Oldest ice core: Finding a 1.5 million-year record of Earth’s climate

How far into the past can ice-core records go? Scientists have now identified regions in Antarctica they say could store information about Earth’s climate and greenhouse gases extending as far back as 1.5 million years, almost twice as old as the oldest ice core drilled to date.  (source)

There is very compelling evidence from ice core samples that discredits young earth interpretations of the Bible. However, it isn’t a problem for believers because the Bible never dates creation. That came much later when men like Bishop Ussher added the genealogies and calculated a date. However, there are very good reasons to think these genealogies are not chronological.  Francis Schaeffer observed:

Prior to the time of Abraham, there is no possible way to date the history of what we find in Scripture. After Abraham, we can date the biblical history and correlate it with secular history. When the Bible itself reaches back and picks up events and genealogies in the time before Abraham, it never uses these early genealogies as a chronology. It never adds up these numbers for dating. (Genesis in Space and Time 123-124).

This is laid bear when one examines the text in its original language. The term often translated “father” does not necessarily imply linear descent but can also mean “ancestor” or “forefather.”

      אָב ab (3a); from an unused word; father:—ancestors(1), family*(1), father(571), Father(8), father’s(137), fathers(333), fathers’(120), fathers’ households(1), forefather(1), forefathers(27), grandfather(1), grandfathers(1), households(5), Huram-abi*(2), sons(1).

New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

Accordingly, the young earth date setting project was never the biblical authors’ intent but a later extrapolation. With such a dubious starting place it is rather astounding the level of vitriol and science denial in which young earthers engage.

Ones interpretation of scripture needs to be tempered by natural revelation as in the case of the ice core samples. History has shown us that to refuse do so discredits the church. Consider when Copernicus proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, he and Galileo were branded heretics because of the churches interpretation of these passages:

Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. (Ps. 93:1)

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. (Josh. 10:13)

[The sun’s] rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. (Ps. 19:6)

The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. (Eccl. 1:5)

If young earthers maintained a consistent hermeneutic to what they demand concerning Genesis and the genealogies, it seems like they should also be geocentrists. However, today it is understood that the Bible uses the language of appearance and was not making scientific claims about the sun moving.  Indeed, even young earthers compromise their literal interpretation of scripture in order to keep step with Copernican theory.  How long will it take until they face the overwhelming evidence for the true age of the earth?

 

Is the Pope really conjuring up Lucifer in this video? I’ve been asked about this video so many times that I feel obligated to post a response. I’m also tired of repeating myself so from now own I can just send this link.

In truth, there is no proper name “Lucifer” in scripture, that name for the devil is a Roman Catholic tradition that was adopted by early protestants and is preserved by folks who insist on using an archaic translation. The King James translation reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, KJV). More up-to-date translations render this: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn! You are cut down to the ground, conqueror of nations!” (Isaiah 14:12, Lexham English Bible). The ESV also refers to the being in question as “morning star, son of Dawn,” and most scholars agree the description is a reference to the planet Venus rather than to a proper name like “Lucifer.” Early church fathers including Justin Martyr and Origen connected this passage to Luke 10:18  and proposed the Latin “Lucifer” was a proper name. This was later codified in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible translation. However, in his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome confessed he intentionally avoided a literal rendering:

For greater ease of understanding we translated this phrase as follows: “How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, who arose in the morning.” But if we were to render a literal translation from the Hebrew, it would read, “How you have fallen from heaven, howling son of the dawn.” Lucifer is also signified with other words. And he who was formerly so glorious that he was compared to a bearer of lightning is now told that he must weep and mourn. Just as Lucifer scatters the darkness, it says, glowing and shining with a golden hue, so also your stepping forth to the peoples and the public seemed like a shining star.[1]

With Augustine’s subsequent approval, the tradition of Lucifer as a fallen angel became deeply ingrained in the medieval church. In an important book Deconstructing Lucifer, author David Lowe discussed how this Latin transliteration ended up in the older English Bibles:

After these early church fathers came St. Jerome, who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate language. Christian Protestants followed, such as Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Calvin, Knox, and others, bravely leading believers out of the Dark Ages; a time when the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible was the only choice for the printed Bible. When the early English Bibles began to be translated, they preserved the Latin word “Lucifer” but applied it only to the “morning star,” a reference to the planet Venus.[2]

In its original context, many scholars believe that this phrase helel ben-shachar is related to Ugaritic mythology concerning Baal and Athtar.[3] Isaiah often referenced the Canaanite deities by way of asserting Yahweh’s superiority. The Hebrew text reads:

Since the Latin language was not in use in Isaiah’s day, it is obvious that Isaiah did not write about anyone named Lucifer. It amounts to another Catholic tradition based on a mishandling of the biblical text. So what about the YouTube video, are they really invoking the devil albeit misnamed? When translated the Latin term ‘lucifer’ also means “morning star” or “light bearer” and in the Latin Vulgate it is used as metaphor for Jesus in 2 Peter 1:19: “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”[4] which reads in English: “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,” (2 Pe 1:19, ESV) No, the video above does not capture the Catholics evoking Lucifer, it’s just more YouTube paleobabble.

 

(Hat Tip Mike Heiser)

[1]Steven A. McKinion, Isaiah 1-39, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture OT 10 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 121.

[2] Lowe, David W. (2011-10-01). Deconstructing Lucifer: Reexamining the Ancient Origins of the Fallen Angel of Light (pp. 71-72). Seismos Publishing. Kindle Edition

[3] Michael S. Heiser, “The Mythological Provenance of Is. XVIV 12–15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material,” Vestus Testamentum LI, 3, (2001): 356–357.

[4] Latin Vulgate Translation (Joseph Kreifels), 1311.