News

Is there any chance for Logos to get digital version of ESV Exhaustive Concordance?

The universe is 13.8 Billion years old and earth is 4.5 Billion years old according to science. So far, our solar system is unique because we haven't found any like it yet among the discovered 5500 exoplanet. Planets are in a normal solar system so that our larges planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptun and Uranus) should be nearest the Sun and the other planets Earth, Venus, Mars and Mercurius should be more far away from the Sun because that’s how most of the solar system looks like that we have found.

I can see that making the 3 categories discussed in this article is helpful for a discussion kick-starter, but mostly I have found beliefs in this area are more nuanced and that most believers fit somewhere in between these categories. There can be a tendency to focus on the acceptance of science and/or extra-biblical evidence and then to consider the tension between those things and the scriptures. But I would strongly suggest that equal attention needs placing on attitudes to scripture, how and when and why they came to be, and whether the ways we treat scripture do scripture and/or God justice. Many believers (in fact the majority I have come across - and I have a lot of cross-denominational experience, from fundamental evangelicalism through many other forms of Protestantism, a lot of contact with Catholics and Orthodox) I have come across take exception to the Chicago Statements on scripture that were released in the 1970s. These statements force a very narrow view on "accepted" ways to interpret scripture. And, in addition to all that, it has a very narrow (and, I believe, wrong) interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16 resulting in treating the Protestant canon (the smallest of the canons - but that is another discussion) as a monolithic whole, almost as though written by a single author (who is not treated as human). Nearly all those I have come across who follow the young earth trains of thought also tend to be in agreement with the Chicago Statements. Yet, as I have stated, the vast majority of believers I have come across find the Chicago Statements unhelpful and too restrictive - even forcing the scriptures to become something they are not. Of course, that latter statement is a much more ancient argument and was made against Luther's 'sola scriptura' as soon as that became public knowledge - not only by Catholics and Orthodox, but even by many concerned Protestants at the time. Why? Because Christ told us the Holy Spirit would teach us all things, and such a statement about scripture is not to be found in all of scripture. The 2 Tim 3:16-17 only states the profitability of scripture as an aid to teaching, but with a specific proviso. And so the arguments continue to this day over the political manipulations caused by using the absolute mistranslation in English and the use of the word 'inspired.' The counter-argument is that the author (probably not Paul - but that's yet another controversy) was alluding to the Creation of humanity, which was dead dust of the earth formed, like clay, into human shape. This was lifeless until God breathed into the man, after which he became a living soul. Similarly, scripture is lifeless without the intervention of the Holy Spirit and it is only when the Spirit illumines scripture (the 'god-breathed' bringing life to the lifeless) that it then becomes profitable in the ways described in the following words. Indeed, the argument goes, there is a sad inconsistency of interpretation of scripture when it comes to what scripture says. If we are to accept the views of Paul consistently, we should remember it is he that said that the letter kills but the Spirit brings life (2 Cor 3:6 - in a letter that is undisputedly Paul). Paul was led by scripture to persecute followers of Christ and was unchanged in this determination until divine intervention to teach him the error. Similarly, we can religiously be determined along the wrong path - based on scripture! - without submission first of all to the Comforter whose job, among others, is to teach us. I feel very concerned about the attitude of some bible scholars and interpreters towards the use of myth by the ancients. Myth does not equal fairy-tale fancy fiction. It was a way commonly used by the ancients (and still by some cultures of today) to preserve teaching and truths in ways easy to remember. By 'truths' we don't necessarily mean history - at least in the meaning we give to that word today. The result has often meant that the literalists preach and teach a God totally inconsistent with the gospel and letters of John (in particular, but I would also say Paul). The author of this article is therefore to be commended on the encouragement to be patient and charitable with one another, because this topic - as can be seen - touches on, nay, forces consideration of other areas of controversy and division. We should beware division, because that gives grounds for defense and/or enmity - and the very lack of love that many of us have experienced when trying to discuss these topics in a civilised and decent manner. And, to me, lack of love is the first sign of ungodliness.

So, the earth is 6,000 years old?

There are so many references in the NHNE passage in Rev 21 that indicate it's a present reality that we should view it that way first before thinking of secondary, future fulfilments. Even Wright and Middleton, despite making good cases for an earthly everlasting future, never address the parts of this section which make its present nature an interpretive option at least as persuasive as the common one they unthinkingly perpetuate.

Enjoyed this simple but rich article on the believers' future state.