Hi cj,
Good morning! Glad you responded. You did:
They are. Every single claim that various christians have presented in the media is all under the same context of my arguments.
I contend that you're reversing the issue. I imagine that most christians just stand by the simple account of the Scriptures in what they tell us, but you respond with the scientific arguments against. That's usually the way it happens. I say that the creation is around 6,000 years old. Making no scientific claims to support that understanding at all. Not one! Just explaining that the Scriptures, which born again believers know to be the truth of God and coming directly from His knowledge and wisdom, do seem to support this understanding. You then bring out all of the scientific reasons that man has given you to deny that such a thing could possibly be true. You then cry out to them in frustration that the bible isn't a science book. I agree with you 100% that the bible isn't a science book. The bible is a history book and as such deserves to be understood as one would any other history book. That, if the author really knows its subject, then the claims of fact made within the pages of the book are accurate. I don't think any believer would question God's knowledge on the subject of the creation.
I then try to show that every single account of a miracle that we find throughout the whole of the Scriptures, if all we believe in is what man can prove, must then be denied as true. I asked you whether or not you believed that several miraculous events described in the Scriptures happened and you responded:
I believe the global flood story. I believe the event itself actually happened. I am not sure about whether or not these things happened as supernaturally looking as the movies show.
What about the rest of them? Do you believe that the sun stood still in the sky over the promised land for an extended period of several hours? Do you believe that a shadow cast by the sun went backwards the distance of 10 steps? These are just simple yes or no questions. I also don't know if any movie portrayal is fully correct in every detail, but I imagine rather that the details you have questions concerning may be different than the ones I would have questions about.
You then asked:
Now, with your math: all this time i thought you were talking about some high form of math such as the design of Noah's arc, timelines,etc.. but you were just going about basic - grade school math found in the Bible. Can I ask why are you talking about this?
Because it only takes an understanding of basic math for a believer to see what the Scriptures tell us about the age of the creation. As I say, I don't agree with the understanding that the ball of the earth and the universe did exist before that day that is described as the first day. So, for me, when the Scriptures tell me that each day consisted of an evening and a morning, I have no problem understanding that God is providing evidence for those who would later call into question, which He knew long before He gave the account to be written down that men would, the length of time that we are to understand as a 'day'. So, there are six days, which are to be understood as the length of time that it takes for the earth to make one full rotation on its axis, just as the length of a day is defined today. On the sixth of those days God created the first man Adam out of the dust of the ground. Then God's word tells us that Adam lived 930 years. So when Adam died, the created earth and universe were about 930 years old. Then we are told how old Adam was when Seth was born and the number of years that Seth lived. We deduct the age of Adam at Seth's birth from Seth's total years and add that result to the 930 years and now the earth and creation are that age.
It is also pretty clear that as God gives us the genealogy of the first men upon the earth to come from Adam, that Adam is not some amorphous terminology to mean 'all of mankind'. He has a name and he has a singular son with a name. That son also has a name and then has a singular son with a name. So, I'm not willing to accept that the Scriptures aren't being clear in the account of these genealogies because 'Adam' isn't the name of a specific person but is rather the 'idea' of mankind.
Anyway, pretty much anyone with a grade school education can add up the number of years that the Scriptures allow for each man born of a father until we get to the birth of Noah. Then we have an accurate account of the age of Noah when the flood came upon the earth and then his son's having children after the flood and God's word gives us a simple accounting of the ages of men until the birth of Abraham. We honestly have a fairly accurate account of all those years up to the exile into Egypt. Then there is some disagreement as to how long the children of Israel were in Egypt until God miraculously freed them, but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter much. I mean, I've always been agreeable to the idea that we can't know exactly to the year or day how long the creation has existed, but we can have a pretty general idea +/- a couple of hundred years.
These are sound principles based on sound hermeneutics of the Scriptures themselves. Not allowing for any fluff or imaginings, but merely following the timeline as presented in the Scriptures. Neither allowing for any scientific studies that man has done. I understand that the Scriptures declare that all men are liars and I understand that the Scriptures say that 'they have believed the lie'. So, I'm not willing to take the testimony of such people as that over the seemingly clear testimony of God.
Now, you are free to say that my insistence in understanding the Scriptures as saying such a thing makes me look foolish and likely turns people away. Let me say first, I don't approach a non-believer with my understanding of the timeline of the creation in explaining to them that God offers them eternal life. These are discussions that I have with people who claim to believe in God. If someone who believes in God is turned away because of something I believe or say, then they likely didn't have real faith to start with. For someone who honestly and truly knows the truth of God to turn and say, "Oh well, I'm just not going to have anything further to do with faith in God because that person or that group believes such and such about God", I contend that they haven't even understood who God is. Faith and trust in Him for eternal life through His Son, Jesus shouldn't have any bearing on what others might believe about Him. I listen to people pretty regularly with fairly wild ideas about God and it doesn't lead me to turn my back on God because of what they believe. I understand, like Peter, that if eternal life is what you seek, there is no other way. Once one has tasted of the Lord and finds the joy and knowledge of his love, There isn't some other god that you can turn to that can give you that. Even just turning away and not believing in any god at all won't take the place of the joy and love that faith in Jesus offers.
Secondly, as I wrote previously, even Paul addresses the fact that those outside of the faith see a lot of what we believe as foolishness. It never stopped Paul from teaching the same things that he had taught when he began his ministry. He merely understands that to the lost, the things of faith in God, are foolishness to them and carries on with his ministry. I think anyone who has read the Scriptures thoroughly will understand that we aren't going to ever be able to bring all people to the feet of Jesus. Even Jesus, by the time he was crucified, only had a few, likely numbered in just a few thousand people, who believed that he was who he said that he was. Jesus was the Son of God. He knew, if anyone would, what to say to someone to turn them to his Father. Yet we read that at the hearing of one hard teaching, which might be similar to my teaching about the creation event, many turned away. So, I'm not surprised, nor do I consider it my fault, that people might turn away from a teaching that stands staunchly opposed to what the modern science of man teaches us about the creation of all things. I understand that God's word warns me that they have believed the lie. And yes, I stand and proclaim that such things as million/billion years of existence of this created realm is a lie.
It's a created realm!!!!!! No believer seems to deny that in some way God created this existence in which we live. They just don't seem to be able to wrap their minds around the understanding that the all powerful, all knowing and all loving God who created this realm of existence could possibly have done it in the span of time that God seems to have clearly told us that He did. Why can't they? Because men of science have told them that it isn't possible. I contend that those same men, if you were to ask them to look into and provide proof of any of the miracles of the Scriptures would tell you the exact same thing. None of them are possible. So, we come to this place where we have to decide for ourselves. Am I going to believe the word of God or am I going to believe the word of man regarding any of the miracles of the Scriptures?
Friend, we have marine scientists and engineers all over the world who today will tell you that it's impossible that a structure, as defined in the Scriptures, to carry all of those men and animals saved from the flood could possibly stay afloat. I watched a video just a while back where they built a mock up model and put it in a wave pool and the craft sunk pretty quickly. So, these scientists and engineers ended their report with the clear teaching that the ark, as described in the Scriptures, would not have survived 6 months to a year floating on the water. As I have challenged others, find me a scientist who will support and prove through the scientific method that Mary had a baby although never having sexual relations with a man. Go ahead.
God bless,
ted
