I was listening to the radio in the car. (A rare occurrence these days, as I usually am rehearsing or listening to music on my flash drive.) It was a christian radio station and I think it was Janet Parshals show. The reported that there was now archaeological evidence for Hezekiah's reform. In Kings it reports that Hezekiah destroyed the pagan worship sites that were in the city gates and built latrines in them. They have found a pagan worship site in a city gate that had been destroyed and a latrine dug in it.
I like when archeological stuff is discovered that backs up accounts of people, places, and events in the Bible. It confirms to unbelievers that the Bible is not just a bunch of made up stories. :l:;
If you are interested in archaeology I would suggest you look into Biblical Archaeology Review. They usually are on top of what is happening in the field and do a good job of showing both sides of a controversy. Read the letters to the editor section. They often have both sides of an issue debating in there. Used to subscribe but didn't have time to keep up with it.
Christian archaeologists have a very serious uphill battle. First, they're forced to deviate from proven scientific methods by first drawing a conclusion, then looking for supporting evidence. Secondly, they need to draw the line somewhere in their scriptures about what is meant to be divinely inspired indisputable fact, and which was written as hearsay. That comes before the problem of figuring out what's literal/factual vs metaphoric. And in 2 out of those 3 problems, they'll likely to face as much social stigma from their own fraternity of believers as they will from the scientific community. This reminds me of our resident geologist, and that high school science teacher back in the BF days, and the absolutely disgusting things that were said about them, when years of their own research and observation put them in direct opposition with the main body of believers.
I think the primary critiques come from the much larger and important narratives. These should be the most obvious and important, but they're usually the most easily dismissed. Take the Exodus for example.
Before you say things like this I suggest that you check out Biblical Archaeology Review. All the archaeologists there are serious archaeologists that do none of those things. They do scientifically sound archaeology and, in fact, are some of the tops in their fields.
Don't get the impression that I say those things lightly, as they apply to a "me" from years ago too. You'll also note I said nothing about their character, nor level of skill. The methods *must* be met with fundamental skepticism though. Their job is to view archeology with a pro-bible bias. This will undermine their ability to interpret evidence. As for my commentary about the dominant Christian culture they exist in is true and plainly observable - just ask Teddy what his experiences are when he holds to the doctrine of an old earth, which his professional experience demonstrates is *absolute* in its truthfulness.
Hisleast, What experiences are you referring to? Myself and a whole bunch of Christians I know hold to old earth (4.5 billion year old earth & a universe about 13.7 billion years old).
Well, that's if you believe carbon-dating methods to be correct. I've heard various Christian scientists debate the accuracy of carbon-dating methods. If they are correct, the supposed age of the universe can be off millions, or even billions, of years...
I'm not saying that old-earth believing Christians don't exist. I'm saying that people who's professions put them in daily contact with evidence of an old earth will naturally be persecuted by the dominant form of Christianity (the one that believes Genesis is literal).
But, how accurate are the carbon-dating methods used to calculate the age of the universe? I've heard debate about the accuracy, even from scientists who aren't Christians.
Just to be accurate, carbon dating is not used to date the universe. Carbon dating is used to date objects up to about 50,000 years as it's half-life is 5730 years. Dating of mainly igneous rocks on earth or occasionally meteorites would use other radiometric methods like K-Ar or U-Pb which have much longer half-lives (and there are many other options). Dating of the universe would be based on astronomical observations and redshifts and other physical/mathematical means. Accuracy of radiometric methods is usually determined using a variety of techniques to establish a range of dates. Coupled with field observations, absolute radiometric dating has been very effective in establishing timing of geological events throughout the world. There have been some observations that solar activity may have an effect on decay rates, but as far as I last saw, any changes were so small that it would not effect the established ages by any real significant amount.
I do think that in general, young earth believers are more vocal about the issue. I'm involved with two local chapters of apologetic organizations in my area. In both groups, everyone is old earth. I would suggest your experiences may not have given you an accurate picture on this subject. I'm an avid book reader and collector. I've got thousands of books physically and electronically. Most of the Evangelical scholars on my shelves are old earth. And yes, sometimes those of the young earth view give flack to those who hold the old earth view. It probably goes the other direction sometimes too as we are all sinners, but generally flack goes from young earth creationists (yec) to old earth creationists (oec). I'm far from convinced that yec is the dominant view. I'm not even convinced it's the majority view. Maybe. Maybe not. In Evangelical scholarship I'm pretty sure it's the minority view.
Ok. I stand corrected. The carbon-dating is for testing rocks and such on earth. I wasn't sure what methods were used for testing the age of objects in the universe.
Carbon-dating would rarely be used on rocks as they are generally too old, and young recent volcanic rocks would rarely contain any carbon anyway (as they are dominantly silicates). Carbon-dating is generally used in the dating of archaeological finds.
I can confirm the same. You've got AiG, the 'Origins' show, and the like, but outside of that group and their supporters, you'd probably find a lot of surprised YECers who've just found out their theological 'heroes' are old earth, and / or have little to no problem with full-on evolution.
I still have yet to hear from anybody how evolution makes sense from a theological perspective since the Bible bluntly indicates that's NOT how God brought life, both animal and human, into existence...
Not quite, but if evolution were the means God used, it could have been written in a simplistic way saying something about God having created animals, and even mankind, a long time ago but they changed into different kinds of animals over time. People back in biblical times understood the concept of things "changing." They didn't lack the intelligence to understand a basic explanation (there would have been no need to go into specifics of how evolution supposedly worked) that creation was different at first and became something else over time. If that's what really happened. I don't personally believe it is. As to any objection that the idea of animals changing over time would sound too strange of a thing for biblical time people to believe God did...really? Isn't the Bible full of strange things an all powerful God has done? Why would evolution be any different for people to believe? Also, how is the supposedly preferable "allegory" creation story of God instantaneously creating things out of NOTHING not just as strange as the idea of God creating things by change over time?
For the purposes of the Bible, the actual mechanisms of creation are not particularly relevant. What is very relevant is that it was created by God (and for the contemporaries of the day, a single God), it was created very good, and man is his image bearer (and I'm sure there are others we could draw out of there). He gave us our minds to untangle the how it happened. You could consider that as part of having dominion over the creation