Theological Question for Young Earth.

[Hieronymus]

If I was lying then that makes me a ...candlestick maker?

Candle stick makers can lie too.

 

[Jamsie]

Candle stick makers can lie too.

Obviously you missed the point ... but then some things should be read and understood with a bit of delicacy.

 

[Queller]

It is unreliable and if that suits you. Oh well. Let's settle on mediocrity. If it is subject to an endless amount of revisions then your use ot the term theory really means conjecture. Guesses. Quote.

Describe that process that you would like science to adhere to then. Be specific.

Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.

They keep muffing it up and apologists keep looking the other way saying Oh well, no big deal and they expect us all to accept that sort of justification?

Yawn. See above.

They are qualified and approach things differently. It does not mean they are wrong. Evos need an old Earth; we don't.

No, the evidence God left behind needs an old earth. Science only cares about what the evidence says.

Provide evidence from the New Testament which would validate any old Earth assumptions, or humans have a common ancestor with modern apes.

Why in the world would I do that? The Bible is not a science book. Did you not know that?

And we do not have access to all their knowledge or their sources. So it is now one set of standards for your home team and another for the visitors? Most of human history assumes a young Earth. Right up to the kings of Europe tracing their ancestry back to Adam. So again, why are they all wrong and the moderns right? Adam & Eve

I answered this already. Because we have access to knowledge and facts about the real world that they didn't have. Which part are you having trouble understanding?

And I'm sorry, but do you think a completely unsourced lineage that just adds in people randomly is going to convince me of anything?

Agree. Are you saying Jesus was an old Earth creationist? What do you mean here? What about Paul? Was he also old earth? Didn't they both treat Adam, Noah, Moses as historical persons?

Again, He spoke to the people in terms they understood. What is it about that that you are having trouble understanding?

These are all associated with YEC. If you wish to prove them all wrong and the moderns right then, you need to make an evidence-based case. Cause I can tell ya, no matter how you spin it or how you may tap dance, shuck and jive, and overstate; Jesus was a YEC. If the moderns are right, then you are saying Jesus was wrong. The two cannot be amalgamated.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

[Queller]

Except yours?

I could be wrong. But then again, I'm not the only that holds this particular interpretation, am I?

Could you be wrong?

Overstating. Testimony from Scripture assumes a young Earth.

Testimony from God's Creation evidences an ancient earth.

Adam was the first man who did not have 190 K years of ghost ancestors. There is no point in hurling useless indictments against God as supposed deciever, a term depicted for Satan.

Which is why I caution YECs against calling God a deceiver. Claiming the earth is only 6,000 - 12,000 years old means God has deceived us using the evidence He left behind.

Dude, if the cave paintings are 50 K years old they would have faded.

If you are talking about the Lascaux paintings they are only 15,000 - 17,000 years old and they have faded mostly because of exposure to light. In fact, that's why they aren't open to the public any more.

They keep the original Declaration Of Independence in a case to slow down fading, to preserve and even that only goes so far. Same with paintings on chapel walls. They have to be redone after so many years because they fade with time.

Yes, because they have been exposed for several hundred years to the deteriorating effects of light. I don't think most caves get a whole lot of light, do you?

Look at it this way; if you leave a car out in the sun for 10 years, do you think the paint will be as bright and vivid as it would be if that same car had been left in a closed garage for 10 years?

 

[Queller]

The question is not what is, but what was. Neither of us know the answer because it's unknowable.

Then why do you claim that instantly created trees had growth rings when there would be no need for them?

We know that everything was created mature and mature trees have rings. We don't know if there was an exception made because they were not seasoned.

Mature trees have rings because they grew that way over a period of years. An instantly created tree having rings would deceptively show that tree had grown over a period of years. Why would God deceive us that way?

No it doesn't.

Yes, it most certainly does.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Show me what part of the text indicates this is a vision.

Any explanation you come up with I can also apply to Genesis just as easily.

What does your pastor say about Luke 4?
Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Do you think they packed up and scaled a mountain in a moment?

I don't know how they got there, Scripture doesn't say. It does say they went up on a high mountain though, doesn't it?

People who have understanding know that the devil was showing him visions.

And the reason they "know" this is because they "know" that there is no way to see all the kingdoms of the earth at one time no matter how high a mountain you stand on.

How is it that a Christian doesn't know this?

If you "know" it is a vision in spite of what the text says, why do you have problems applying that same "knowledge" to Genesis?

Also, how did Jesus defeat the devil? He quoted Scripture. The word of God is very powerful. How is it that you lack an understanding of it?

Luka also adds, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." The devil claims to have authority over the earth, and yet it is the interpretations of the earth that you and others use to discredit the word of God. Why is that?

Ah, so you're claiming that all the fossils, radioactive decay, speed of light, ice cores, lack of evidence for a global flood 4400 years ago and all the other evidence we have for an ancient universe and earth was planted by the devil?

Not to mention that just because the devil claims to have authority over the earth, doesn't mean he does, now does it? He is the Father of Lies after all.

What makes you think the devil could have given Jesus all the kingdoms of the world had Jesus but simply knelt before him? Because the devil said so?

Father of Lies

Exactly. You're using the domain of Satan to show authority over the word of God.

No, I'm using God's direct evidence in His Creation.

You take excuse by attacking a literal interpretation of things which are written as a literal historical narrative.

Just like Matthew 4 is written as a literal historical narrative.

God specifically carved into a stone tablet the fact of the six day creation. You reject that because of what the devil shows in the rocks over which he has dominion.

Provide evidence for your claim that the devil has arranged this world to look old when it is young.

Ever think of that?
You are deceived.

Then you need to ask yourself why God would deceive me (and hundreds of millions of other Christians) using the evidence he left behind in His Creation.

Jesus confirmed that the events were real, not made up stories.

No, He didn't. He spoke to people in terms of history as they understood it.

You prefer to ignore that because you wish to conform your beliefs to what your science teacher told you is real.

Jesus was the master of parables. Could He not have said "All the world is old and all share a common birth from the Father; whose days of creation are as numerous as the stars?"

Why would they have believed Him? Their cultural heritage and limited understanding of the natural world would have led them to not believe Him.

I'm not a master of parables and I just did it in a sentence. Instead He confirmed the creation of Adam and Eve from the beginning. Who will you believe; your Lord or your teacher?

The Lord. My understanding of Him is not based just on His Word written and translated by fallible men over the course of thousands of years, but also on the evidence He left behind.

 

[Queller]

I think you mean scientific models.
The scientific community uses a naturalistic model for our reality, which needs billions and billions of years.
What they do with discoveries, is try to match it with those models.
But young earth creationists try to match discoveries with a young earth model.

Which is not based on the scientific method and is therefore not a scientific model.

The difference is mainly that there is huge funding and platform for naturalistic ideas and hardly any for 'supernaturalistic' ideas.

Answers in Genesis received over $100 million dollars in bond sales and individual donations for their Ark Encounter attraction. And that doesn't include $43 million in tax incentives they got from the state of Kentucky.

 

[Queller]

Quite...

Interesting how you cropped out the rest of that second line.

One might think you were trying to be deceptive...

 

[2tim_215]

Science for sure gets Billions if not trillions in funding. Just look at how much the space program alone has received over the decades and will continue to receive.

 

[dmmesdale]

Describe that process that you would like science to adhere to then. Be specific.

There are different types and if you are plotting a course to the moon then the standards have to be more exacting then historical.

No, the evidence God left behind needs an old earth. Science only cares about what the evidence says.

Don't buy it. For one you depict science as an entity when it is not. It is composed of scientists who have bias, groupthink, wrong all the time etc. They resemble a Moonie cult when it comes to history.

Why in the world would I do that?

For one you can't. That is why. Your next line is an excuse.

The Bible is not a science book. Did you not know that?

It has science implications. Did you know that? Would you like some examples? How about health science implications. Healthy diet, healthy sex practices, healthy sanitation practices. Genesis 1:1 has science implications. It presupposed the start of the universe when the consensus of 19th-century science assumed an eternal universe.

I answered this already. Because we have access to knowledge and facts about the real world that they didn't have. Which part are you having trouble understanding?

Not in dispute and i answered that already. What part of they had information and sources we do not have. What part do you not understand? How about double standards? What you are doing here is playing with a stacked deck and ignoring you are employing double standards even when it is pointed out to you. It is also condescending. It also ignores those ancients were thousands of years closer to events in question then moderns thousands of years removed. Their dating methods, all that none of it is written in stone. They start with their conclusion and calibrate their measurements to their conclusions. If i wish to think i weigh 190 pounds then all i have to do is calibrate my scale to read 190 lbs. Like i said, we don't need an old Earth, evos do.

And I'm sorry, but do you think a completely unsourced lineage that just adds in people randomly is going to convince me of anything?

It reflects their thinking. What you have to do is prove them wrong. You have not. It is your burden, not mine or theirs. You have to prove it wrong. There are all kinds of lineages in scripture including Chronicles. They recorded real historical persons. It was history to them.

Again, He spoke to the people in terms they understood. What is it about that that you are having trouble understanding?

I asked you if Jesus was old Earth and if so provide evidence. What part of that are you not understanding? This vague response is all you got? You got no ammunition.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Shuking and jiving. What did Jesus believe? If you are asserting old earth, then prove it. Otherwise, you have a contradiction, and you are saying in effect Jesus was wrong. Hey, if you wish to go thru life with contradictions in your head then be my guest.

 

[2tim_215]

Then why do you claim that instantly created trees had growth rings when there would be no need for them?

Mature trees have rings because they grew that way over a period of years. An instantly created tree having rings would deceptively show that tree had grown over a period of years. Why would God deceive us that way?

Yes, it most certainly does.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Show me what part of the text indicates this is a vision.

Common sense tells you, if you know your Bible. Satan (a fallen angel) is a spirit being (not a natural one) and Jesus, who's the God man, who originally came from Heaven before He came to earth and took on human flesh totally understands the spiritual realm and would be cognizant of it. And BTW, many men had experiences where the received visions so I don't see why you'd make this an issue.
Any explanation you come up with I can also apply to Genesis just as easily.

I don't know how they got there, Scripture doesn't say. It does say they went up on a high mountain though, doesn't it?

Yes, do not see what difference this would make. I'm sure that Satan wouldn't want anyone else to see or hear what was taking place on that mountain.

And the reason they "know" this is because they "know" that there is no way to see all the kingdoms of the earth at one time no matter how high a mountain you stand on.

Naturally, yes. Spiritually no. The Bible tells us (which I realize you don't believe and are unwilling to accept) that not only does God see everything that goes on in the natural on this earth, but so can angels and in particular Satan as we're told that he walks "too and fro" on the earth.

If you "know" it is a vision in spite of what the text says, why do you have problems applying that same "knowledge" to Genesis?

Well, we do have in Genesis 15:1 that God gives Abraham a vision and in Genesis 37 where Joseph, son of Jacob has a couple of dreams, which can also be interpreted as visions. Plus, there's many other places in the Bible when men are given visions by God in both the Old and New Testaments, the book of Joel and the Book of Acts:
Joel 2:28(KJV) And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Acts 2:17(KJV) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Ah, so you're claiming that all the fossils, radioactive decay, speed of light, ice cores, lack of evidence for a global flood 4400 years ago and all the other evidence we have for an ancient universe and earth was planted by the devil?

Not to mention that just because the devil claims to have authority over the earth, doesn't mean he does, now does it? He is the Father of Lies after all.

Yes, he is the true father of all lies. But he wasn't lying then. Adam turned over the title deed to this earth to Satan when he fell due to rebellion. You can say that Satan basically stole it. Had he not had that authority, don't you think that Jesus (who certainly would have known) would have rebuked him, but didn't. What did He say? And BTW, I believe he'll make that same promise to the Antichrist when he arrives on the earth.

What makes you think the devil could have given Jesus all the kingdoms of the world had Jesus but simply knelt before him? Because the devil said so?

Luke 4:6-8(KJV) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Father of Lies

No, I'm using God's direct evidence in His Creation.

Just like Matthew 4 is written as a literal historical narrative.

Provide evidence for your claim that the devil has arranged this world to look old when it is young.

The Devil has nothing to do with arranging this earth. What he has done is by tricking man to "fall", he caused a change in the earth (called entropy which is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) which causes the Earth to decay. it was not meant to be so originally. When God first created it, He did not intend for it to be this way but one day He'll fix all that some day.

Then you need to ask yourself why God would deceive me (and hundreds of millions of other Christians) using the evidence he left behind in His Creation.

He didn't. Man has deceived themselves. He's looking for ways to discredit Him. He's left plenty of evidence behind, many just either aren't looking or ignoring what's there.

No, He didn't. He spoke to people in terms of history as they understood it.

It wasn't just history, it was that they saw Him and heard Him. And they left on the record their testimonies which was passed on from generation to generation.

Why would they have believed Him? Their cultural heritage and limited understanding of the natural world would have led them to not believe Him.

That's a good question. Why did so many believe Him? Perhaps because of all the miracles He performed in front of their eyes and and the beautiful words of grace and hope that He spoke to them.

The Lord. My understanding of Him is not based just on His Word written and translated by fallible men over the course of thousands of years, but also on the evidence He left behind.

Actually, it should first come by faith (which is how God has decided it should come by) and then by the evidence you speak of more as a confirming of what you've discerned spiritually. And yes, fallible men, who were inspired by an infallible God.

 

[Queller]

There are different types and if you are plotting a course to the moon then the standards have to be more exacting then historical.

I asked for specifics. How, specifically, should biology, astrophysics, and chemistry (just to name a few) behave so that they meet your definition of what science "should"be?

Don't buy it. For one you depict science as an entity when it is not. It is composed of scientists who have bias, groupthink, wrong all the time etc. They resemble a Moonie cult when it comes to history.

Don't buy it. Unevidenced assertions and opinion mean nothing to me on this topic.

Groupthink? Really? The only "groupthink" I'm aware of uniformatarinism and that is because there is absolutely no evidence of the physical laws of the universe being different in any significant away at any point in time.

For one you can't. That is why. Your next line is an excuse.

I'll just repeat the line I used when I responded in the first place, the bible is not a science book. If you think that is an excuse, oh well.

It has science implications. Did you know that? Would you like some examples? How about health science implications. Healthy diet, healthy sex practices, healthy sanitation practices.

Sanitation practices in the Bible? You mean like a woman having to bring two turtles or two doves to the priest, one to be a sin offering and one to be a burnt offering to atone for the uncleanness of having her period?

Or whether the sun is up or down is a factor in a man's cleanness?

Genesis 1:1 has science implications. It presupposed the start of the universe when the consensus of 19th-century science assumed an eternal universe.

Only a literal interpretation of Genesis has science implications.

Not in dispute and i answered that already. What part of they had information and sources we do not have. What part do you not understand?

The part where you provide any evidence for that claim. What information and sources did they have that we don't have?

How about double standards? What you are doing here is playing with a stacked deck and ignoring you are employing double standards even when it is pointed out to you. It is also condescending. It also ignores those ancients were thousands of years closer to events in question then moderns thousands of years removed. Their dating methods, all that none of it is written in stone. They start with their conclusion and calibrate their measurements to their conclusions. If i wish to think i weigh 190 pounds then all i have to do is calibrate my scale to read 190 lbs.

Are you talking about YEC "scientists? Because that is exactly what they do. Heck Answers in Genesis even requires that all their employees agree with their statement of faith that states "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

That isn't the way to do science.

Real scientists on the other hand will changes their expectations in the face of contradictory evidence. You are aware that much of what we know about an old earth comes from the early days of geology and was discovered by men who set out to prove the earth was young, right?

Like i said, we don't need an old Earth, evos do.

And like I said, no scientist "needs" an old earth. The evidence needs an old earth.

It reflects their thinking. What you have to do is prove them wrong. You have not. It is your burden, not mine or theirs. You have to prove it wrong.

What on earth are you talking about? It isn't my job to prove some unsourced lineages are wrong. It is their job to provide evidence for their claims. Do you even understand how the burden of proof works?

There are all kinds of lineages in scripture including Chronicles. They recorded real historical persons. It was history to them.

Real historical persons? Please defend your claim by showing where all of the people listed in the Chronicles lineages are mentioned outside the Bible.

I asked you if Jesus was old Earth and if so provide evidence. What part of that are you not understanding? This vague response is all you got? You got no ammunition.

Well excuse me for not knowing the mind of God. What I have is God's fingerprints in the world describing an ancient universe, a culture with a history of believing in a young earth, and Jesus who spoke to them in terms they understand.

Shuking and jiving. What did Jesus believe? If you are asserting old earth, then prove it.

Biblical Evidence for An Old Earth

Otherwise, you have a contradiction, and you are saying in effect Jesus was wrong. Hey, if you wish to go thru life with contradictions in your head then be my guest.

And what you're saying is that you know the mind of God. Since the only one who can do that is God that means you must be God. Where should I direct my prayers?

 

[Queller]

Common sense tells you, if you know your Bible. Satan (a fallen angel) is a spirit being (not a natural one) and Jesus, who's the God man, who originally came from Heaven before He came to earth and took on human flesh totally understands the spiritual realm and would be cognizant of it. And BTW, many men had experiences where the received visions so I don't see why you'd make this an issue.

Yes, common sense tells me that since there is no place on earth from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth, this passage must not be meant literally, in spite of the fact that it is written as literal historical narrative.

Yes, do not see what difference this would make. I'm sure that Satan wouldn't want anyone else to see or hear what was taking place on that mountain.

I don't know what relevance this has to do with the comment of mine to which you are referring.

The passage is written as a historical narrative and therefore it is talking about a literal mountain. The fact that we interpret as non-literal despite the language style in which it is written is precisely the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread.

Naturally, yes. Spiritually no. The Bible tells us (which I realize you don't believe and are unwilling to accept)

Don't believe and are unwilling to accept what? That certain parts of the Bible aren't meant to be interpreted literally despite how they are written? Sure. So do you.

that not only does God see everything that goes on in the natural on this earth, but so can angels and in particular Satan as we're told that he walks "too and fro" on the earth.

OK. And? This passage is written as literal history. You have to interpret it outside that framework to make it match the real world. Just like Genesis.

Well, we do have in Genesis 15:1 that God gives Abraham a vision and in Genesis 37 where Joseph, son of Jacob has a couple of dreams, which can also be interpreted as visions. Plus, there's many other places in the Bible when men are given visions by God in both the Old and New Testaments, the book of Joel and the Book of Acts:
Joel 2:28(KJV) And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Acts 2:17(KJV) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

And every single example you just gave is explicitly described as a vision. Matthew 4 is not. It is described as literal history.

Yes, he is the true father of all lies. But he wasn't lying then.

[/quote] How do you know?

Adam turned over the title deed to this earth to Satan when he fell due to rebellion.

An assertion unsupported by Scripture (the turning over the "deed" to earth part, not Adam's fall).

You can say that Satan basically stole it. Had he not had that authority, don't you think that Jesus (who certainly would have known) would have rebuked him, but didn't. What did He say? And BTW, I believe he'll make that same promise to the Antichrist when he arrives on the earth.

Luke 4:6-8(KJV) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The Devil has nothing to do with arranging this earth. What he has done is by tricking man to "fall", he caused a change in the earth (called entropy which is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) which causes the Earth to decay.

Did this decay cause fossils to appear in the earth where there had been no animals of that type before? Did the decay cause radioactive isotopes to suddenly appear as if they had been decaying for millions of years instead of a couple of days? Did the decay cause several hundred thousand layers of biannual ice buildup to suddenly appear in an area of Greenland that gets almost no snow every year?

it was not meant to be so originally. When God first created it, He did not intend for it to be this way but one day He'll fix all that some day.

He didn't. Man has deceived themselves. He's looking for ways to discredit Him. He's left plenty of evidence behind, many just either aren't looking or ignoring what's there.

All the evidence that God left behind points to an ancient earth, nothing else.

It wasn't just history, it was that they saw Him and heard Him. And they left on the record their testimonies which was passed on from generation to generation.

Orally for the most part, which causes most of the nuances of the story to be lost.

Such as whether an event was literal or allegorical in nature.

That's a good question. Why did so many believe Him? Perhaps because of all the miracles He performed in front of their eyes and and the beautiful words of grace and hope that He spoke to them.

And perhaps also because he spoke to them in imagery and in terms of cultural history that they understood?

Actually, it should first come by faith (which is how God has decided it should come by) and then by the evidence you speak of more as a confirming of what you've discerned spiritually.

Seeing as how we're talking about evidence that was the only part I was concerned with in this discussion. I first came to God through faith. It was only after years of studying both the Bible and the real world around us that I came to the understanding that certain parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. Matthew 4 for instance.

And yes, fallible men, who were inspired by an infallible God.

Fallible men are just that, fallible. It may be in their understanding, or their recording of what they understood.

 

[NobleMouse]

Except yours? Overstating. Testimony from Scripture assumes a young Earth. Adam was the first man who did not have 190 K years of ghost ancestors. There is no point in hurling useless indictments against God as supposed deciever, a term depicted for Satan.

Dude, if the cave paintings are 50 K years old they would have faded. They keep the original Declaration Of Independence in a case to slow down fading, to preserve and even that only goes so far. Same with paintings on chapel walls. They have to be redone after so many years because they fade with time.

Hello friend! I also agree that Jesus believed in the events and timeline given in the book of Genesis (see post #58).

 

[2tim_215]

Hello friend! I also agree that Jesus believed in the events and timeline given in the book of Genesis (see post #58).

Yes, common sense tells me that since there is no place on earth from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth, this passage must not be meant literally, in spite of the fact that it is written as literal historical narrative.

Why not if it were a supernatural event. just because it was supernatural doesn't mean it didn't happen literally. There's a lot of phenomena which occur in the world which cannot be scientifically explained but actually occurred, has there not? Just because it cannot be explained by science doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't occur. It just means that it can't be explained by some natural method.
I don't know what relevance this has to do with the comment of mine to which you are referring. So yes, there is no way that a person with a natural eye could possibly see it, but what about a "spiritual" being and the actual "creator".

The passage is written as a historical narrative and therefore it is talking about a literal mountain. The fact that we interpret as non-literal despite the language style in which it is written is precisely the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread.

Again just because we can't see something (or didn't see it) with the natural eye doesn't mean it didn't take place. it certainly was recorded and I'll just have to take it on its face value.

Don't believe and are unwilling to accept what? That certain parts of the Bible aren't meant to be interpreted literally despite how they are written? Sure. So do you.

So the question to that is, how do you know which is which? You assume that it isn't possible but others assume otherwise.

OK. And? This passage is written as literal history. You have to interpret it outside that framework to make it match the real world. Just like Genesis.

Again,you're assuming that something that isn't humanly possible isn't possibly with someone who is not human (and in Jesus case, half-human in a sense and half-Goo)?

And every single example you just gave is explicitly described as a vision. Matthew 4 is not. It is described as literal history.

We are actually told that it is in a "moment" of time. The word "moment" in the Greek means instant. Why would it not be possible for one being (an angelic, not a human) and God Himself not to see this? Of course, Satan is the master of deception (as you've pointed out) so why wouldn't he be able to pull this off, considering we see Magicians do this all the time (i.e, make Elephants and ships disappear, saw people and half and then make them whole again plus a host of others) why wouldn't Satan, the master of it not be to the same and even more?

How do you know?

How do you know that it isn't? I know because the Bible tells me it happened and I trust what it says. There's many things that Science didn't know for a long time and which took them many centuries before they figured it out. Just because they haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean they won't later on. And some things they may never figure out. We'll just have to wait and see.

An assertion unsupported by Scripture (the turning over the "deed" to earth part, not Adam's fall).

It was Adam's fall which resulted in Satan getting legal ownership (it originally belonged to Adam) of this earth and although the Bible doesn't use the specific word "deed" there's scripture points to this to being the case, i.e. it can be "inferred", the same way scientists do all the time. Again, as Science supposedly looks for the best explanation, I can't think of a better one in this instance. Other than saying it didn't happen, can you point me to a better one? I'm all ears.

Did this decay cause fossils to appear in the earth where there had been no animals of that type before? Did the decay cause radioactive isotopes to suddenly appear as if they had been decaying for millions of years instead of a couple of days? Did the decay cause several hundred thousand layers of biannual ice buildup to suddenly appear in an area of Greenland that gets almost no snow every year?

See above. I don't really worry about such things because I know that there's some reasonable explanation for it. I just don't know what it is yet. There's perhaps there's some thing that God doesn't what us to know yet and I'm sure He has His reasons for it if that is the case.

All the evidence that God left behind points to an ancient earth, nothing else.

OK, so what? If true, it still doesn't disqualify the rest of Scripture. And that's if it's true which I'm not entirely sure of yet.

Orally for the most part, which causes most of the nuances of the story to be lost.

So you say. You need to do a little more research on that maybe. I think the story captures everything that needs to be captured for our benefit.

Such as whether an event was literal or allegorical in nature.

Again, if you know your Bible, you can figure that out.

And perhaps also because he spoke to them in imagery and in terms of cultural history that they understood?

He spoke in both manners from time to time including giving actual events, many which were prophetic and eventually took place (which btw, prophecy is one thing that skeptics can't explain naturally). God used many methods to speak to the Jewish people as He does with us today.

Seeing as how we're talking about evidence that was the only part I was concerned with in this discussion. I first came to God through faith. It was only after years of studying both the Bible and the real world around us that I came to the understanding that certain parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. Matthew 4 for instance

.
Are verses 12-25 not literal as well? You know there are some who refute the Bible who say that none of it is meant to be literal, and that it's all allegorical. I feel sorry for those people. It's interesting (if you believe verses 12-25 are actual literal account, how they get mixed in with the rest of the chapter which you claim is not litteral.

Fallible are just that, fallible. It may be in their understanding, or their recording of what they understood.

And it may not, it may be based on what they actually saw or what the Holy Spirit dictated to them.

 

[dmmesdale]

I asked for specifics. How, specifically, should biology, astrophysics, and chemistry (just to name a few) behave so that they meet your definition of what science "should"be?

Yawn.

Groupthink? Really? The only "groupthink" I'm aware of uniformatarinism and that is because there is absolutely no evidence of the physical laws of the universe being different in any significant away at any point in time.

There is no evidence of flatline population growth for thousands and thousands of years, so evidence is not your problem in the first place.

I'll just repeat the line I used when I responded in the first place, the bible is not a science book. If you think that is an excuse, oh well.

It is an excuse. What you have absent in the Bible is using dung and urine as medical treatments.

Sanitation practices in the Bible?

Yup. Prove it wrong. Ever hear of Cholera? Syphilis? HIV? Things like that happened when pagans did not practice the proper hygene sanatation and sex practices outlined in the Old Testament at least three thousand years ago. How bout Ezek 4:9 bread sold in health food stores today? How bout healthy diet outlined in the Old? These all have health science implications.

You mean like a woman having to bring two turtles or two doves to the priest, one to be a sin offering and one to be a burnt offering to atone for the uncleanness of having her period?

No i do not mean that and you know it. Did you get that from a hostile source like evil bible?

Or whether the sun is up or down is a factor in a man's cleanness?

What?

Only a literal interpretation of Genesis has science implications.

So what is the proper interpretation of Gen. 1:1? It assumes a start of the universe by an extrinsic souce. The context is clearly literal and understood as such throughout history. As Christians, we interpret the Old thru the lens of the New. So i don't know what you are doing here except equivocating.

The part where you provide any evidence for that claim. What information and sources did they have that we don't have?

I would say the sources they had which did not survive history. If they write an account which is historical, then they obviously had sources.

Real scientists on the other hand will changes their expectations in the face of contradictory evidence.

Garbage.

''A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'' Max Planck.

You are aware that much of what we know about an old earth comes from the early days of geology and was discovered by men who set out to prove the earth was young, right?

No. They were mostly heretics. Probably hostile to the Bible.

And like I said, no scientist "needs" an old earth. The evidence needs an old earth.

You mean like soft tissue in Dino bones? Nobody saw that coming. It is not like they predicted that before the fact. They did damage control after the fact. Again, 400 years of population growth (all evidence) far more consistent with the Noah account of 8 people 4500 years ago then it modern alternative of 10 K people 200 K years ago. Thousands and thousands of years of flatline human populations is evidence-free conjecture. So don't talk to us about evidence.

What on earth are you talking about? It isn't my job to prove some unsourced lineages are wrong.

What is your evidence-based case for your claim?

It is their job to provide evidence for their claims. Do you even understand how the burden of proof works?

Yup. You are assuming guilt or incompetence on behalf of Biblical writers when it comes to genealogies. What is your evidence since they are assumed to be innocent? Why would you expect the ancients to magically conform to modern standards of identifying their sources? They had their own standards. What you are doing is making anachronistic assessments, expectations, which is once again unscientific.

Real historical persons?

Yup.

Please defend your claim by showing where all of the people listed in the Chronicles lineages are mentioned outside the Bible.

Why exclude the whole bible since the books are multiple compiled? Not one book. What objective historical standard is that? Modern critics did assume both Jesus and David myth and were shown to be wrong and scripture right. If you have multiple compiled, then that is all evidence, and your ad hoc standard has zero to do with historical method since it cannot be applied in a consistent manner. That means it is unscientific. You don't get to pull standards out of your backside one minute and then claim you are arguing for science on the other. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible are also mentioned by Josephus or perhaps Philo of Alexandria. You have the early Christian writings for another. They are all over ancient writings. Even Tacitus mentions Moses.

Well excuse me for not knowing the mind of God.

That is an excuse. Please show where Jesus was Old Earth based on the written accounts in the New Testament.

What I have is God's fingerprints in the world describing an ancient universe, a culture with a history of believing in a young earth, and Jesus who spoke to them in terms they understand.

It sounds to me like you are calling Jesus a liar. He did not tell anyone of an old earth because they would not understand. Or some such nonsense.

And what you're saying is that you know the mind of God.

This is all a red herring and accusatory nonsense.

Since the only one who can do that is God that means you must be God. Where should I direct my prayers?

I don't know why you even print this sort of sarcastic nonsense which is really over the top. Sounds like you are losing it.

 

[Queller]

Why not if it were a supernatural event. just because it was supernatural doesn't mean it didn't happen literally. There's a lot of phenomena which occur in the world which cannot be scientifically explained but actually occurred, has there not? Just because it cannot be explained by science doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't occur. It just means that it can't be explained by some natural method.
I don't know what relevance this has to do with the comment of mine to which you are referring. So yes, there is no way that a person with a natural eye could possibly see it, but what about a "spiritual" being and the actual "creator".

Again just because we can't see something (or didn't see it) with the natural eye doesn't mean it didn't take place. it certainly was recorded and I'll just have to take it on its face value.

So the question to that is, how do you know which is which? You assume that it isn't possible but others assume otherwise.

Again,you're assuming that something that isn't humanly possible isn't possibly with someone who is not human (and in Jesus case, half-human in a sense and half-Goo)?

We are actually told that it is in a "moment" of time. The word "moment" in the Greek means instant. Why would it not be possible for one being (an angelic, not a human) and God Himself not to see this? Of course, Satan is the master of deception (as you've pointed out) so why wouldn't he be able to pull this off, considering we see Magicians do this all the time (i.e, make Elephants and ships disappear, saw people and half and then make them whole again plus a host of others) why wouldn't Satan, the master of it not be to the same and even more?

How do you know that it isn't? I know because the Bible tells me it happened and I trust what it says. There's many things that Science didn't know for a long time and which took them many centuries before they figured it out. Just because they haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean they won't later on. And some things they may never figure out. We'll just have to wait and see.

In all of the above you seem fixated on describing the event as a "supernatural" event, something we mortal men couldn't see. Guess what? I agree with you! It was a supernatural event and therefore couldn't have happened as literally described in the account in Matthew 4:8. The account describes it as a non-supernatural event that takes place somewhere here on this earth, somewhere we could see it happening if we were close enough. It makes no mention of it happening in an angelic realm, or anything else.

It was Adam's fall which resulted in Satan getting legal ownership (it originally belonged to Adam) of this earth and although the Bible doesn't use the specific word "deed" there's scripture points to this to being the case, i.e. it can be "inferred", the same way scientists do all the time. Again, as Science supposedly looks for the best explanation, I can't think of a better one in this instance. Other than saying it didn't happen, can you point me to a better one? I'm all ears.

I'm sorry but there's nothing in Genesis 3 (or anywhere else in Scripture) that says that Satan has authority over this world to the extent that he can plant things in the earth or change physics. The times Satan is referred to as "the ruler of this world" it is man's sin which is being referred to, not physical ownership of the world.

Who has authority over this world?

When Adam sinned, was his dominion transferred to Satan?

See above. I don't really worry about such things because I know that there's some reasonable explanation for it. I just don't know what it is yet. There's perhaps there's some thing that God doesn't what us to know yet and I'm sure He has His reasons for it if that is the case.

Not trying to be mean but that is really no different than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala".

The questions I asked are at the heart of the issue regarding your claim that Satan has authority over this world.

OK, so what? If true, it still doesn't disqualify the rest of Scripture. And that's if it's true which I'm not entirely sure of yet.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't disqualify the rest of Scripture. It does disqualify a literal interpretation on Genesis however.

So you say. You need to do a little more research on that maybe. I think the story captures everything that needs to be captured for our benefit.

Again, if you know your Bible, you can figure that out.

Really? Is that why people have been arguing about it for hundreds of years?

He spoke in both manners from time to time including giving actual events, many which were prophetic and eventually took place (which btw, prophecy is one thing that skeptics can't explain naturally)

Oh, I can explain a good number of them very well if you want to get into that. But this thread is dangerously close to going off the rails as it is.

God used many methods to speak to the Jewish people as He does with us today.

Do you discount scientific knowledge as one of those ways?

Are verses 12-25 not literal as well? You know there are some who refute the Bible who say that none of it is meant to be literal, and that it's all allegorical. I feel sorry for those people. It's interesting (if you believe verses 12-25 are actual literal account, how they get mixed in with the rest of the chapter which you claim is not litteral.

First off I thought we were referring to the Temptations of Christ portion of Matthew 4, not the rest of it. But let's talk about that for a minute. On what basis should I decide verses 12-15 are not to be taken literally? After all, Carpernaum is a real historical place. Unlike a mountain from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth.

And it may not, it may be based on what they actually saw or what the Holy Spirit dictated to them.

And that all of a sudden makes them infallible?

 

[Queller]

Yawn.

If you can't respond in a manner other than that of a 14 yo girl, this conversation is pointless.

There is no evidence of flatline population growth for thousands and thousands of years, so evidence is not your problem in the first place.

Good thing I didn't claim anything about a "flatline" population growth then, isn't it?

It is an excuse. What you have absent in the Bible is using dung and urine as medical treatments.

Yup. Prove it wrong. Ever hear of Cholera? Syphilis? HIV? Things like that happened when pagans did not practice the proper hygene sanatation and sex practices outlined in the Old Testament at least three thousand years ago.

HIV existed 3,000 years ago?

How bout Ezek 4:9 bread sold in health food stores today? How bout healthy diet outlined in the Old? These all have health science implications.

I don't see anything in Ezekiel 4 about healthy food practices. I do something in there about using human waste and cow dung as cooking fuel though. Is that what you meant earlier?^

I really don't think that 390 days of eating nothing but bread cooked over human waste and water is going to be very healthy.

No i do not mean that and you know it. Did you get that from a hostile source like evil bible?

No, I got it from Leviticus 15

What?

Deuteronomy 23

So what is the proper interpretation of Gen. 1:1? It assumes a start of the universe by an extrinsic souce. The context is clearly literal and understood as such throughout history. As Christians, we interpret the Old thru the lens of the New. So i don't know what you are doing here except equivocating.

Allegorical. Although there is nothing in science that precludes the universe starting with God causing the Big Bang.

I would say the sources they had which did not survive history.

That's pretty convenient for you and your claims, isn't it?

If they write an account which is historical, then they obviously had sources.

So what was the historical source for the mountain high enough from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth?

Garbage. ''A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.''

Gee, an unsourced quote. How utterly unsurprising.

You can quote Planck all you want. That doesn't make him (or you) correct.

Planck was wrong

"...the heart of Darwin's ideas was accepted by his colleagues shortly after publication of the Origin, plate tectonics went from speculation to textbook example in a dozen years—all showing that when the arguments are good, the vast majority of scientists change their mind accordingly. As the historian of science Bernard Cohen noted, even Planck—whose ideas were no less revolutionary than the other examples mentioned here—managed to convince most of his peers, not only the new generation."

No. They were mostly heretics. Probably hostile to the Bible.

It's always funny to see YEC expound on something they clearly know nothing about.

So with your extensive knowledge of these "mostly heretics" can you name one?

You mean like soft tissue in Dino bones? Nobody saw that coming.

Nor did they see the dishonest quote-mining and out-of-context excerpts that YECs would go to use those discoveries. You are aware that Schweitzer and her team have personally addressed YEC claims about their finds, right?

Dinosaur Shocker

It is not like they predicted that before the fact. They did damage control after the fact. Again, 400 years of population growth (all evidence) far more consistent with the Noah account of 8 people 4500 years ago then it modern alternative of 10 K people 200 K years ago.

I guess so, if you don't bother to educate yourself on the situation.

Thousands and thousands of years of flatline human populations is evidence-free conjecture.

Who is this person you keep claiming is talking about "flatline" human populations?

So don't talk to us about evidence.

I know, evidence is anathema to YECs.

What is your evidence-based case for your claim?

See again you're showing your ignorance of how the burden of proof works. If they want to claim that somebody is related to somebody else, they have to demonstrate that using actual genealogies, not just names on a page. For example of of the kings they list is Arvirargus, who supposedly lived in sometime in the first century AD. He is known only from two poems, one of which was written 1100 years after he died. Said poem is also the only place in recorded history where it mentions his wife. I'm supposed to take their claims about him as evidence?

If any scientist came forward with such weak evidence for anything, you would (rightly) laugh him out of the room.

Yup. You are assuming guilt or incompetence on behalf of Biblical writers when it comes to genealogies. What is your evidence since they are assumed to be innocent?

I'm not accusing them of anything. Would you calm down? Are you incapable of having a reasonable discussion with getting emotional about it?

We have evidence of multiple people from the Bible that is independent of the Bible itself. Jesus himself, King David, Paul, Peter, just to name a few. If you want me to accept that every person in the Biblical genealogies existed, I'm going to need more than just your word.

Yup. Why exclude the whole bible since the books are multiple compiled? Not one book.

And many books were left out. The Catholic Bible is different than the Protestant Bible which is different than the Eastern Orthodox one.

What objective historical standard is that? Modern critics did assume both Jesus and David myth and were shown to be wrong and scripture right. If you have multiple compiled, then that is all evidence, and your ad hoc standard has zero to do with historical method since it cannot be applied in a consistent manner.

Sure it can. How many of the books of the Bible list all the people listed in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles? I'll tell you; one. Genesis 36. And since 1 Chronicles 1 is basically nothing more than a copying of Genesis 36, that can hardly be used as evidence.

That means it is unscientific. You don't get to pull standards out of your backside one minute and then claim you are arguing for science on the other. Most of the people mentioned in the Bible are also mentioned by Josephus or perhaps Philo of Alexandria. You have the early Christian writings for another. They are all over ancient writings. Even Tacitus mentions Moses.

We aren't talking about Moses or Jesus, are we? Can you give me an instance where Philo mentions Samlah of Masrekah? How about where Tacitus mentions Abishur? Or what about when Jospehus discusses Jekuthiel?

I'll wait.

That is an excuse.

That's why I started it with "excuse me".

Please show where Jesus was Old Earth based on the written accounts in the New Testament. It sounds to me like you are calling Jesus a liar. He did not tell anyone of an old earth because they would not understand. Or some such nonsense.

You can call it nonsense. I call it a perfectly reasonable assumption. If you tried to describe an iPad to a resident of ancient Greece would you say it's an electronic way to calculate large numbers, store infinite knowledge, and contact people thousands of miles away and see their face in real time or would you describe it as a kind of automatic abacus?

This is all a red herring and accusatory nonsense. I don't know why you even print this sort of sarcastic nonsense which is really over the top. Sounds like you are losing it.

No, it's just sarcasm, since you you claim to know the mind of God.

 

[2tim_215]

In all of the above you seem fixated on describing the event as a "supernatural" event, something we mortal men couldn't see. Guess what? I agree with you! It was a supernatural event and therefore couldn't have happened as literally described in the account in Matthew 4:8. The account describes it as a non-supernatural event that takes place somewhere here on this earth, somewhere we could see it happening if we were close enough. It makes no mention of it happening in an angelic realm, or anything else.

Maybe we have different definitions of the word literal:
lit·er·al ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/ adjective

1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread".
2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
   synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter;

"The account describes it as a non-supernatural event that takes place somewhere here on this earth, somewhere we could see it happening if we were close enough."
That's your opinion, it's not the case. Just cause something actually happens and you don't see it (it was obviously up in a mountain with Jesus and Satan, and there would be no one else there and it's really being unreasonable to think so doesn't mean that it didn't actually take place.

It reminds me of the first question in our Philosophy class (which most of us had to take in College) when our old Philosophy teacher asks us, "how do we know we are really here", lol a real mind bender) and is stated as follows (probably the 2nd question he asked): "If a tree falls in the woods, and you aren't there to see it fall, how do you know if it really fell". Well, I'd say that if it really fell, then it really fell regardless if I saw it fall or not. See that's one of the problems, you want to make God prove everything but what you fail to realize that He doesn't have to prove anything, yet he proves many things, perhaps for His amusement. Another problem is that I believe that God says that it did (based on context and the way it was written), you say that it didn't, who am I supposed to believe?

I'm sorry but there's nothing in Genesis 3 (or anywhere else in Scripture) that says that Satan has authority over this world to the extent that he can plant things in the earth or change physics. The times Satan is referred to as "the ruler of this world" it is man's sin which is being referred to, not physical ownership of the world.
Who said anything about planting something? I sure didn't. And Satan certainly can't change physics (I didn't say that either). Satan can't create. Only God can. Then what exactly did the Bible mean when we were told that Jesus defeated Satan and destroyed the power of death?

Who has authority over this world?
Well of course God does (overall) but He has given some over to Satan (rather rather has stolen it) but that is not within certain limits. God is still the overall ruler and can stop Satan from doing whatever he pleases (thank goodness for that). The Bible tells us that Satan is the prince of this world. Who else does He say that about?

When Adam sinned, was his dominion transferred to Satan?
Not trying to be mean but that is really no different than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala".
It doesn't matter what you say, but what you say doesn't mean that it isn't true. I won't belabor the
point, it's that not important here or in this discussion. What is important is whether the Bible is speaking metaphorically or if this was an event that really happened. The only reason I brought this up is that I believe you asked if Satan had the ability/right to offer the Kingdoms of the world to Jesus. You do realize when he was showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, he was showing Him future kingdoms as well?

The questions I asked are at the heart of the issue regarding your claim that Satan has authority over this world.
I gave you some of it, but there is definitely more. Sorry if that is not enough. And I don't believe he has complete authority, I do believe there are limits.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't disqualify the rest of Scripture. It does disqualify a literal interpretation on Genesis however.
In your opinion it does, but you're only one person although's there's probably many more who'd agree with you. Keep in mind though, this is not politics where the majority rules, with God He rules and just because you might be part of the majority doesn't make you right either.
Really? Is that why people have been arguing about it for hundreds of years?
People have been arguing about many things for thousands of years, mostly politics and religion. Probably a part of human nature to argue.

Oh, I can explain a good number of them very well if you want to get into that. But this thread is dangerously close to going off the rails as it is.
So be it.

Do you discount scientific knowledge as one of those ways?
No. But I look at Science quite differently than you probably do. I look to it not to formulate my belief system, but more to confirm it and although I find it interesting at times, I don't base my life's existence on it's validity or it's non-validity.

First off I thought we were referring to the Temptations of Christ portion of Matthew 4, not the rest of it. But let's talk about that for a minute. On what basis should I decide verses 12-15 are not to be taken literally? After all, Carpernaum is a real historical place. Unlike a mountain from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth.
The point I was trying to make is in trying to interpret scripture in general context is a very important factor. If you look at that entire chapter (other than the verses in question) it should be quite apparent that all those verses were meant to be literal. Thus, if that is the case, it is logical to conclude that all those verses in that chapter were meant to be as well. Now I suppose if you believe in an illogical God, you'd feel this way, but I believe in a God who is logical and does not try to deceive, in man when man is a deceiver (which I suppose some do), whoever feels that way I believe is deceiving his own self I believe that God is logical and does not deceive people. Now if anyone tries to prove otherwise, I welcome you to try, but I can assure that you are most likely interpreting it wrong.

And that all of a sudden makes them infallible?
Not all of a sudden. Always has been, and always will. I realize that may be difficult to comprehend for fallible man.

 

[NobleMouse]

In various threads on this topic, similar themes arise:

1) The Bible is not a scientific book.

The Bible may not be a scientific book; however, besides being God's revelation of Himself to us, it is also a historical text. If we want to know when the declaration of independence was signed, do we try to perform tree ring dating of what we believe were sapling trees present at the time of the time of the signing, or do we read a history book?

2) Evidence shows that Genesis cannot be taken as literal text.

There is figurative language in some parts of Genesis. That said, Jesus references the creation account as in "Have you not read", so this strongly suggests that a plain interpretation is reasonable (see post #58). Also, we find Jesus referring to Noah's flood in Matthew 24:37-39:

"For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Again, if we take the account of Noah's flood as figurative, then what Jesus is saying here is of little consequence. Now, we do know that Jesus' 2nd coming will be to judge the whole world (believers and non-believers); however, this would not jive with Noah's flood if it was just a local flood or didn't happen at all. Reading the historical text of Genesis plainly reconciles these texts (as well as all others in the NT that refer to the flood).

Evidence is just evidence. ~6,000 years and ~4.5B years are not found in evidence, they are found in the the interpretation of evidence. YEC starts with the Bible, taking Genesis as it is written and interpreting evidence accordingly. We are called to live by faith and not by sight, if all we believe is what we see then it is not by faith that we believe.

 

[2tim_215]

In various threads on this topic, similar themes arise:

1) The Bible is not a scientific book.

The Bible may not be a scientific book; however, besides being God's revelation of Himself to us, it is also a historical text. If we want to know when the declaration of independence was signed, do we try to perform tree ring dating of what we believe were sapling trees present at the time of the time of the signing, or do we read a history book?

2) Evidence shows that Genesis cannot be taken as literal text.

There is figurative language in some parts of Genesis. That said, Jesus references the creation account as in "Have you not read", so this strongly suggests that a plain interpretation is reasonable (see post #58). Also, we find Jesus referring to Noah's flood in Matthew 24:37-39:

"For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Again, if we take the account of Noah's flood as figurative, then what Jesus is saying here is of little consequence. Now, we do know that Jesus' 2nd coming will be to judge the whole world (believers and non-believers); however, this would not jive with Noah's flood if it was just a local flood or didn't happen at all. Reading the historical text of Genesis plainly reconciles these texts (as well as all others in the NT that refer to the flood).

Evidence is just evidence. ~6,000 years and ~4.5B years are not found in evidence, they are found in the the interpretation of evidence. YEC starts with the Bible, taking Genesis as it is written and interpreting evidence accordingly. We are called to live by faith and not by sight, if all we believe is what we see then it is not by faith that we believe.

I think you make some very cogent points. Here's a link from a site called the "Stones Cry Out"". He has a pretty good take on the Flood and how it might not have been "global" quite the way most of us think. His background is in Geology and even if he's correct, it still won't make what Jesus said wrong.
The Stones Cry Out - Geology and the Bible: Updated July 8, 2016
A little sidetracked but since you mentioned the flood I thought I'd bring this in and wanted to commend you on your post.