)

Thanks for the chart. That is very helpful.

Yes, fracking has had a miraculous affect on our oil production. In fact, had it not been for fracking in the United States in the last 6 years, world production of oil would probably have peaked, and the United States would probably be in a depression. The question is how long this can continue.

Talking to a few oil well workers this is what they tell me.....
Fracking produces 500-1500 barrels per day of production...
It costs 10 million $ to frack a well vs. 1$ million for the old conventional well.,..
Very few oil companies do the old convention....most is fracking......

I think you are confusing initial production (IP) with the sustained production. Typically wells fracked in shale decline at a rate of 72% a year. A well that has an IP of 1000 barrels a day will typically decline to 280 barrels a day by the end of the first year, and 78 barrels a day by the end of the second year. This if far worse than the decline rate of conventional wells.

Your $10M estimate for a 500 - 1500 barrel per day well is in line with the $9M estimate I hear for a well that has an IP of 500 barrels per day.

See https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/90220/dangerous-economics-shale-oil .

The well can produce 20-30+++ years just like the old wells......

I am curious how you know that they will continue that long? Fracked wells in shale have been common only for the last 6 years. How do you know they last 30 years?

Per the detailed analysis at the webpage I cited, at $100 a barrel, the wells start losing money after the first year. At $55 a barrel, they lose a million dollars during the first year.

Fracking makes sense only if oil prices are high. However, the world economy always seems to stall if prices get above $55 a barrel. So with oil companies needing more than $100 a barrel to make money by fracking, and the economy stalling if oil is over $55 a barrel, that puts us in a serious situation if we rely on fracking.

Production will decrease in the first 3-5 years and need to be refracked in 5-7 years to increase production.....

Please give a credible source that a fracked well in shale can be profitably refracked after 5-7 years. An oil worker on a well that has never been refracked in shale would not be a credible source for this claim unless he had a reliable source.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are any of you familiar with the discussion around "planetary boundaries?" There are 9 of them, some are resources, some of environmental/ecological conditions. They were originally published in Science: Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet | Science. The paper proposes that there are "tipping points" beyond which our impacts will have fundamental and possibly irreversible effects. Climate change is only one of them.
There is a summary, without the usual image, at The 9 limits of our planet … and how we’ve raced past 4 of them and a presentation on Wikipedia that also includes responses and more references: Planetary boundaries - Wikipedia-
The discussion looks entirely at the technical/scientific aspects, not social ones.
Kate Raworth of Oxfam added the human and social dimension, that in my mind poses a greater challenge than the technical/resource ones - that of just distribution of the benefits of God-given resources among people, in pursuit of His Kingdom on earth. (She does not push this faith-oriented dimension in the paper but it seems very much in line with Christ's teachings.) You can download a copy at https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf.

Way back in the discussion there was mention that prices will push oil and coal out of the picture. In quite a few countries now, solar energy is cheaper per kWh than either oil or coal. Gas/petrol and diesel prices vary a lot from country to country so what is true in USA is not necessarily true elsewhere, and vice versa. Those countries that have higher oil-based fuel costs are investing a lot in renewables and many will reach higher proportions of total energy sourced in renewables much sooner that countries like USA and Canada. Since renewables are almost always local, this also means less vulnerability to disruptions in foreign energy supplies.
Monna

Just ran into this post. Thanks. I never heard of the concept expressed as boundaries, but I agree that we are exceeding boundaries for a healthy earth, and need to be concerned about it.

 

[Traveling teacher]

Thanks for the chart. That is very helpful.

Yes, fracking has had a miraculous affect on our oil production. In fact, had it not been for fracking in the United States in the last 6 years, world production of oil would probably have peaked, and the United States would probably be in a depression. The question is how long this can continue.


I think you are confusing initial production (IP) with the sustained production. Typically wells fracked in shale decline at a rate of 72% a year. A well that has an IP of 1000 barrels a day will typically decline to 280 barrels a day by the end of the first year, and 78 barrels a day by the end of the second year. This if far worse than the decline rate of conventional wells.

Your $10M estimate for a 500 - 1500 barrel per day well is in line with the $9M estimate I hear for a well that has an IP of 500 barrels per day.

See https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/90220/dangerous-economics-shale-oil .

I am curious how you know that they will continue that long? Fracked wells in shale have been common only for the last 6 years. How do you know they last 30 years?

Per the detailed analysis at the webpage I cited, at $100 a barrel, the wells start losing money after the first year. At $55 a barrel, they lose a million dollars during the first year.

Fracking makes sense only if oil prices are high. However, the world economy always seems to stall if prices get above $55 a barrel. So with oil companies needing more than $100 a barrel to make money by fracking, and the economy stalling if oil is over $55 a barrel, that puts us in a serious situation if we rely on fracking.



Please give a credible source that a fracked well in shale can be profitably refracked after 5-7 years. An oil worker on a well that has never been refracked in shale would not be a credible source for this claim unless he had a reliable source.

Barrel Breakdown
Most of this info. Is coming from a 3rd generatiion oil company owner out of louisiana that buys and sales oil companies over 5-7 year periods.........
He told me all he does is frack and most of the companies he knows does the same......
The 100$ myth of profitability has vanished years ago....
The cost to do fracking is way down....
oil
Pioneer Boasts $2 Per Barrel Production Costs | OilPrice.com
Some say around 20-30$ now which obviously is true since oil has been around 40-50$ for the last 2 years
Of course 30 years is uncharrted territory..and speculative
But conventional wells play out in a few years also....
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-typical-productive-life-time-of-a-horizontally-fracked-well
Drillers Take Second Crack at Fracking Old Wells to Cut Cost
The only oil well my family had in west texas was on my papa's land n the 70s....it started at 200 barrels a day and we all thought we were gonna be rich....
They drilled 3-4 wells across the fence and the 200 barrells quickly went tp 30-50 bpd. And then completely dried up and closed in about 3 years.........
We do have some land near snyder, texas , my home town, that is leased, if they drill it will be fracked...so who knows?????
Our oil production in the US because of fracking has doubled in 8-10 years...I am gonna make a prediction that it could do the same in the next 8-10 years... But at least a 50% increase.....
But what do I know?????

 

[eclipsenow]

Even if there was a major supply issue, there's a lot we can do in an oil crisis.
Sudden oil crisis

 

[Radrook]

To avoid readers from frequently freaking out because they have don't understand what fracking is here is an explanation:
Hydraulic fracturing - Wikipedia

 

[eclipsenow]

Ok, but breeder reactors have a whole new set of problems. The sodium used to cool them is an immense fire hazard, and the reactors frequently find themselves shut down for repairs. Further the reactors are not intrinsically safe. If they lose coolant, the reaction can go critical and cause a nuclear explosion. And the plutonium they breed is easily used in weapons. Although this has been tried many times over decades, none has been a commercial success. See http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf .

All of the concerns raised about nuclear power in this PDF should be mitigated by:-
1. Understanding that the majority of people who wrote it are issue-driven and do not have time in the nuclear industry, and those that were most qualified were actually pro-nuclear power, even pro-breeder reactor, but just concerned about adopting the least-best nuclear technologies. (See summary of nuclear experts below)
2. Reading this book which thoroughly educates about the risks of nuclear power.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

Summary of 'nuclear experts'

Alexander Glaser is an Associate Professor with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and its Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE)....
He's a bit like me: hates bad nukes and nuclear bombs, wants to see GOOD nukes and anti-proliferation reprocessing of nuclear fuel loads. Love it! Go Alexander, I wish you well.
Alexander Glaser



Zia Mian is a Research Scientist in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security and directs its Project on Peace and Security in South Asia. He has a Ph.D. in physics (1991) from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His research interests are in nuclear-weapon and nuclear-energy policy in South Asia. He is a Co-Editor of Science & Global Security. As of 1 January 2015, he is a co-chair of IPFM.
Wikipedia says: "Dr. Zia Mian is also a prominent peace activist and a strong supporter of non-nuclear proliferation,nuclear disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology"

Pavel Podvig (Russia) is a researcher at the Program on Science and Global Security and a Senior Research Fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). ...
Has a generic physics degree, but his Phd and interests mainly lie in the politics of proliferation, not the operation of nuclear reactors. ZERO experience in nuclear reactors, more of a political theorist, if you'd looked at his blog or actual Princeton page.


M. V. Ramana (India) is a Professional Specialist with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security and its Nuclear Futures Laboratory. He has a Ph.D. in physics (1994) from Boston University and has held research positions at the University of Toronto and MIT. His research has focused on India's nuclear energy and weapon programs.

This guy reads like a Who's who of anti-nuclear activism: generic degrees in physics but no degree as a nuclear engineer and no time in the industry. Instead he's a fear monger rabbiting on about the same old myths.

 

[Monna]

He's a bit like me: hates bad nukes and nuclear bombs, wants to see GOOD nukes

Are there such things as GOOD nukes? or good bombs of any kind?

 

[eclipsenow]

Are there such things as GOOD nukes? or good bombs of any kind?

We're talking nuclear reactors, not nuclear bombs.
You're suffering from what this Vox news piece calls 'bad first impressions.'

 

[Radrook]

Let me interject a certain spiritual angle into the discussion that I just realized is very relevant from a Christian viewpoint.

One explanation as to why this world is being permitted to continue despite its problems is that man is being provided with the opportunity to prove his Edenic claim of not being in need of God's guidance and direct supervision as being wrong. That once it is demonstrated beyond all doubt that God is indeed needed for mankind to succeed, then the end will come.

Whether that will include a third word war in which we almost blast ourselves into oblivion or whether God is waiting for a disaster in relation to unrenewable resources which will bring the point conclusively home I don't know.

But it is something to take into consideration by those who subscribe to that particular theological view.

 

[Monna]

That once it is demonstrated beyond all doubt that God is indeed needed for mankind to succeed, then the end will come.

You may be right, but don't you think this has been already demonstrated beyond all doubt? I would submit that mankind has been through a number of cataclysmic events (both natural and of his own making) and often turned to "god" for help (this is something that we tend to do when we get into serious trouble). But one generation does not learn from previous ones. Sometimes the same generation doesn't. If my understanding of prophecy is correct even after 1000 years of Christ's reign, demonstrating the benefits of his leadership, there will still be enough people against him to mount a serious insurrection. We are a stubbornly proud and selfish race.

I do believe that a serious period of trouble lies ahead, and it doesn't need to wait until we run out of pertroleum. We see many very positive things happening in the world, but there are many worrying indicators too: we are seeing a massive threat of hunger (in the horn of Africa and Yemen), we are seeing the largest ever forced migrations (more IDPs and refugees than ever), we have more slavery today than ever, we are already seeing serious consequences of climate change, we are waking up to the possibility of the massive loss of pollinating insects, we are seeing the unprecedented degradation of soils, pollution of surface and groundwater etc., etc. The people who see these things are not turning to God, but to technological fixes, new legal measures, tighter boundaries, and so on.

A sad story. And those who are providing the evidence are being either ignored or called fakes.

 

[eclipsenow]

We can do both! Turn to God and pray for his help and compassion while also funding those technological fixes that really will create a more ethical and beneficial way of maintaining our lifestyles without harming his world. For instance, this is my piece on New Urbanism and the Gilmore Girls. Think of the potential for church life and culture as you read it, let alone all the oil saved!

 

[Radrook]

You may be right, but don't you think this has been already demonstrated beyond all doubt? I would submit that mankind has been through a number of cataclysmic events (both natural and of his own making) and often turned to "god" for help (this is something that we tend to do when we get into serious trouble). But one generation does not learn from previous ones. Sometimes the same generation doesn't. If my understanding of prophecy is correct even after 1000 years of Christ's reign, demonstrating the benefits of his leadership, there will still be enough people against him to mount a serious insurrection. We are a stubbornly proud and selfish race.

I do believe that a serious period of trouble lies ahead, and it doesn't need to wait until we run out of pertroleum. We see many very positive things happening in the world, but there are many worrying indicators too: we are seeing a massive threat of hunger (in the horn of Africa and Yemen), we are seeing the largest ever forced migrations (more IDPs and refugees than ever), we have more slavery today than ever, we are already seeing serious consequences of climate change, we are waking up to the possibility of the massive loss of pollinating insects, we are seeing the unprecedented degradation of soils, pollution of surface and groundwater etc., etc. The people who see these things are not turning to God, but to technological fixes, new legal measures, tighter boundaries, and so on.

A sad story. And those who are providing the evidence are being either ignored or called fakes.

I agree that we have a horrible historical record and it seems as if we are being allowed to prove what has supposedly been already sufficiently demonstrated-but has it?

Have we really fairly been allowed to reach the pinnacle of scientific achievement? After all, most of our human history was passed in profound ignorance and it is only comparatively recently that we have begun to make some really significant technological scientific headway.

So a sudden interference at this juncture can be used as a counterargument against God's timing in intervening.

"Given several more decades and we would not need you!"

That could very well be the satanically inspired protestation.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nah, I have hope that in God's grace we can fix things. For instance, we've come a long way since America built the urban highways and destroyed traditional town cores by whacking a dirty great Federally sponsored Car-Corporation pork-barrel through them! Yup, the highway. The greatest act of city sabotage ever committed. Sure highways can be important for some transport needs, but for goodness sake there are these things called bypasses!

 

[Radrook]

Nah, I have hope that in God's grace we can fix things. For instance, we've come a long way since America built the urban highways and destroyed traditional town cores by whacking a dirty great Federally sponsored Car-Corporation pork-barrel through them! Yup, the highway. The greatest act of city sabotage ever committed. Sure highways can be important for some transport needs, but for goodness sake there are these things called bypasses!

But God in his prophetic grace predicts that we won't and he will have to take drastic action.

Revelation 11:18
New International Version
The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

 

[eclipsenow]

But God in his prophetic grace predicts that we won't and he will have to take drastic action.

It's not really the topic here, but I'm amil Revelation isn't a timetable for the so called 'Last Days', but a sermon about what it will *generally* be like in the Last Days when governments turn against God's people, which they do from time to time, and when worldly wealth and secular 'safety' of worldly military might and dogma threaten to lure us away from trusting in Christ. All of this is seen through the lense of the Roman persecution that was about to break out, and much of the sermon is literally about what was going to happen 'soon' (Rev 1) for the 'time was near'. But it's so thematic in it's cycling through various themes with various formats, that the theologians I read are absolutely certain it is for all ages and all times and all circumstances. While we might not be under a 'beast' government, what are we to make of the plight of North Korean Christians? Revelation has something to say to them. What are we to make of being incredibly wealthy and prosperous and almost entertained into spiritual death, like we're becoming Aldous Huxley's cretins fed a steady diet of Soma / Netflix to keep us stupefied? Revelation has something to say to us to!

Seriously, one of the better commentaries on Revelation is by Dr Paul Barnett, "Apocalypse Now and then". Paul was both the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney and taught Ancient History at Macquarie University. He ran historical tours of the bible lands, and is uniquely qualified to speak of John's historical references and apocalyptic symbolism in Revelation.
Apocalypse Now and Then : Paul Barnett : 9781875861415

 

[Radrook]

It's not really the topic here, but I'm amil Revelation isn't a timetable for the so called 'Last Days', but a sermon about what it will *generally* be like in the Last Days when governments turn against God's people, which they do from time to time, and when worldly wealth and secular 'safety' of worldly military might and dogma threaten to lure us away from trusting in Christ. All of this is seen through the lense of the Roman persecution that was about to break out, and much of the sermon is literally about what was going to happen 'soon' (Rev 1) for the 'time was near'. But it's so thematic in it's cycling through various themes with various formats, that the theologians I read are absolutely certain it is for all ages and all times and all circumstances. While we might not be under a 'beast' government, what are we to make of the plight of North Korean Christians? Revelation has something to say to them. What are we to make of being incredibly wealthy and prosperous and almost entertained into spiritual death, like we're becoming Aldous Huxley's cretins fed a steady diet of Soma / Netflix to keep us stupefied? Revelation has something to say to us to!

Seriously, one of the better commentaries on Revelation is by Dr Paul Barnett, "Apocalypse Now and then". Paul was both the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney and taught Ancient History at Macquarie University. He ran historical tours of the bible lands, and is uniquely qualified to speak of John's historical references and apocalyptic symbolism in Revelation.
Apocalypse Now and Then : Paul Barnett : 9781875861415

I am not particularly impressed by formal titles and degrees for the following reasons..

I once saw a film entitled Jesus of Nazareth and during that film there were periodic intermissions during which an eminent Biblical Scholar, a clergyman from a mainstream religious denomination was present and providing a commentary.

I justifiably expected him to support the historical accuracy of the events mentioned in the Bible concerning Jesus since that is what clergymen are traditionally expected to do.

To my astonishment, this somber looking clergyman took the opportunity to contradict many aspects of the Biblical text, placing I serious doubt so many details of the events until I began to wonder why he had chosen to become a priest in the first place. His credentials supposedly indicated that he was eminently qualified to defend what he was supposed to represent but his actions proved that he was far more interested in destroying. In short, his educational credentials proved worthless from a Christian standpoint and reminded me of this sciptuirte.

1 Cor 11:
13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions.

In stark contrast, Christ's Apostles and disciples who helped to establish the foundation of the Church, included men who were fishermen such as James the Elder, John, Peter and Andrew, a tax collector Mathew and of course Jesus himself who was a carpenter by trade.

Who were the 12 disciples? | Bibleinfo.com

Those who heard these men speak were amazed because they were familiar with their humble educational backgrounds. Yet the force of their message was compelling and their teaching was accurate. That's why we are told that God chose the humble things of this world to put the intellectually sophisticated things to shame.

1 Cor 1:
27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast in His presence.…

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

So from a biblical perspective just because a person has degrees does not guarantee that he is understanding the Bible correctly. In fact, if the person's heart isn't right, God himself might go out of his way to conceal the true meaning from the individual because he finds him unworthy.

Luke 10:21
At that time, Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.

So we have to be very careful what criteria we are using in deciding who deserves our trust.

 

[eclipsenow]

I am not particularly impressed by formal titles and degrees for the following reasons..

Then read the first Chapter of Revelation and ask yourself when John actually said this stuff was going to start?

I once saw a film entitled Jesus of Nazareth and during that film there were periodic intermissions during which an eminent Biblical Scholar, a clergyman from a mainstream religious denomination was present and providing a commentary.

Dr Paul Barnet is a conservative reformed evangelical, a genuine guy with a heart for the gospel and historical accuracy of the bible. I know his children and grandchildren who are all gospel-centred people.

In stark contrast, Christ's Apostles and disciples who helped to establish the foundation of the Church, included men who were fishermen such as James the Elder, John, Peter and Andrew, a tax collector Mathew and of course Jesus himself who was a carpenter by trade.

Does this mean you'll always hold the opinion of evangelical reformed gospel centred people who know an awful lot more than you with sheer contempt? You'll treat them like one liberal scholar you saw on TV, until proven otherwise?

Those who heard these men speak were amazed because they were familiar with their humble educational backgrounds.

In my experience sadly, many Americans who write on this forum disparage biblical scholarship and don't bother with biblical theology or systematic theology or applying themselves academically to the pursuit of biblical wisdom so they can say any darn dang old whacked out thing.

Yet the force of their message was compelling and their teaching was accurate.

They also had God's spirit breathing out of them, 2 Tim 3:16 and all that!

That's why we are told that God chose the humble things of this world to put the intellectually sophisticated things to shame.

Whooops! You've just proved my point. If you knew anything about history or theology, you'd know that Paul was not saying "Go with your heart and a real DUMB understanding of the bible, as long as your feelings tell you it's true, it's true!" No way! Paul was really happy with this group called the Bereans who did NOT just believe everything Paul said, but cross-checked every thing he said with the Old Testament. Paul was NOT calling academic bible study an "intellectually sophisticated thing to shame". Instead, he was attacking the worldly philosophy of the pagan Greeks. If you have any dirt on Dr Paul Barnett teaching ancient Greek philosophy, please let me know! ;-)

So from a biblical perspective

... woah! Bereans, Paul's commending of them was a thing.

just because a person has degrees

Couldn't agree more, but that's based on other wisdom literature, not your misreading of Paul's attack of worldly Greek philosophy. But please continue.

does not guarantee that he is understanding the Bible correctly. In fact, if the person's heart isn't right, God himself might go out of his way to conceal the true meaning from the individual because he finds him unworthy.

And you know Paul Barnett's heart? Really? From over there, wherever you are?
I was careful, I read his book, and he is classical Reformation Amil.
Did you know most of the big theologians during the Reformation were Amillennial? Do you know what that term means? Probably not, because you're hyper-critical of anything 'academic' in Christianity. Tell me, what do you think Jesus meant when he said to love God with all your mind...?