A 2nd Interview with Dr. Tofflemire on his Beliefs and Speculations
Dr. T. do you consider yourself an expert on apologetics? I might be considered one in eastern Tn., but not nationally. There are many wiser than I nationally.
Dr. T Is there anything unique about your book? Yes it is unique in that it has more than 200 references, is a literature review and attempts to consider different views of apologists, trying, for the most part, to be open minded and give some pros and cons of the views, and carefully cite references so a reader could explore more for themselves. I try to call my views on controversial apologetic issues speculations. However unless there is considerable scientific evidence against a literal scriptural view for an historical book, I favor that scriptural view. Most authors have some bias, especially if they head a large apologetics organization, as it would be difficult for them to go against their organization’s position on the controversial issues, like young earth or old earth. Even I have some bias as in the bolded sentence above. Thus I favor a world wide flood and young age for man(due to the genealogies) as I believe the scriptures strongly support it, and there is some scientific evidence by experts that these 2 items are correct. This evidence is cited in my book. However, I recognize most secular scientists would disagree with me on these 2 items.
Dr. T. tell us more about your apologetics position. Most of apologetics, perhaps 70%, is on items most apologists agree on- like the rules of logic and truth, that God created the universe with design, and also all life with design, that Jesus is the son of God and is historical and was resurrected, that information and the laws of Math and the laws of nature are separate non-material entities. and that theism and Christianity are the most logical and coherent world views, and that the moral arguments of Craig are true(God is the source of true morals). What apologists and theologians have different views on concern the timing of creation, the details of exactly how things were created and the degree of Godly guidance in each detail of the process.
Dr. T What do you believe about the inerrancy of the scriptures? I quote my book p 68-9“Erickson reviewed the three classical views of Bible inerrancy: Absolute inerrancy, Full inerrancy and Limited inerrancy.”I believe in Full inerrancy as more fully explained on p 69 of my book. I also believe Genesis is a historical book.
Dr. T. does this cause you any difficultly in the interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1-2? Believing in full inerrancy of a historical book would lead one to believe that the universe and earth were created in 6 literal days. I believe the bible is true and inerrant and historical books should be interpreted largely literally.
Dr. T. is your view settled on this matter? No not completely, as I am an engineer and scientist and wonder how could it be the 6 literal days, and especially the first 4 days days could be 24hr days. I wonder and speculate on this and try to remain open to new evidence and scriptural interpretations.
Dr. T. is there now more evidence on this issue? There is now more evidence of cosmic inflation where the universe and the fabric of space time grew exponentially followed by elementary particles being formed. There is now some evidence for the different types of elementary particles. See Wikipedia on these items. As the universe expanded and cooled more, atoms and then molecules were formed including water molecules. There are numerous scriptures in the bible saying God stretched out the heavens. See p. 95 of my book. The stretching out could be the cosmic inflation. Also Einstein describes space time as a fabric and there is more evidence for that.
Dr T. Does this fit with Gen. 1 and the literal view on the 6-24hrs days. No not completely unless one interprets some of Genesis more liberally. God is a God of order and plan as indicated by Bullinger.(web paper on numerology). That could mean God created energy and elementary particles, then atoms, then molecules, then minerals and compounds, then rocks and then mountains. It is not logical that He would jump to creating mountains and seas before the elementary materials were created. There are some indications that on day one matter and energy were created as they are related as in E=MC2, and on day 2 there was completion of this process with stretching out of space (the firmament). It is also logical, that if the cosmic inflation of all space is true, there would be only one inflation including the whole universe, and not 2 inflations; one for space around the earth and a 2nd one for the rest of the universe. God could have precisely guided the whole process of inflation.
Also on pg 216 of my book some authors give alternate views in interpretations of Gen. 1. Ross states that on day 4 the sun was already there, but first appeared from a viewpoint on earth, because the atmosphere cleared. Thus on the issue of the first 4 days of creation, I remain open to the latest scriptural and scientific views. My paper on the history of the church and Galileo is instructive. The Catholic church at the time was very set in its view, that the sun revolved around the earth, based on scriptures, so they imprisoned Galileo; but due to overwhelming evidence the church changed its view. In summary there is much most apologists agree on, but on the controversial issues, I try to remain open to new evidences.