Monday, May 3, 2010

A Great Spring in the Woods

I put these up here for the benefit of those of you who have not caught up with the rest of the world and joined Facebook. And for those of you who really don't care, sorry. God has been very gracious to me this spring, as He has granted me favor in bringing a few parts of creation under my dominion. Thank you, Lord. And thanks to the landowners for their generosity! And to my new hunting buddy, Charlie.

This is the first turkey I killed this year, 3 yr old bird, 10" beard, 1.25" spurs, about 20 lbs. Awesome hunt after he gave me the slip the previous morning. Hadn't killed a bird in a couple of years, but this one went really smooth!

The next time we went out, no turkeys, but Charlie finished off this 200 lbs hog after I made it mad with some OOO Buck, great shot Charlie! I missed another one that morning too with my pistol...

This is the second turkey I killed a couple of weeks later. Never killed 2 birds in season, usually stop with one, and got skunked last year for the first time in a lot of years. 2 yr old bird, 7" beard, 1" spurs, maybe 17 lbs. You can see the tail feathers are a little messed up, long morning--picture perfect, Outdoor Channel stuff until I pulled the trigger, but I will spare you the details. It sure is a story to pass along someday...

Then later that week, Charlie and I went out again, and waited on a gobbler that gobbled for an hour, then went the other way--that's turkey hunting. But then we stumbled upon this little piggy. And after a couple of 12 ga slugs, and .40 cal pistol rounds, I killed my first ever wild hog!

Rattlesnakes are fairly common here in South Georgia. In our area, though, we most have Eastern Diamondbacks. But as I drove home, I saw this beautiful Timber rattler, (some of you may call it a Canebrake) in the road dead. I knew that my girls would love to see it, so I brought it home. It had 10 rattles and the button, was about 4 feet long, and had fangs that were almost a full inch. And my oldest was telling her Nana what she had been doing that day, and she included "playing with the rattlesnake" in her list...too funny.

Sorry, I didn't get a picture of the fangs, they were really cool...


  1. This comment has nothing to do with your post about a hunting trip, but I wanted to thank you for commenting on my blog a day or two ago.

    I attempted a response, but decided to comment here, too. I'm not in favor of watering down essential doctrine, but, like the author I referred to (and I don't think he is in favor of doing that either) I don't think it's wise for so many Christians to take an anti-science stance, on things that aren't essential doctrine, for two reasons. First, Paul said that he became all things to all men, so that he could win the lost, and I don't think he was watering down the essentials. He was making himself, and the gospel, attractive to other people, including educated philosophers. Second, Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20 say that the way nature is tells us about God. (It's not the only way, of course, but it is one way.) So we need to take scientific findings seriously, because they are the most thorough way that we know what nature is like. (Understanding that the interpretation may change, and that, say _Science_, or _The New England Journal of Medicine_ aren't inspired.)

    Some Christians seem to take science, as a whole, as an enemy camp. (Some scientists act the same way about Christians, but it is Christians who are to set an example, regardless of what others do.)

    Thanks again.

  2. I agree that there is an order by which doctrines are ranked in importance. And I realize that age of the earth related to Genesis 1-3 is not a first-order doctrine on the same plain with the atonement.

    However, I do think that it is a critical doctrine, that has far reaching implications toward the doctrines of inspiration of scripture, second Adam Christology, doctrine of sin, just to name a few; and toward the understanding of the accuracy of Jesus statements regarding creation, Adam and Eve, etc.

    And, as one whose undergraduate is in Wildlife Science from UT (hand over your heart), I feel like there is a legitimate case scientifically for YEC. You are very well read, and so you know that there are a lot of very well educated scientists working diligently to give scientific explanations and evidence to YEC. My favorite two books on it are: "The Facts of Creation" by Gary Parker, and "Thousands, not Billions" by Donald DeYoung. And I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but we all know that any scientist that is a YEC is automatically blackballed, and censored, and ridiculed.

    But my main issue is that we are never told to shape our presentation of truth so that a person might find the gospel easier to believe. "All things to all men" was never meant to compromise truth for the sake of evangelism. And taking science seriously, doesn't mean affirming all its conclusions. I think I can make a good case (and did numerous times in my church in Maine) to the biology students at the university of the scientific legitimacy, or at least possibility, of YEC; so that at least they don't feel it is absolutely scientifically absurd. So, I somewhat resent the implication that YECs cannot be dealing with science accurately or seriously. I know that there are many YEC that don't do the research, or understand the thought or terminology, and blow it off, but not all of us are like that.

    Two other things: I find huge problems theologically with Old-earth views. And hermeneutically, I haven't found a convincing explanation that fits with the biblical text enough for me to consider adopting it. MacArthur deals with these two issues in "The Battle for the Beginning"

    Even though I am definitely in the camp of those "sometimes wrong, but never in doubt," I am not saying that Old-earth people cannot be believers or that God can't use Old-earth believers, just simply that they are mistaken at this point. The Lord knows that I am mistaken at many points, and I acknowledge my flaws. And since I am acknowledging my flaws, I probably need to apologize for the sharpness of my comments the other day. Often I write before I thoughtfully consider the admonition to "speak the truth in love." A friend of mine wrote a post ( this week that demonstrated how believers can get alone although they see things very differently on significant theological (and ecclesiological in that instance) matters. And sometimes I should remember his example.

    Sorry, I guess I wrote a book...maybe I should.

  3. Maybe so. Thanks.

    I'm not a Young-Earth Creationist, but I agree with much of what you have said in this comment.

    To summarize what I got out of it, and agree with: Young-Earth Creationism may be correct. It may not be. But it shouldn't be made a top-order doctrine. And Christians should be able to disagree, lovingly, about its validity.