Dr. Jobe Martin lays out literal Genesis creation

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

There are many scientists with various degrees that believe in a young earth. There are many well respected pastors that believe in a young earth (John MacArthur and etc). That said it doesn't matter what man believes. It matters what God has said. I don't need a Ph.D. to understand the Bible. I could start bragging by saying that I will be completing my 2nd year of Greek, that I go on fossil digs, that I have completed various theological courses and that my wife has her masters degree in ministry from an accredited university but that shouldn't give me any more credit. I want people to compare what I say with what the Bible says. There is a reason God told us in his word:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

There are many that claim to be wise and look down at those that would disagree because they are "less educated". You have not proven anything to be incorrect and instead do what any evolutionist I talk to does. They resort to saying "the majority says" which is a logical fallacy or claiming "has been proven to be incorrect" which is yet another logical fallacy. Why would one such as yourself use so many logical fallacies in his post?

Believing that God created the earth, the plants, the animals, and man about 6,000 year ago is neither theologically nor scientifically sound. After submitting the Book of Genesis to 200 years of intense analysis through literary, form, and redaction criticism by some of the best educated men on the face of this planet, it has been concluded by the very large majority of Old Testament scholars that the creation stories in Gen. 1-2 were penned by two different writers writing centuries apart from each other and that, if taken literally, contradict each other and are therefore, not accurate accounts of historical events.

In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be correct, it MUST be in harmony with all of the relevant data, and any theology based upon an interpretation that is known for certain to be incorrect is NOT sound theology. Based upon indescribably massive amounts of data, we know today for a certainty that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and even most of the young-earth creationists now concede that the earth is at least 10,000 years old.

Before my career change, I was an evolutionary biologist and I can say from an exceptionally well informed point of view that the statements made in the above quoted post regarding evolution are absolutely false. Over 99.9% of scientists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in the life or earth sciences from an accredited college or university firmly believe in the theory of evolution, and of the less than .1% the scientists who disagree, not a single one of them is an evolutionary biologist nor do any of them have even a reasonably good knowledge of the mechanisms that allow for and control evolution. They base their beliefs about science upon their unsound theology and a few anomalous pieces of data that they falsely claim prove their beliefs to be correct. That is not science; that is Christian apologetics based upon a system of theology that has been proven to be incorrect.

 

[LiveInSpirit]

After submitting the Book of Genesis to 200 years of intense analysis through literary, form, and redaction criticism by some of the best educated men on the face of this planet, it has been concluded by the very large majority of Old Testament scholars that the creation stories in Gen. 1-2Click to view Gen. 1-2 (NASB) were penned by two different writers writing centuries apart from each other and that, if taken literally, contradict each other and are therefore, not accurate accounts of historical events.

In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be correct, it MUST be in harmony with all of the relevant data, and any theology based upon an interpretation that is known for certain to be incorrect is NOT sound theology. Based upon indescribably massive amounts of data, we know today for a certainty that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and even most of the young-earth creationists now concede that the earth is at least 10,000 years old.

Before my career change, I was an evolutionary biologist and I can say from an exceptionally well informed point of view that the statements made in the above quoted post regarding evolution are absolutely false. Over 99.9% of scientists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in the life or earth sciences from an accredited college or university firmly believe in the theory of evolution, and of the less than .1% the scientists who disagree, not a single one of them is an evolutionary biologist nor do any of them have even a reasonably good knowledge of the mechanisms that allow for and control evolution. They base their beliefs about science upon their unsound theology and a few anomalous pieces of data that they falsely claim prove their beliefs to be correct. That is not science; that is Christian apologetics based upon a system of theology that has been proven to be incorrect.

Wow! You are making all kinds of leaps and jumps with the underlined statements.

The majority of OT scholars agree??? Maybe most at liberal seminaries.

A literal interpretation is KNOWN to be incorrect??? No sir, it is not known to be incorrect.

We know for certain the earth is older that 6,000 years??? MOST YEC agree to 10,000??? Most YEC I have spoken to agree between 6,000 and 10,000. I haven't heard anyone come and say, "Yep, 6,000 and not a day over."

We all understand your point of view. You desire to shove evolution into an account that mentions no such thing.

Again, the liberal forums are elsewhere. I will now permanently disengage this thread and let others speak for MOST of the theologians and young earth creationists in near absolute terms.

 

[jarrettcpr]

Believing in a creation about 6,000 years ago is theologically and scientifically sound. The clear reading tells us that animals give birth to like animals. Evolution is not true. There is no scientific sound mechanism that would allow changes over time to take a "simple" cell organism and change it into a human given enough time. Many scientists would also mock theistic evolutionists because they would say we must believe life came from non life because you can't bring a god(s) into the picture. Yet, we have known for centuries that life can not come from non life. It is time we but our trust in the Bible and not in fallible man.

Please answer this one question:

Why is it that people have to get a flu shot every year? Does it have anything to do with the fact that it is evolving and constantly changing into a better organism? Survival of the fittest. It's adapting to fight against the current external environments (vaccines).

Now, this thread isn't about pushing theistic evolution. It's pointed out the holes in Dr. Martin's video.

What I'm about to say is a fact. One thing he said that the word Yom with a number around it always means normal day. You can look up the Strong concordance (for the word Yom it is H3117) and read 2 Chronicles 21:19 or Amos 4:4. You'll see that Yom with numbers around it is used to mean a process of time and years in that one verse alone in 2 Chronicles 21:19 and the word Yom means years in Amos 4:4. Dr. Martin was wrong on that point.

I beseech you to please check and verify my claim.

Also, I made a very valid point in pointing out his assertions that one cannot believe the word Yom can mean a billion years b/c if we did that would be 500 million years of light and 500 million years of dark, which could not be b/c of photosynthesis which would mean plants can't grow.

Yet, Dr. Martin forgets to mention that light was not given to earth until the fourth day. Genesis 1:15 clearly says this...

"and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."

Now, looking at Scripture we see this is the only time light was given to earth. To say otherwise is an assumption for we don't have text that clearly says light was given to earth before Gen 1:15

Surly, you can agree with this sound logic I'm presenting.

BTW people need to quit doing ad hominem attacks. I'm not a liberal. I was born and raised in Georgia, born and raised in a Southern Baptist Church, my father is a deacon at the Church. I'm a five solas believing individual. But with that said I couldn't agree more with this quote...

"I argue that the Bible must be taken seriously, but not always literally and I do not agree with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy,it is not found in the Bible, I elaborating that

There may be discrepancies and errors in the sacred writings, but those truths that God wished to see included in the Scripture, and which are important to our salvation, are placed there without error... the Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture" - Keith Ward

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Please answer this one question:

Why is it that people have to get a flu shot every year? Does it have anything to do with the fact that it is evolving and constantly changing into a better organism? Survival of the fittest. It's adapting to fight against the current external environments (vaccines).

I don't know any creationists that would deny that there are variations that take place between kinds of animals, bacteria or virii. It is a big leap to claim that because of a lose of information, which is what normally happens when immunity takes place, that over time the flu will gradually become a frog. This is exactly what has to be believed though if you believe in goo to man evolution.

As for the video, I have yet to watch it. I was just replying to what I saw people saying. When does yom mean a literal day? How much clearer could a Hebrew writer be? We have numbered days and "evening" and "morning". We also have in Exodus the Sabbath and the 7 day week being based off of a literal 6 day, 1 day of rest creation. People also claim there is a light issue but it is clear that there was light on day 1. It just was not coming from the sun.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There are many scientists with various degrees that believe in a young earth. There are many well respected pastors that believe in a young earth (John MacArthur and etc). That said it doesn't matter what man believes. It matters what God has said.

The word many is a relative term, and some people use the word scientists much more loosely than others, especially when they want to increase the number of “scientists” who believe in a young earth. None the less, the facts remains that over 99.9% of scientists who have earned at least a Ph.D. in the life or earth sciences from an accredited college or university firmly believe in the theory of evolution and that the earth is very old, and of the less than .1% the scientists who disagree, not a single one of them is an evolutionary biologist, nor do any of them have even a reasonably good knowledge of the mechanisms that allow for and control evolution. Instead, they base their beliefs about science upon their unsound theology and a few anomalous pieces of data that they falsely claim prove their beliefs to be correct. That is not science; that is Christian apologetics based upon a system of theology that has been proven to be incorrect.


This is not a matter of a simple majority of scientists believing in the theory of evolution and that the earth is very old; this is a matter of young-earth scientists being outnumbered by over one thousand to one.

There are many well respected pastors that believe in a young earth (John MacArthur and etc).

There are indeed many fine, well-respected religious people who believe in a young earth; but how many of them believe in a young earth due to their personal interpretation of the Bible, and how many of them believe in a young earth due to many years of study in the life or earth sciences, and having earned at least a Ph.D. in the life or earth sciences from an accredited college or university. And where did these fine, well-respected religious people who believe in a young earth get their education. Did any of them earn advanced degrees in Old Testament exegesis and interpretation from a seminary known for academic excellence? An academic education is not at all necessary for man to be of outstanding Christian character or to be greatly used by God in the Christian ministry, but it is a very big help in accurately resolving questions of interpretation.

That said it doesn't matter what man believes. It matters what God has said.

My ultimate authority for belief is the Bible, and the Bible does not record God as having said that the earth is young or that the theory of evolution is incorrect. If God had said such things, I would take His word for it regardless of everything else, but He hasn’t. The problem is that the Bible is sometimes wrongly interpreted as saying that He has.

 

[joshua41]

We all understand your point of view. You desire to shove evolution into an account that mentions no such thing.

Again, the liberal forums are elsewhere. I will now permanently disengage this thread and let others speak for MOST of the theologians and young earth creationists in near absolute terms.

I can't believe you are treating PrincetonGuy with such contempt for merely disagreeing with you. This xenophobic treatment of people with a different point of view than yours is repulsive.

The fact is that your particular belief completely rejects contemporary science in order to prove your viewpoint of the Bible. Infact, your belief actually creates a new science based on proving the result that you want. Then, if someone doesn't agree with you, you can label them a liberal. This is ridiculous.

Christians job on earth is not to relate Genesis to science, or science to Genesis, but to live for Christ.

 

[the particular baptist]

Christians job on earth is not to relate Genesis to science, or science to Genesis, but to live for Christ.

A Christians job is to believe God, not men who gnash their teeth at the thought of a sovereign God. What they are or do matters very little to me. "Scientists", liberals, apostates, whatever.

It is a hill to die on.

Good grief.

This xenophobic treatment of people with a different point of view than yours is repulsive.

Pot, kettle, black. The humanistic mindset of today is tolerance. Tolerance extended to everyone except the intolerant. Oxymoron.

 

[joshua41]

A Christians job is to believe God, not men who gnash their teeth at the thought of a sovereign God. What they are or do matters very little to me. "Scientists", liberals, apostates, whatever.

It is a hill to die on.

Good grief.

What exactly are you implying? A person who does not agree with your 'literal' intrepretation isn't a Christian?

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong-- I am saying I am not sure to how interpret Genesis and I don't think we will ever be sure in my life time. I wouldn't rule out a literal creation account--I just think that it is incorrect to try and prove literal creation by completely denying modern science.

 

[the particular baptist]

What exactly are you implying? A person who does not agree with your 'literal' intrepretation isn't a Christian?

Im not implying anything, im pretty clear in every post. One thing i cannot be accused of is ambiguous.

You scolded a brother for the same behavior you exhibited, and i wanted to point that out.

Christianity hinges on a first man Adam, first woman Eve, and how that explicitly relates to original sin, and the eschatological nature of the historical redemptive plan of God begining with Genesis 3:15 and thereafter. There is no room for man evolving over millions of years, or the faith is a sham.

 

[the particular baptist]

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong-- I am saying I am not sure to how interpret Genesis and I don't think we will ever be sure in my life time. I wouldn't rule out a literal creation account--I just think that it is incorrect to try and prove literal creation by completely denying modern science.

Some kind of literal Genesis account is necessary. There are some options that allow for varying literal "understandings" like the Gap theory. I hold the position that God created everything "Aged". Adam was created as an adult (as well as everything else), and the earth was created with the "Age" built in, matured, if you will.

 

[joshua41]

There is no room for man evolving over millions of years, or the faith is a sham.

How so? Is there no room for tectonic plates or the big bang theory?

 

[the particular baptist]

How so? Is there no room for tectonic plates

God put them there. He created the earth with the age built in, like He created Adam and animals and trees fully grown. And perhaps to serve as a delusion for unbelievers, i dont know, but what i know is I will believe God. It is a hill to die on.

the big bang theory?

The what ? Surely youre pulling my leg. God is sovereign. There is not a single rebel molecule or atom in all the universes. God is sovereign over all the works of His hands.

 

[joshua41]

In short--it has to do with the inerrancy of the Bible?

I don't see why science can't be right from its point of view and the Bible can't also be correct. For instance, perhaps God purposely fools science. There are just thousands ways to look at this issue- and we can't absolutely prove that the correctness of modern science makes the Bible invalid.

It seems like one side manipulates science to fit their beliefs and the other manipulates a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible to fit their views on science. The end result is a pointless argument in which no one can prove anything.

My view is that God hasn't revealed how science and Genesis relate yet.

But, it is very wrong to use modern science to try and disprove the Bible.

Your theology may hinge on the earth being six thousand years old, but Christianity does not.

 

[the particular baptist]

Your theology may hinge on the earth being six thousand years old, but Christianity does not.

Dont ascribe words to me i did not say.

I said a literal first man Adam, first woman Eve, original sin, and the promise of a Redeemer in the historical redemptive plan of God seen in Gen 3:15.

God created Adam an adult, not an amoeba. God created the world and everything in it "adult", and though it tests millions of years old, because God created everything "aged", creation as we see it is less than 10k years old. Thats what Scripture teaches and i bow to it, not the "science" of reprobates who gnash their teeth at their Creator.

 

[the particular baptist]

Your theology may hinge on the earth being six thousand years old, but Christianity does not.

Indeed it does.

Again. Sola Scriptura, not scientists.

God have mercy.

Luke3:23-38 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Christianity hinges on a first man Adam, first woman Eve, and how that explicitly relates to original sin, and the eschatological nature of the historical redemptive plan of God begining with Genesis 3:15 and thereafter. There is no room for man evolving over millions of years, or the faith is a sham.

This is incorrect. Christianity does not hinge upon what any mortal man did or did not do; Christianity hinges upon what the Christ Jesus did. The story of Adam and Eve is used in the Old and New Testaments because the ancient Jewish people used folklore to teach spiritual truths. The story of Adam and Eve teaches that a monotheistic God, Yahweh (יהוה ), created man in His likeness but that man chose to disobey God and was driven out of the garden and prevented from returning. Throughout the rest of the Hexateuch, we find man as morally weak and subject to temptations that are all too often given into with disastrous consequences. Christ Jesus, however, was miraculously born into this world as a gift from God through Mary, a virgin, and He lived a sinless life and then yielded up that sinless life on the cross so that we, through faith in Him and His atoning death on the cross, might be forgiven and cleansed from all of our sin and live a life of holiness unto God and faithfully serve Him as our Lord. The details of why men have sinned is not important; what is important is that they have sinned and that, when we present the gospel message to sinners, we proclaim to them the Biblical truth that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that Jesus died for those sins.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

“Your theology may hinge on the earth being six thousand years old, but Christianity does not.”

Indeed it does.

Again. Sola Scriptura, not scientists.

God have mercy.

Luke3:23-38 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Sola Scriptura. Luke made no claim whatsoever that this genealogy was historically accurate all the way back to Adam. Indeed, the Scriptures say,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Luke studied the information that was available to him, and he wrote his gospel as accurately as he could; that is what the Scriptures say.

When Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16,

16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB, 1995)

was he referring only to the Hebrew Scriptures, or was he also referring to the writings of his best friend, Luke? The Scriptures do not answer that question, but I believe that he was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures because Luke’s gospel was yet unknown to most other Christians and was not regarded by them as Scripture; indeed, it is very unlikely that it had even been written when Paul wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy. The bottom line is that the Scriptures do not answer the question and the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament is not taught in the Bible. I believe that the New Testament is every bit as inspired at the Hebrew Scriptures, but the Scriptures themselves make no such claim.

 

[the particular baptist]

I have no patience for anyone who does gymnastics with Scriptures so that the reprobate scientist, apostate, liberal mind can be placated. Say hello to my ignore list.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have no patience for anyone who does gymnastics with Scriptures so that the reprobate scientist, apostate, liberal mind can be placated. Say hello to my ignore list.

“If you can’t prove that the guy is wrong, assassinate his character so that no one will believe him.” Thomas Miller

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

“If you can’t prove that the guy is wrong, assassinate his character so that no one will believe him.” Thomas Miller

A common tactic among evolutionists.