Why Genesis Matters - Dr. Jason Lisle

[Hoghead1]

The problem I have with your approach here, -57, is that you are automatically assuming your theories about the Bible are necessarily correct, instead of checking them out. The whole notion of biblical inerrancy is simply a human-made, fallible theory of how God may be related to Scripture. Hence, what we are talking about here and what is in question here isn't the Bible per se, but your own personal, homespun theology.

 

[-57]

I believe in a literal fall, and a literal Adam and Eve, who were miraculously designed by God, perhaps 200,000 years ago. But even if Genesis 2 was a myth it would still be normal for Paul to use it as he did, since a myth's purpose is to teach a moral lesson, so an inspired myth would be intended for the very sort of thing Paul used it for.

What's the moral law here with what Paul taught the women?
hey ladies, you should be silent in church..because some myth lady was deceived and her myth husband wasn't? It's only a make believe story....no big deal. get over it.

As to the first part of your post "perhaps 200,000 years ago.".....I think the bible would contain many more linages in the list if that were true. I'm not buying the "they left some out" theory.

 

[-57]

I'll answer this if you answer why there is distance starlight, why radioisotope dating works at all, and why there are so many more marine than land fossils and no cattle bones mixed with dinosaur bones, or whale fossils in areas dated earlier than the cenozoic.

Distant starlight.....You might be interested in checking out some of Russ Humphreys work.

Basically...when the universe was doing it's thing...God spreading it out...Earth on day 1, 2 and 3 was in a high gravitational field where time was moving pretty slow compared to the rest of the universe that wasn't. Later in creation week when the earth emerged from the gravity field the light from starts billions of miles away was arriving at earth.

You might wan't to check out this video.

 

[-57]

The problem I have with your approach here, -57, is that you are automatically assuming your theories about the Bible are necessarily correct, instead of checking them out. The whole notion of biblical inerrancy is simply a human-made, fallible theory of how God may be related to Scripture. Hence, what we are talking about here and what is in question here isn't the Bible per se, but your own personal, homespun theology.

You're argument makes complete sense Hoghead....an infallible God is going to provide us with error in His Word. Yeah, that sounds right.
You know, where God inspired Paul to write sin and death entered via one man...God got it wrong.
Jesus didn't really rise from the dead....the authors of the NT got that part wrong.

....you're approach is MUCH better than mine Hoghead. The problem is...I just don't what part of the bible to believe.

 

[Percivale]

Distant starlight.....You might be interested in checking out some of Russ Humphreys work.

Basically...when the universe was doing it's thing...God spreading it out...Earth on day 1, 2 and 3 was in a high gravitational field where time was moving pretty slow compared to the rest of the universe that wasn't. Later in creation week when the earth emerged from the gravity field the light from starts billions of miles away was arriving at earth.

You might wan't to check out this video.

I've heard of this theory before. Here's an article critiqueing Humphreys' theory. Also note that AiG doesn't support this theory anymore; at least, they've moved to an instant starlight theory instead (which is even more unscientific and illogical)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time

What's the moral law here with what Paul taught the women?
hey ladies, you should be silent in church..because some myth lady was deceived and her myth husband wasn't? It's only a make believe story....no big deal. get over it.

As to the first part of your post "perhaps 200,000 years ago.".....I think the bible would contain many more linages in the list if that were true. I'm not buying the "they left some out" theory.

Maybe. But there has been a lot of textual corruption in those genealogies. Different manuscripts have different ages at which sons were born, and even disagree on how many generations there were (some have Cainan, some don't, in Gen. 11.

 

[Percivale]

You're argument makes complete sense Hoghead....an infallible God is going to provide us with error in His Word. Yeah, that sounds right.
You know, where God inspired Paul to write sin and death entered via one man...God got it wrong.
Jesus didn't really rise from the dead....the authors of the NT got that part wrong.

....you're approach is MUCH better than mine Hoghead. The problem is...I just don't what part of the bible to believe.

The question if is God wanted to give us an inerrant word. Clearly he didn't make a mistake, but whether he let humans make mistakes is another question. God could have sent angels to preach the gospel to all nations, but instead he sent humans who sometimes give inadequate presentations of the Gospel. In the same way, it would be quite possible for him to let the Biblical authors to make mistakes in writing down what he told them.

 

[-57]

I've heard of this theory before. Here's an article critiqueing Humphreys' theory. Also note that AiG doesn't support this theory anymore; at least, they've moved to an instant starlight theory instead (which is even more unscientific and illogical)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time


Maybe. But there has been a lot of textual corruption in those genealogies. Different manuscripts have different ages at which sons were born, and even disagree on how many generations there were (some have Cainan, some don't, in Gen. 11.

Just because you can find an article critiqueing Humphreys' theory....doesn't make it so. I read articles critiqueing the resurrection...does that mean the resurrection didn't happen?

 

[-57]

The question if is God wanted to give us an inerrant word. Clearly he didn't make a mistake, but whether he let humans make mistakes is another question. God could have sent angels to preach the gospel to all nations, but instead he sent humans who sometimes give inadequate presentations of the Gospel. In the same way, it would be quite possible for him to let the Biblical authors to make mistakes in writing down what he told them.

Yes...people do get in the way and mistranslate scripture.
In the original text...no error. In a translation, error or a nuiance of a word can be misapplied.
People often apply their particular bias to a word and mistranslate the meaning. Creation day's in Genesis is a great example. The simple text tells us the days were 24 hour long time frames. It's what it say by the usage and discreption in the creation account.

 

[Steve Petersen]

To YECs: What would it take for you to change your position on the age of the earth?

 

[-57]

To YECs: What would it take for you to change your position on the age of the earth?

You would have to convince me miracles are not possible.

You would have to demonstrate how soft dino tissue can survive for 65+ MYs
Or
Why coal often contains C14.
Or
Why the fossils found in the strata layers were not a result of Noahs flood.

...I have a list of over 100 reasons.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You would have to convince me miracles are not possible.

You would have to demonstrate how soft dino tissue can survive for 65+ MYs
Or
Why coal often contains C14.
Or
Why the fossils found in the strata layers were not a result of Noahs flood.

...I have a list of over 100 reasons.

And if the evidence went against YEC, you would change your position?

 

[-57]

And if the evidence went against YEC, you would change your position?

That would depend on the interpretation of the "evidence". I, and many other see the evidence as pointing to a young earth.

Now, you seem to be a christian...as you're posting on a Christian only forum...that would cause me to believe you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3....YET...all of the scientific evidence says when you're dead, on day 3 you stay dead.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That would depend on the interpretation of the "evidence". I, and many other see the evidence as pointing to a young earth.

Now, you seem to be a christian...as you're posting on a Christian only forum...that would cause me to believe you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3....YET...all of the scientific evidence says when you're dead, on day 3 you stay dead.

If you wish to invoke miracles in defense of YEC it is not possible to have a rational conversation on the topic.

 

[-57]

If you wish to invoke miracles in defense of YEC it is not possible to have a rational conversation on the topic.

Can you show me any other way to produce life without the miraculous intervention of God?

 

[KWCrazy]

And if the evidence went against YEC, you would change your position?

From what He taught, it is very clear that Jesus is a young earth creationist who believes that the Scriptures are the breathed word of God and accurate for teaching and reproof. Knowing that, all of man's INTERPRETATIONS of evidence cannot trump the teaching of the Lord. As the video points out there is nothing in the Scriptures that support long ages or evolution. Therefore, those man-made concepts are quite simply wrong.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Can you show me any other way to produce life without the miraculous intervention of God?

The debate about YEC is not about 'who but about how. I am not an atheist.

From what He taught, it is very clear that Jesus is a young earth creationist who believes that the Scriptures are the breathed word of God and accurate for teaching and reproof. Knowing that, all of man's INTERPRETATIONS of evidence cannot trump the teaching of the Lord. As the video points out there is nothing in the Scriptures that support long ages or evolution. Therefore, those man-made concepts are quite simply wrong.

Of course and pious, first century Jew is going to believe in Adam. You will respond, I am sure, that Jesus was God and therefore had perfect knowledge of the creation. However, Philippians 2 says that he 'emptied himself' when he took on the form of a man.

 

[-57]

The debate about YEC is not about 'who but about how. I am not an atheist.


Of course and pious, first century Jew is going to believe in Adam. You will respond, I am sure, that Jesus was God and therefore had perfect knowledge of the creation. However, Philippians 2 says that he 'emptied himself' when he took on the form of a man.

Jesus didn't empty Himself of His divinity. The hypostatic union of Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man.

 

[brinny]

Anyone else watch this, I thought he made some hard to overlook points and agree with him.

Listening, thank you.

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course and pious, first century Jew is going to believe in Adam. You will respond, I am sure, that Jesus was God and therefore had perfect knowledge of the creation. However, Philippians 2 says that he 'emptied himself' when he took on the form of a man.

So you agree that Jesus was a YEC. Thank you.
I disagree, however, that you know more about the creation than the son of God.
I personally view the teaching of evolution as heresy and false teaching. Teaching that the Scriptures are wrong and the doctrine of man is right is actually a pretty big sin.
Revelation 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

We don't get to pick and choose which portions of God's word we wish to believe and which we wish to reject.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Jesus didn't empty Himself of His divinity. The hypostatic union of Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man.

Really? Why did he say that, not he, but only the Father knew the time of the end?