Daily Archives: July 19, 2010

•

Is set up a little differently than I remember, but will be nice.

It's an upper, so there are stairs up that don't go anyplace but my unit.  There's a deadbolt both at the bottom of the stairs and the top of the stairs.  What this means is that I can put bike hoods on the walls of the stairs (it's wide enough in two places) and use the hall for bike storage (and I ran it by the landlord and he said ok.)

The bedrooms are a little bigger than I remember, so furniture will fit.  One of my dressers will be in the "front room" - and since I use it for office and craft storage, it's a better place for it anyway.

Plenty of wall space for bookshelves...I need to get comcast out to put in another cable jack.

Lots of kitchen storage, plenty of drawers.  I still have to shovel snow, but I share the duty with the downstairs folks.  I can even park the camper on the property and this is the first landlord who has said "yes" to that.

I'll have to get a little creative with storage, especially camping gear.  I'm going to have a padlock put on the camper door and I can keep most of the gear in there.

Overall, it will work well.

• 1 Comment

•

Preface and Chapter 1

I'll link to this up as I add chapters - it's a good book that gives a different side to the "evolution vs. 6-day creation" debate.

"Biblical Case For an Old Earth" by David Snokes (if you buy through this link, I get a credit - hint, hint)

In the preface,

Snokes introduces the debate in a "orthodox vs liberalism" sort of way and describes how "old earthers" are often portrayed by  those who believe that the earth is (at most) 20,000 years old.

Snokes maintains that a person can be a theological conservative and accept a Biblical case for an old earth.

Chapter 1, "Starting Assumptions"

Snokes starts by telling readers that if he had not studied science, he would not have come to an old earth conclusion...tells us that his interpretation is a "possible" interpretation, not an "obvious" one.  He recognizes that his view may not be popular, and points out that:

It is illegitimate to change our view of the Bible because we want a more popular interpretation.

and then

He poses the question about whether or not it's okay to ever allow experience, history, or science affect or alter our understanding of the interpretation of Scripture.

Examples he used were Galileo...do we allow our understanding of science to affect our interpretation of Psalm 93:1?

Does history tell us that "king" in Daniel 5:1 refers to a viceroy, a "lesser king", and not the foremost ruler of an entire country?  Would we have that understanding, if we didn't have history?

There is a legitimacy to allowing experience to affect our interpretation...that does NOT mean that we should change our interpretation to bow to the prevailing views of culture in order to be with the "in crowd."  It also does not mean that we need to get onto the "slippery slope" and we can avoid that by clearly laying out the boundaries - what is negotiable and what is not.

we would do well to remember that science was founded by Christians who insisted that God is not a great deceiver, that the natural world is ordered by a good God, and that we must reject superstition and hearsay; moreover, that we must subject all truth claims to rigorous examination, even claims of honored church leaders from generations past...

Question: is it legitimate to allow your experience with purported miracle workers to affect the way you interpret passages like Ephesians 4:11 AND 2 Cor. 12:12 that seem to promise signs and wonders?

My answer...maybe not, but it is certainly wise to allow Scripture to judge whether or not a miracle worker is merely "purported."