Young Earth,Old Earth Which Is It?

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

Speaking of pontificating...

If you don't believe that young earth creationism is anti-science, then why don't you believe in young earth creationism? Just curious.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I neither believe nor disbelieve, the Scriptures emphasis God created life. The cosmology and age of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of Scripture, the creation of life in general and man in particular does.

I read the geology stuff from time to time, PRATT I think they call themselves. It's interesting but it has no real bearing on the testimony of Scripture. Life on this planet has only been here for 6000 years or so, what was going on previously is largely a matter of opinion and speculation.

I never said I didn't believe in a young earth, my position isn't necessarily an old earth cosmology. I simply don't bother with it because it's a red herring and once you start chasing it you will learn nothing about the real issues. I think half the creationists you encounter in the forums are sock puppets for Darwinians and TEs who want you arguing the irrelevant in circles. The strategy is for you to never get beyond Gen. 1:1, YEC and TE alike can never seem to muster the intellectual vigor to answer a simple question. God created the heavens and the earth, then what happened? That's why I haven't the slightest intention of defending YEC, true or not it's irrelevant.

In the common forum they are obsessed with ERVs, not because there's anything substantive, but because protein coding genes don't respond well to mutations. They go stone silent when you mention mutation rates or anything remotely relevant to actual adaptive evolution. It's a diversion, just like these pedantic one liners you invariably field in here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Johnnz]

I neither believe nor disbelieve, the Scriptures emphasis God created life. The cosmology and age of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of Scripture, the creation of life in general and man in particular does.

Two problems with this:
a) That's what happened with Galileo challenging the long held view of earth being at the centre of the universe. Religious belief (erroneous) was then subsequently amended to acknowledge what had become evident
b) Whereas secular beliefs often contradict Christian ones, facts remain facts. After all, God did create a physical world that operates according to how He determined (what we call 'laws'). Young earth views contradict factual information. Thus either all science is wrong (turn off your computer, walk don't use vehicles etc) or there is some error of thinking where fact and faith are in conflict, and then we need to examine what we know/believe more closely.

I read the geology stuff from time to time, PRATT I think they call themselves. It's interesting but it has no real bearing on the testimony of Scripture. Life on this planet has only been here for 6000 years or so, what was going on previously is largely a matter of opinion and speculation.

I never said I didn't believe in a young earth, my position isn't necessarily an old earth cosmology. I simply don't bother with it because it's a red herring and once you start chasing it you will learn nothing about the real issues. I think half the creationists you encounter in the forums are sock puppets for Darwinians and TEs who want you arguing the irrelevant in circles. The strategy is for you to never get beyond Gen. 1:1, YEC and TE alike can never seem to muster the intellectual vigor to answer a simple question. God created the heavens and the earth, then what happened? That's why I haven't the slightest intention of defending YEC, true or not it's irrelevant.

Grace and peace,
Mark

That's a but silly, frankly on the grounds I suggested above.

Nor is your understanding of the Genesis texts necessarily the correct one either. One fresh view is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci-6ekUmQFE

You will probably react in horror to that talk, But there are Christians seriously into inspiration of the Scriptures and understanding them well.

John
NZ

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a but silly, frankly on the grounds I suggested above.

No, that's an ad hominem fallacy, what evolutionists inevitably have to retreat to because they have nothing else.

Nor is your understanding of the Genesis texts necessarily the correct one either. One fresh view is here:

I understand the Genesis account(s) just fine, you either believe it or you don't.

You will probably react in horror to that talk, But there are Christians seriously into inspiration of the Scriptures and understanding them well.

John
NZ

No, I'm not horrified, it's yet another string of empty evolutionist rhetoric. You study nothing scientific, theological and probably never seriously studied the text in question but your going to pontificate to a Christian what it means in pedantic one liners.

No, I'm not horrified, I'm not intimidated either.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KEPLER]

I'm malleable. I see no reason to argue with people who date the planet for a living.

I found dating one woman challenging. I can't imagine dating the whole planet.

oh, wait...

 

[KEPLER]

The evidence that the earth is much older than 6,000 years was known a century before Darwin was born, and suspected even longer ago than that. Christians who studied geology in the 18th and 19th century were almost all old-earth creationists. Among these were scientists like Baron Georges Cuvier and Louis Agassiz and theologians like Charles Hodge. William Jennings Bryan, who was the prosecutor in the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial in the 1920's was an old-earth creationist. In fact, acceptance of an old-earth (with or without acceptance of evolution) was pretty much a Christian standard for well over a century. Young-earth creationism was almost unknown, even among evangelicals, until the 1950s when Whitcombe & Morris published The Genesis Flood.

Yet there really is no convincing argument that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Only arguments that seem convincing to people who don't know much about geology.

In any case, it is certainly not a salvation issue. You stand with many saints whichever stance you take, but you also stand with the testimony of the creation itself when you accept that the earth (and the universe) is very old.

Mostly true, except that YEC begins quite a bit before Whitcomb & Morris. In the 19th century, there were Louie Agassiz, Arnold Guyot, and John William Dawson.

But the ones who put the '6 literal 24 hour days' on the map were the people whose entire raison d'être was predicated on the literalness of the 7th day: the Seventh Day Adventists. Whitcomb & Morris filched their material from George McGready Price, the famous SDA speaker & writer, who got his ideas from the visions of Helen G. White.

K

 

[mark kennedy]

Mostly true, except that YEC begins quite a bit before Whitcomb & Morris. In the 19th century, there were Louie Agassiz, Arnold Guyot, and John William Dawson.

But the ones who put the '6 literal 24 hour days' on the map were the people whose entire raison d'être was predicated on the literalness of the 7th day: the Seventh Day Adventists. Whitcomb & Morris filched their material from George McGready Price, the famous SDA speaker & writer, who got his ideas from the visions of Helen G. White.

That's just simply not true. The Genesis account of creation describes creation as happening in 6 literal days. This was not seriously questioned in main stream Christian theism until the advent of the Darwinism and the liberal revolution in the late 1800s. Seventh Day Adventists are really nothing more then a group who's end time speculations define the entirety of their doctrine. Ellen White thought she was the female equivalent of Jesus Christ and lumping young earth creationism in with those dangerous heretics is despicable but they all do something like that. One round of slander a couple of years ago by Theistic Evolutionists tried to color Creationists as Deists, later they tried to connect YEC with the French Enlightenment which was viciously atheistic but being an evolutionist means you can redefine anything you like any way you like.

Read the Bible much? Because I do and as unpopular as it is, I actually believe it. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, to deny Creation is to deny the faith.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[James Is Back]

Read the Bible much? Because I do and as unpopular as it is, I actually believe it. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, to deny Creation is to deny the faith.

Have a nice day
Mark

Are you saying YEC's aren't creationists?

 

[KEPLER]

That's just simply not true. The Genesis account of creation describes creation as happening in 6 literal days. This was not seriously questioned in main stream Christian theism until the advent of the Darwinism and the liberal revolution in the late 1800s. Seventh Day Adventists are really nothing more then a group who's end time speculations define the entirety of their doctrine. Ellen White thought she was the female equivalent of Jesus Christ and lumping young earth creationism in with those dangerous heretics is despicable but they all do something like that. One round of slander a couple of years ago by Theistic Evolutionists tried to color Creationists as Deists, later they tried to connect YEC with the French Enlightenment which was viciously atheistic but being an evolutionist means you can redefine anything you like any way you like.

Read the Bible much? Because I do and as unpopular as it is, I actually believe it. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, to deny Creation is to deny the faith.

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark,

That modern day Creationism has its roots in Seventh Day Adventism is an established fact. The single best work on this history is Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, now in its second edition.

Sorry, but there is no way around this.

K

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

That modern day Creationism has its roots in Seventh Day Adventism is an established fact.

Nonsense

The single best work on this history is Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, now in its second edition.

The doctrine of creation is essential Christian theism according to the unanimous tradition and teaching of the church for 2,000 years plus. That includes the rules of Christian only CF forums. The Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used brief statements of the Christian Faith.

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made; (Nicene Creed)​

That's a confession of the Incarnation sandwiched between two confessions of God as Creator. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator. To deny Creation is to deny the Christian faith, which leads me to ask, do you believe in the Incarnation, resurrection and new birth?

Here's the thing, no self respecting Darwinian will openly admit a miracle, that's why Creation is so despised. The equivocation of Creationism with Seventh Day Adventism is just one of many false accusations that amounts to nothing more then a straw man argument.

If you would like I can give you full exegesis of Genesis one and the New Testament witness regarding the creation of the universe, life in general and Adam.

Sorry, but there is no way around this.

Yea, actually, there is a way around that fabrication. The truth.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you saying YEC's aren't creationists?

I'm saying the age of the earth is irrelevant.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Genesis account of creation describes creation as happening in 6 literal days.

This is only true if one reads the Genesis account as if it is an accurate account of historic events—which it most certainly is not! As soon as scholars could study and write on the Book of Genesis without fear of being burned at the stake, they discovered the absurdity of such an interpretation and it has now been abandoned by nearly all Old Testament scholars.

This was not seriously questioned in main stream Christian theism until the advent of the Darwinism and the liberal revolution in the late 1800s

That's just simply not true. Darwin’s voyage of the Beagle brought into the home of the common man what Bible scholars and scientists had known or suspected for more than 100 years.

 

[miamited]

As soon as scholars could study and write on the Book of Genesis without fear of being burned at the stake, they discovered the absurdity of such an interpretation and it has now been abandoned by nearly all Old Testament scholars.

Hi PG,

So, your position is that God gave mankind His Scriptures, but didn't expect mankind to understand it until the knowledge of men in much later centuries would be able to unlock its truth?

Then you support that claim with another claim for which you offer absolutely no proof. I suppose that since you offer that you are a Princeton educated person you think I should take just anything you say as 'truth'. Forgetting, I suppose, that God has long ago decreed that He will make the wisdom of the wise man of this world -- foolishness.

Just for verification, how many old testament scholars are there in the world? How many of them have abandoned the literal creation account? What percentage would you accept as 'nearly all'? Since you offer that claim as proof, perhaps you could also offer the numbers that support what you say. Otherwise, I'm afraid that just because you wrote something and claim it to be true, I'm not willing to accept it as truth.

Surely they taught you at Princeton that when debating, if one is offering up some fact as proof, then they must also show where the fact came from. After all, I can say I'm the Queen of England and declare it to be the truth. However, proving it would be quite disastrous to my claim.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Is Back]

I'd like to know what the ratio of OEC and YEC is.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is only true if one reads the Genesis account as if it is an accurate account of historic events—which it most certainly is not!

On the contrary, Genesis is an historical narrative as is all of the Pentateuch unless the immediate context indicates otherwise. As such, the literal interpretation is always preferred.

As soon as scholars could study and write on the Book of Genesis without fear of being burned at the stake, they discovered the absurdity of such an interpretation and it has now been abandoned by nearly all Old Testament scholars.

Your telling me a wrong interpretation of history that simply is not supported from the facts. No one is burned at the stake for how they interpret Genesis, the church has always interpreted it as historical because it's written as an historical narrative. The allegorical interpretation is predicated on naturalistic assumptions, nothing more.

That's just simply not true. Darwin’s voyage of the Beagle brought into the home of the common man what Bible scholars and scientists had known or suspected for more than 100 years.

I've been doing this since 2003 and studied apologetics before that, I know the Scriptures. I read theology, philosophy and I've read both Charles Darwin, his grandfather and the many Darwinians since, Spencer, Pierce, Oliver Wendel Holmes and the other Social Darwinians who masquerade their philosophy as science or whatever they like. Darwinism is atheistic materialism, nothing more.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KEPLER]

This is only true if one reads the Genesis account as if it is an accurate account of historic events—which it most certainly is not! As soon as scholars could study and write on the Book of Genesis without fear of being burned at the stake, they discovered the absurdity of such an interpretation and it has now been abandoned by nearly all Old Testament scholars.

This is poppycock. We have 2000 years of hexameral literature which demonstrates that scholars through the ages interpreted Genesis figuratively. By and large, most commentators read the Creation account as God setting up the natural laws which would then produce our world. Genesis was historical, but not literal (and, no, that is not a contradiction).

St. Augustine did not interpret Genesis literally.
Thierry of Chartres did not interpret Genesis.
William of Conches did not interpret Genesis literally. (His work Dragmaticon Philosophia is a particularly interesting read in that he really chastises those who try to interpret Genesis literally. He finds such an interpretation both impious and demeaning to God).
Robert Grosseteste did not interpret Genesis literally.
Henry of Langenstein did not interpret Genesis literally.
Roger Bacon did not interpret Genesis literally.
William of Ockham did not interpret Genesis literally.

There was no fear of being burned at he stake.

K

 

[mark kennedy]

So tell me Kepler, are we to take sin figuratively?

This is poppycock. We have 2000 years of hexameral literature which demonstrates that scholars through the ages interpreted Genesis figuratively.

No, we have another misinformed poster who is expecting to be received as an expert on the subject with nothing supporting his statements. That's what we have.

By and large, most commentators read the Creation account as God setting up the natural laws which would then produce our world.

Which is pure undiluted evolutionist propaganda you do not support with a shred of actual proof:

The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all. (Athanasius stood contra mundum "against the world")​

You are obviously misinformed what the Church has always taught concerning Creation:

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. The Early Church on Creation​

Genesis was historical, but not literal (and, no, that is not a contradiction).
St. Augustine did not interpret Genesis literally.
Thierry of Chartres did not interpret Genesis.
William of Conches did not interpret Genesis literally. (His work Dragmaticon Philosophia is a particularly interesting read in that he really chastises those who try to interpret Genesis literally. He finds such an interpretation both impious and demeaning to God).
Robert Grosseteste did not interpret Genesis literally.
Henry of Langenstein did not interpret Genesis literally.
Roger Bacon did not interpret Genesis literally.
William of Ockham did not interpret Genesis literally.

So what? You have no quotes, your just dropping random names and ignoring the Scriptures entirely. The Early Church fathers and far more importantly, the New Testament witness is empathic that man was created. Why don't you actually read what the early church fathers had to say about creation and more importantly, what the Scriptures say about creation.

In Genesis 1, day means day. Not once have I seen an evolutionist attempt a refutation of this straight forward, obvious fact. yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום: as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1.

Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3, ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)

"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD TERTULLIAN)​

On the doctrine of Original Sin - Church Fathers

Strong's Concordance
Adam: Adam, the first man
Original Word: Ἀδάμ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Proper Noun, Indeclinable
Transliteration: Adam
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-am')
Short Definition: Adam
Definition: Adam, the first man, the first parent of the human race. (Adam, Strong's G76)

In the New Testament Adam is always the first parent of humanity:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14)
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Co 15:45)
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Ti 2:13)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ( 1Tim. 2:14)
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.​

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'. Lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, the teaching of the Early Church Fathers regarding Adam and original sin and virtually nothing on the other side of the argument indicating that any of this can be taken figuratively without gutting the testimony of Scripture.

Genesis 1 is not hard to understand, you either believe or you don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hi PG,

So, your position is that God gave mankind His Scriptures, but didn't expect mankind to understand it until the knowledge of men in much later centuries would be able to unlock its truth?

No, my position is that God gave us the Scriptures, but some people have been more careful than others when interpreting them. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all understand the basic, spiritual message of Genesis 1-11, but they disagree on its historical accuracy largely because many people today still do not realize that our Western concept of “accurate” history was unknown to the ancient peoples through whom we have received Genesis 1-11.

Then you support that claim with another claim for which you offer absolutely no proof. I suppose that since you offer that you are a Princeton educated person you think I should take just anything you say as 'truth'. Forgetting, I suppose, that God has long ago decreed that He will make the wisdom of the wise man of this world -- foolishness.

No one who does not know me should take my word for anything. I frequently document statements that I make in my posts at CF, but most people who read my posts continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of incontrovertible facts. The evidence against young-earth creationism is massive—literally trillions upon trillions of pieces of data that absolutely, incontrovertibly PROVE that the earth extremely old. This data has been published, but because it refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, young-earth creationists dismiss it as being “foolishness.”

Just for verification, how many old testament scholars are there in the world?

There are several hundred of them who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.

How many of them have abandoned the literal creation account? What percentage would you accept as 'nearly all'? Since you offer that claim as proof, perhaps you could also offer the numbers that support what you say. Otherwise, I'm afraid that just because you wrote something and claim it to be true, I'm not willing to accept it as truth.

I do not know of any of them who believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is academically defensible, but I suppose that there may be three or four of them who are still alive who refuse to set aside what they were taught as children in Sunday school.

Surely they taught you at Princeton that when debating, if one is offering up some fact as proof, then they must also show where the fact came from. After all, I can say I'm the Queen of England and declare it to be the truth. However, proving it would be quite disastrous to my claim.

Try to find even one, out of hundreds of recent studies on the book of Genesis published in a peer-reviewed journal of biblical studies, an article that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. If you can find one, please let me know.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'd like to know what the ratio of OEC and YEC is.

Young-earth creationism and disbelief in evolution go hand-in-hand. Therefore, the data provided in this article is a good answer to your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

 

[PrincetonGuy]

On the contrary, Genesis is an historical narrative as is all of the Pentateuch unless the immediate context indicates otherwise. As such, the literal interpretation is always preferred.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a very different genre of literature from the rest of the book. Therefore, Genesis 1-11 is more and more often being studied as a distinct unit. See, for example, the recent exegetical commentaries on that unit.

Your telling me a wrong interpretation of history that simply is not supported from the facts. No one is burned at the stake for how they interpret Genesis, the church has always interpreted it as historical because it's written as an historical narrative. The allegorical interpretation is predicated on naturalistic assumptions, nothing more.

Denying the inspiration and truth of the Bible was a capitol offense during the Dark Ages, and most certainly teaching that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted series of epic tales would have been understood to be denying the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Indeed, even in this enlightened age, there are still millions of Christians, especially in the United States, who believe such a thing.

I've been doing this since 2003 and studied apologetics before that, I know the Scriptures. I read theology, philosophy and I've read both Charles Darwin, his grandfather and the many Darwinians since, Spencer, Pierce, Oliver Wendel Holmes and the other Social Darwinians who masquerade their philosophy as science or whatever they like. Darwinism is atheistic materialism, nothing more.

Before my career change, I was a research biologist whose university degrees were in evolutionary biology—and I know the differences between science and philosophy and religion. Darwin studied both philosophy and religion in addition to science, but his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, was a report of his findings as a naturalist (a scientist who studies primarily “in the field,” rather than in a laboratory) studying biology.

The Christian faith is not based upon the first eleven chapters of Genesis; the Christian faith is based the Lord Christ Jesus, the life that He lived, the things that He taught, and the shedding of His blood on the cross for our sins. Believing in evolution neither adds to nor detracts from one’s life as a Christian who has experienced the new birth that comes by grace through faith. My career change involved, among other things, serving for six years as the senior pastor of an interdenominational conservative and evangelical church. We found that teaching against the theory of evolution was a dangerous distraction to our ministry of preaching and living the gospel message, and nurturing our congregation that they, with us, may grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[miamited]

There are several hundred of them who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies.

Yes, but to say several hundred of them when you don't know how many there are leaves your claim unproven. I absolutely will agree with you that there are some and in your small realm of those that you may know you may be able to support your claim. I don't know without seeing actual numbers. However, I'm fairly confident that your small realm isn't the greater part of the whole, or even much more than a dent in the side of the whole.

Just for explanation let's assume that you know 10 old testament scholars and all ten of those you know, since you said you didn't know any who supported a young earth framework, deny such a framework. That would hardly ever qualify your statement that nearly all old testament scholars have turned from young earth belief. See what I mean?

How many old testament scholars do you know?

I do not know of any of them who believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is academically defensible, but I suppose that there may be three or four of them who are still alive who refuse to set aside what they were taught as children in Sunday school.

Are you saying three or four of those you know? Is it your assumption that they believe what they believe because they refuse to 'set aside what they were taught as children in Sunday school', or have they told you that that is the reason that they still believe in a young earth framework?

Friend, honestly your many claims and condescending remarks about those who don't believe as you believe sounds to me like a lot of unfounded generalizations that you want to be true, but really don't know if they are. That's OK for you to want these things to be true, but don't expect such a heartfelt desire to supplant hard evidence.

Try to find even one, out of hundreds of recent studies on the book of Genesis published in a peer-reviewed journal of biblical studies, an article that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. If you can find one, please let me know.

You would have to direct me to a 'peer-reviewed journal' that covers biblical studies. I mean I can show you forwards from books written by such men on the subject, but I honestly don't know the titles of any 'peer-reviewed journals' on biblical studies. Perhaps you could help me out with a list so that I can then check this generalization also. Further, I don't think 'peer-reviewed journals' should necessarily be accepted as necessary evidence as to whether someone else is writing the truth as regards God. I don't think there were any such evidences available to the original writers of the Scriptures. Is it your understanding that the Scriptures as a whole should not be accepted unless it can pass a 'peer-reviewed journal'? If so, I'd politely as that you show me the ones that have supported the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Has that claim of the Scriptures passed any 'peer-reviewed journals'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted