Ask the Expert: Bodie Hodge

Comment

Comment by Raymond Nederhoff on February 29, 2012 at 8:55am

How do I answer the objection to global flood that says, "Well, the people of the world hadn't spread very far in the world, so to kill all the people wouldn't have meant to flood the entire world, just where people then currently lived, i.e. 'Noah's little world'.  So what Biblical/non-biblical evidence do we have that there were people groups already existing outside of the Mesapotamian area?

 

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 22, 2010 at 4:41pm

Dear Arlen22,

 

I’ve heard word back from Dr. Snelling regarding your enquiry about CPT in New Answers Book. Dr. Snelling has stated:

 

“To the first question the answer is that we have not checked everything to know whether there is anything significant that our CPT Flood model doesn’t answer.  Of course, this CPT Flood model is not yet recognised as evidence for a global Flood by evolutionists because they don’t accept global catastrophism on a young earth during the Flood.  As for what we are doing about changing the status quo, there is nothing more that we can do except publish and broadcast our position and the evidence for it.  We cannot force evolutionists to change their minds, as the decision they have made is a spiritual one.  Their faith position in million of years automatically rules out the global Flood event.”

 

“Interestingly, evolutionary plate tectonic models have increasing problems in explaining mantle plumes because where the plumes should be is now not as hot etc. as it should be.  However, the CPT model explains that because the plumes operated in the past and they are now not moving but slowed down and cooling.  This is one example of a problem the evolutionary models can’t answer, but the CPT model can.  Another example is the post-Flood Ice Age, which is a direct result of CPT during the Flood, whereas evolutionary geological models have difficulty explaining how any ice age can occur.”

 

I pray this helps, God bless.    Bodie

Comment by Arlen22 on December 20, 2010 at 12:23pm

In my opinion, I think that the genus should be should name each kind, with the species naming variations (dogs vs wolves, forget about subspecies, or rather "breeds"). The family would then group the kinds together based on obvious similarities.

I suddenly noticed that you wrote the article, so could you explain why you suggested that taxa since it seems to be based on wording rather than similarities and difference? I would think it would be simpler to classify things based on similarities.

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 20, 2010 at 9:24am

Hi Arlen22 - The dog "species" definition in the secular world has been under a state of flux in recent times (as well as in the past). Around the year 2000, researchers realized that domestic dogs and wolves can interbreed. When animals of various species interbreed, this causes problem in the eyes of the secular idea (e.g., divergence where animals should be evolving away from each other, hence different species).

 

Originally, Carl Linneaus, the Swedish creationist who took up the challenge of classification, was doing taxonomy, he used the Latin term species (and genus) which [both] meant kind. His hope was that species would be equivalent to the biblical kind. Of course, when people began documenting various critters around the world they had no hybridization data. So a whole host of critters were classed as species. Linneaus, later in his life, realized this problem and actually agrees with creationists that in many instances the family level is much closer to the biblical kind (not every instance of course). 

 

But the secular world was stuck with the classification system, so they keep modifying it when things interbreed. This is what happened with the domestic dogs and grey wolves in recent times in fact most dogs, they have found can interbreed so they are getting listed as wolves more and more. Sooner or later all dogs should be classed at one species at this rate, because they can interbreed. But in reality all they are doing is finding out the biblical kind and giving it the name Linnaeus gave (species). To creationists, dogs are dogs and are a kind and so this is not a problem. They have problems with their classification system. It would be nice to have a biblical based taxonomy system at some point like this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/25/feedback-a-bibl...

Comment by Arlen22 on December 17, 2010 at 8:32am

...and scientifically accurate. Sorry, I can't edit my question any more.

Comment by Arlen22 on December 17, 2010 at 8:09am

I have another question. Wikipedia puts Dogs in the same species as Wolves. Wikipedia defines species as animals that can interbreed without any problems. Is this all correct?

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 16, 2010 at 12:38pm

Hi Justin - Believe it or not, there are not that many, because so much was reiterated in the NT. Of course, there are some – giving, for example, is one I’ve seen people debate (e.g. is it still a tithe or what is purposed in the heart (2 Corinthians 9:7) or is that a confirmation of  the tithe, etc. I’ve also seen people debate the interpretation of dominion originally given in Genesis. Most though Christians agree which is good. I just wich more Christians would understand the issue and why. Few Christians today get good indepth teaching on finer theolgoical points. God bless.    

Comment by Justin Mooney on December 16, 2010 at 11:55am

Thanks for that very thorough reply!

The reason this has been on my mind is because of people who argue that Christians are inconsistent for following some of the Bible's laws on not others. If I say that some of those laws no longer apply, the next question is of course "How did you determine which ones still apply and which do not?" Obviously if we don't use Scripture to determine it then we put ourselves as the authority over God, so I think it is a biblical authority issue up to a certain point (though, like you said, the covenant vs. dispensational theology is not a biblical authority issue). You mentioned bestiality and tattoos as being controversial because they are not reiterated in the NT. Which other laws are disputed?

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 16, 2010 at 11:40am

Hi Justin - The way Christians look at Old Testament Law is primarily based on one of two theologies. They are either dispensational theology or covenant theology. These views have similarities and differences.  

 

Both agree that when a new covenant came about, rules changed. Some of these covenants are the original Edenic (inferred), Noahic, Mosaic, and now the new one in Christ’s blood.

 

For example, from the Edenic covenant, man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30).  When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3).  With Moses and the covenant with the Israelites, it was even more strict limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (Leviticus 11:47, etc.).  In the new covenant with Christ’s blood, this was again opened up (Romans 14:1-4).  And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available). 

 

Food permitted to be eaten

Edenic	Vegetarian
Noahic	Vegetarian foods, clean and unclean meats
Mosaic	Vegetarian foods, clean meats
New Covenant in Christ	Vegetarian foods, clean and unclean meats
Heaven	Vegetarian

 

So God’s rules to man can change at various covenants (but God’s character has never changed).  With regards to various other laws, there are also some changes but it may not be as “cut and dried” as the example above. These two views differ in the way they look how the laws change. In essence, they say:

 

Covenant theology: rules apply unless done away with in the next covenant.  In other words, each covenant is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has modifications. 

 

Dispensational theology: previous rules don’t apply in a new covenant unless reiterated in the next covenant. In other words, new dispensations do away with each previous rule in previous covenants when they are fulfilled and new rules need to be stated. 

 

Both of these affect the way that Old Testament laws are viewed. Both sides agree on most laws (where they don’t is where it gets interesting – bestiality, tattoos, etc.), because so much was reiterated in the New Testament. But some things went away – obviously the sacrificial stuff, which Christ fulfilled.

 

But AiG typically doesn’t get into this debate any further than this (we usually stick to biblical authority issues but with this issue, both sides view the Bible as the authoritative Word of God). From here, we let your local denomination go further. So I suggest you contact you local denomination to see which view your church holds to. They should be able to fill you in on the details of that position. I pray this helps, God bless.

 

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 16, 2010 at 11:37am

Hi Arlenn22 - I could give you a remedial answer but I suggest that our geologist could provide abetter answer to this since he knows the finer details of CPT, which is probably best model we have so far. As you may know, there are a number of ideas flaoting around about the mechanism of the Flood. We encourage people to submit such things to te peer review process and CPT is one of hte only ones to have done that in detail.  At any rate, I will forward this to Dr. Snelling and see what his answer is. I'll post it once I recieve it.  God bless. 

Comment by Justin Mooney on December 16, 2010 at 9:54am

Hello Mr. Hodge,

I have a question about the laws in Exodus and Leviticus. I realize that some, such as most of the sanitary laws, were meant to set apart Israel from the surrounding pagan nations, and do not apply to us today. My question is, how, Biblically, was it determined which laws still apply and which do not?

Comment by Arlen22 on December 15, 2010 at 5:55pm

Concerning the flood model in The New Answers book 1, chapter 14, the book said it answers every problem that the evolutionary models answer, and many problems that they don't. Is there anything significant that this model doesn't answer, or have they just not checked everything yet? Also, is this model recognized as evidence for a global flood by evolutionists? If so, what are they doing about it?

Comment by Jeff Brace on December 14, 2010 at 2:38pm

Thanks so much for the help Bodie. It is much appreciated. I have a lot to learn about apologetics. Thanks for being here to help fellow believers defend the faith :)

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 14, 2010 at 10:16am

Hi Jeff – thanks for the compliment. How many times should you respond to someone who refuses to listen or learn? The Bible tells us: Titus 3:10 - Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

 

If you think they are sincere, then continue corresponding. But there will be a point where it is casting pearls to swine (Matthew 7:6). But be in prayer for these gents – after all, they are not the enemy but it is the false philosophy that has taken them captive that is the enemy.

 

Some advice though. Sometimes the trick is to get them to realize they have a “depraved mind” as Romans 1 indicates they have. Sometimes this can be done by questioning their worldview to realize the inconsistencies. In other words, they are used to attacking Christianity or the Bible, but have never had the opportunity to defend their own professed worldview. By questioning their worldview and making them defend it, they often realize how flimsy that view really is, like sinking sand.  Then they will be more open to a civil conversation. God bless.  

Comment by Jeff Brace on December 14, 2010 at 8:41am

Hi Bodie,  I want you to know that of all the AIG speakers, I have learned the most from your articles and posts. I would like to know at what point in ahring creation with others do you give up trying to reach them. It seems the Bible puts it in direct perspective - they have been given over to a depraved mind. My heart aches when I read some peoples replies. Thanks again.

Comment by Bodie Hodge on December 13, 2010 at 12:04pm

Hi Ron - Among the best ways to get a ministry going is by doing it within a local church. If God decides to grow it, then it will grow. Before I came to AiG, I got involved at my church with the youth (jr. high and high school age) teaching them apologetics. Then I started running my own website answering questions for them and it started to expand to a few other churches. Next thing you know, I applied at AiG and started working here.

 

Of course, there are other ways.  But one must step out in faith and prayer. Also, be sure you are doing it for the right reasons. Some want to focus on creation, family values, santity of life, or other reasons, and these are good, but it needs to be for the furtherance of the Gospel. AiG is on about the Gospel which is why our thust on biblical authority is so important. I hope this helps get you started. God bless. B

Comment by Ron Craig on December 13, 2010 at 10:04am

Hi Bodie. I own and have read all three "New Answers" books, as well as numerous other creation-based materials, and thanks to the wonderful work of AIG my apologetic has sharpened dramatically over the past several years and, the Lord willing, will continue to do so. My question is this; can you suggest how I might begin a creation-apologetics ministry of my own? My wife and I are currently searching for a new home church because the particular Baptist church we've attended for the last three years has shown themselves to be resistant to the works of the Holy Spirit; particularly where it comes to our repeated offers to begin supportive ministries within the fellowship of believers. Both my wife and I are always sharing and helping others to understand the truths of God's Word and the Lord has shown me repeatedly through many signs the importance of creation science and His intent that I begin work in this area of evangelism...of this I am completely certain! I work as a boat hand in the Gulf of Mexico, serving the Oil & Gas Industry, and have had many opportunities over the years to share Christ and His creation with others in my environment, but am now persuaded that God would have me serve in this capacity in a more structered and formalized setting. Any advice?