Old earth creationists

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Peris said:
either you don't know enough or you ignore stuff to retain your belief in a 100% true scripture

There is nothing to ignore and this is not due to lack of knowledge. Perhaps you need to read a book by Hugh Ross.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
nvxplorer said:
Okay Karl, but what does this have to do with my point? Mainstream or not, Christianity exists because of a book.

It doesn't. It exists because of a body of early believers in Christ. They collated the book. It's a fundy myth that Christianity derives from the Bible. It doesn't. The Bible derives from Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Numenor
Upvote 0

Numenor

Veteran
Dec 26, 2004
1,517
42
114
The United Kingdom
Visit site
✟1,894.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
It doesn't. It exists because of a body of early believers in Christ. They collated the book. It's a fundy myth that Christianity derives from the Bible. It doesn't. The Bible derives from Christianity.
Indeed there were Christians way before there was ever a Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
It doesn't. It exists because of a body of early believers in Christ. They collated the book. It's a fundy myth that Christianity derives from the Bible. It doesn't. The Bible derives from Christianity.
Instead of saying the Bible, wouldn't it be a bit more accurate to say the New Testament portion of the Bible? Just a thought....
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Sinai said:
Instead of saying the Bible, wouldn't it be a bit more accurate to say the New Testament portion of the Bible? Just a thought....

Yes and no. It was the community of believers who decided which bits of the Jewish Scriptures would form their Bible. So although the texts already existed, as specifically Christian Scripture they come after the church.
 
Upvote 0

Routerider

Disciple of the Annunaki Alliance
Oct 4, 2003
1,996
81
51
Pennsylvania
✟10,050.00
Faith
Unitarian
Politics
US-Republican
flameingcrouton said:
I have a question for old earth creationists. This isn't meant to be hostile, Im just confused. What do you say to the young earth creationists that add up all the ages of people in the bible up to jesus and get 6000 years (including the 2000 years from christ to now)? Is the bible wrong?


What do I say to YEC's? Open their mind a little and conceive other possibilities...other ways of interpreting scripture. The Bible isn't a readers digest.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Sinai said:
Instead of saying the Bible, wouldn't it be a bit more accurate to say the New Testament portion of the Bible? Just a thought....
Yes and no. It was the community of believers who decided which bits of the Jewish Scriptures would form their Bible. So although the texts already existed, as specifically Christian Scripture they come after the church.
Thanks for the comments. The point you raised is precisely the reason why I used the qualifying words "a bit" in my earlier post....
 
Upvote 0