day = 24 hours ?

[Strong in Him]

Thank you Vance.

 

[TwinCrier]

Whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a matter of history, not science. The Gospels were written as accounts of Jesus' life by people who knew him, or were very close to those who knew him. The purpose in writing them was to tell others the Good News about Jesus, who he was and what he did for us. People can reject these accounts if they wish, they cannot give scientific evidence to show that the events in them either did or didn't happen.

Genesis was written as an account of the beginnings, not only of life, but of the Jewish faith - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the Jewish patriarchs. The first two chapters explain why the universe was created it - because God wanted it - rather than how. It is not a scientific account; it was never intended to be one. Moses, or whoever wrote it, wanted to state quite clearly that he believed God to be the author of life and all things. That was his purpose. We go to the Bible to learbn about God, not science.




Wait a minute, are you saying that all the fossils that have been discovered, all the books, programmes and websites that have been written and made about life on earth, the history of the world, prehistoric times, dinosaurs etc etc are evil? That scientists are somehow trying to fabricate evidence and mislead people? What about scientists who are christians, have a real relationship with the Lord and are serving him, but do not accept that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally? Are they deluded and not really saved at all? The people I am referring to on the BBC site are not necessarily all anti christianity, a few are christians, actually. But some have degrees in physics/biology/botany/astronomy and know what they are talking about.

Understanding how the Bible is to be read is very important. Would you take Matthew 5v30 literally and cut off your hand if it caused you to sin, or gouged out your eye if it looked at something evil? No? Presumably you look at such a passage, ask yourself "what is Jesus really saying here?" and obey that. That's what we should do with all Scripture - find out what kind of writing - eg poetry, history, prophecy - we are dealing with and read it accordingly.

History cannot prove that Jesus ev er existed.
How can you believe some stories from people you never met who say they know some Jesus guy. Where is your evidence?
And I never even implied that fossils were evil, don't be silly. Fossils are benign. The fools who look at such things and spit out nonsense that these things prove humans evolved from primordial ooze are. They aren't fabricating evidence, they are misinterpreting it. God created the Earth and everything in it in 6 days. Don't fret though, one day we will all stand before God and He will set ya straight.
In closing, the verse in Matthew 5:30 clearly says "IF". Don't leave out those two letter words like if and is, they can change the whole meaning if you do.

 

[PaladinValer]

TwinCrier, a modification, being a historian myself.

History cannot prove directly that Jesus existed. It can indirectly however, by piecing bits and pieces together. It paints a fuzzy picture, but it is a picture nonetheless.

In addition, evolution doesn't say humans evolved from primordial ooze. If you want to discuss the theory of evolution, at least get the facts about it right.

 

[Anduron]

You really believe that? Quite young children are perfectly capable of distinguishing stories from actual events. In fact, I dare say most children do see bible stories as stories, not history.

Sure, it takes a more advanced education to set out the evidence and logical reasons for a non-literal interpretation, but it also takes a more advanced education to set out the evidence and logical reasons for a literal interpretation.

Wasn't referring to 5 year olds or young children for that matter. Delta One put it best for a reason to why I didn't refer to them.

To understand God's Word take it up with God, not yourself, nor any scientist for ALL humans, have flawed logic, our own understanding is not good enough, our own preceptions are easily fooled, and our own intelligence deafens us from hearing the Word of God as well as leading us to distrust Him. There is a conscience in every human for a reason.

The Lord will guide us in many ways to find understanding of His Word, using whomever or whatever tools that are needed, but once we start admiring our own intelligence and putting trust in that intelligence in which we admire instead of seeking guidance from the Lord, we'll end up just guessing as to what His Word means and how His Word will be taken.

Never hurts to pray.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't fret though, one day we will all stand before God and He will set ya straight.

In the first place, it could be you he's settiing straight, and secondly, and more importantly, when we are in heaven it won't matter two hoots who's been right while they were on earth, only who has accepted, loved and served the Lord.

In closing, the verse in Matthew 5:30 clearly says "IF". Don't leave out those two letter words like if and is, they can change the whole meaning if you do.

Yes but if you'd read my post carefully, you would have seen that I asked "would you cut off your hand IF it caused you to sin?" I was asking if you believe that those verses literally mean what they say? If you do believe that, do you obey them? I can't believe that you're saying that you're without sin, so presumably you're missing a few body parts by now? If you don't believe they are to be taken literally, but read them, ask yourself what Jesus meant and then try to follow or live by that, then you are studying the passage and trying to discern the meaning of Jesus' teaching and how it applies to you.

William Barclay says in his book that early Hebrews thought in pictures. Very few, if any, thought as analytically as we do today. I doubt it occurred to them that Genesis 1 was to be taken literally. But even if it did, how would you sum up Genesis 1? That God created the world? Yes, that is the truth they were wanting to convey.

 

[TwinCrier]

In the first place, it could be you he's settiing straight, and secondly, and more importantly, when we are in heaven it won't matter two hoots who's been right while they were on earth, only who has accepted, loved and served the Lord.



Yes but if you'd read my post carefully, you would have seen that I asked "would you cut off your hand IF it caused you to sin?" I was asking if you believe that those verses literally mean what they say? If you do believe that, do you obey them? I can't believe that you're saying that you're without sin, so presumably you're missing a few body parts by now? If you don't believe they are to be taken literally, but read them, ask yourself what Jesus meant and then try to follow or live by that, then you are studying the passage and trying to discern the meaning of Jesus' teaching and how it applies to you.

William Barclay says in his book that early Hebrews thought in pictures. Very few, if any, thought as analytically as we do today. I doubt it occurred to them that Genesis 1 was to be taken literally. But even if it did, how would you sum up Genesis 1? That God created the world? Yes, that is the truth they were wanting to convey.

Again you missed the whole point of that verse. Hell is so horrible that if it were possible to free yourself from sin by casting off the part of your body that committed the sin, it would be well worth the suffering. Of course the point is, even that won't free you from sin, for we sin with our mind, not just a hand or foot or tongue. Reading verses in context in a wonderful thing. The literal interpretation of Genesis is repeated throughout the bible, such as repeated references to six days, Adam and Eve as real persons, especially by Jesus, and references to the flood. Parables usually don't contain such detail as names of people (Noah is named, the prodigal son is not) or be as specific as to list the exact height of the flood waters (cubits above the mountains Genesis 7:20) and the exact numbers of days (and I do mean days just to make that clear) that the rain fell. The detail is there as evidence for us, so that we will believe what the bible says.
I personally think all the evidence scientists find for evolution actually proves a literal young Earth creation, but that's not what they are looking to prove. When they admitted to finding soft tissue in a dinosaur bone I thought for sure they would report that dinosaurs weren't extinct as long as originally thought, at the very least. But no, they just address the information in a way that continues to contradict the bible.

 

[Strong in Him]

Again you missed the whole point of that verse.

I'm afraid that actually it's you who's missing my point. I am saying that not every single verse that's written in the Bible is to be taken literally. This verse is one example, if it's a bad one, I apolgise. How about Psalm 19v4 "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavillion"? Does the sun live under canvas? "Comes forth like a bridegroom", what would that be then, top hat and tails? The Bible contains poetry, allegories (is Jesus literally a vine, or a loaf of bread?) parables and so on. These are word pictures, they illustrate a truth, but are not necessarily literally true themselves. Whoever wrote Genesis was not writing a scientific textbook, he was writing about God, the creator and author of all life. Of course God could have created the world in six days - he needn't even have taken that long about it - but did he? People who have been given the ability to study, discover and research these things say not. If we get to heaven and find we're wrong, so be it. It's not too important, but reading the Bible correctly is.

The literal interpretation of Genesis is repeated throughout the bible, such as repeated references to six days, Adam and Eve as real persons, especially by Jesus, and references to the flood. Parables usually don't contain such detail as names of people (Noah is named, the prodigal son is not) or be as specific as to list the exact height of the flood waters (cubits above the mountains Genesis 7:20) and the exact numbers of days (and I do mean days just to make that clear) that the rain fell. The detail is there as evidence for us, so that we will believe what the bible says.

I am not talking about Genesis being allegorical, I am referring to chapters 1+2, the creation of the universe. Jesus quotes from Scripture, but he doesn't comment on how literally it is to be taken. I may be completely wrong about this, but taking Genesis 1 literally, and believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, raises a lot of questions. And there are many scientists and christians who would agree with me.

Incidentally, I read in a commentary once that the period 40 was often used in Biblical times to denote a length of time when they weren't completely sure of its length. Just as we would say "weeks" or "years". So this isn't necessarily literally true either. 40 days could mean literally 40 days, or it could mean "well we're not entirely sure, but it was a heck of a long time."
Just something I read from a Bible scholar.

 

[Strong in Him]

PS I was dashing off to a prayer meeting this morning, and posted in a hurry.

Introducing the Bible - William Barclay.
p 129 in the chapter "how to study the Bible";

"Among the Hebrews in biblical times, there were few - perhaps none - who thought, or could think, in abstract terms and abstract arguments. They thought in pictures." (Italics his.) He goes on to explain that the pictures were bound to be pictures of their own time, as they were the only pictures they could understand, and says that "time and time again we have to penetrate beyond the husk of the picture to the kernal of the truth."
This is not a recent idea, Barclay quotes the scholar Origen - 3rd centuary - who taught the same thing, and concludes, "what Origen is saying here is that we have truth, but truth in a picture.

Barclay also notes; "If you ask any intelligent schoolboy to put into 1 sentence what Genesis 1 + 2 are saying, he will ...say ... 'God made the world'. That is the answer. The method by which he made it is not in question. The fact that God's power is behind the universe .... is the kernal, however that creative power was exercised."

Barclay says what I have been trying to say, but a lot more clearly, which is why I copied out so many of his words. Obviously he teaches a lot more about studying the Bible, context and biblical interpretation. This book might be hard to get hold of, but it's worth it if you can.

John Stott in his book "Understanding the Bible" says "Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal 6 day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific study appears to contradict it." He goes on to say that the geological evidence for a gradual development over thousands of millions of years seems conclusive. He says also that it is unfortunate that some who debate this issue begin by assuming that "creation" and "evolution" are mutally exclusive. I can't quote all his words here, obviously, but again this book is well worth reading.

The Lion handbook of the Bible says that it is shown that God is the Creator of the universe, man, and all life, but it is not shown how he did it. Which is again what I have been saying.

 

[Vance]

Strong in Him, thank you very much for those resources. I think those guys are definitely on the right track.

 

[SBG]

I always thought the 'how' was easy to see. He spoke it into existence, hence 'God said...'

Psalmist says when God speaks it has already happened. If God spoke creation into being, and on that day saw creation already made, for He commented on it being very good, then what He spoke was created on that day. And as He instructed it to be, it was already done.

Exodus really gives the finally piece of credibility, as if it was needed, so that we may believe.

One thing I would like to correct, is that we do have some historical evidence of Jesus Christ's life, outside the Bible. There are 12 seperate accounts by different people, outside of the Bible that wrote briefly about Jesus Christ, a real person, at the time the Biblical writers say He was alive. Also, there is a writing, Circa 52 A.D. by Thallus, who wrote about Christ's crucifixtion and said that darkness crept over the land at the time of His death and an earthquake shook the land. Thallus was not a Christian.

 

[SBG]

William Barclay

He was some theologian, I will give him that. If you don't mind I would like to present what he believed, so people are aware.

1. Jesus was not born of a Virign.
2. Jesus' miracles can all be shown to be natural events.
3. Jesus did not multiple the loaves of bread literally.
4. Jesus did not walk on the water.
5. Barclay said Jesus thought Himself to be divine as the Apostles did, but Barclay did not believe this was true. When he was rebuttaled with teachings of Paul, he went on to say he doesn't care what Paul has to say.
6. He repudiated the doctrine of the substitutionary nature of the death of Jesus.
7. He said the real power of Jesus’ death was in its benevolent, selfless example – nothing more.
8. He denied the existense of hell.

John Scott believed that there were pre-adamic hominids around and of course, God created death, disease, pain and sorrow as a very good creation. I find this teaching in error and extremely harmful to the Christian faith.

 

[Strong in Him]

That may or may not be the case, but how does it alter the need to consider the type of literature, background and author's reason for writing as we are studying the Scriptures? The author of Genesis wrote for the reason previously given - to proclaim God. Someone today writing an account of the beginnings of life, might do it completely differently. "In the beginning was the big bang" for example, or "in the beginning, Lord Vishnu created", or whatever, depending on their background, beliefs and reason for writing. The biologist would write a detailed account of how life evolved; the Hind might write according to Hindu teachings. Moses, or whoever, wrote to say that it is God's world and he is in charge.

Personally I have no problem with God as the creator and author of life. I thank him for his creation, I tell others that he created, I read Psalms that declare his marvellous works of creation. I doubt that he created in 6 days - but he is easily able to do so, so there is the possibility that I'm wrong. If I care enough, I'll ask in heaven.

As I said, creation being finished in 6 24 hour days, ie 144 hours, raises too many questions for me. So it's not an area I think about much. God created, that's all we need to know, so that's all the Bible tells us.

 

[Delta One]

Hello Strong in Him,

If you're taking Genesis literally, and I don't think it was meant to be taken literally, then how come there was light and darkness on the first day, when the sun wasn't created until the 4th? And how did the plants and trees created on the third day survive without sun?



Actually, this is pretty easy to solve. It is very important to let the language of God's Word speak to us. If we come to Genesis 1 without any outside influences, each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word yom qualified by a number, and the phrase "evening and morning". The first three days are written the same way as the next three. So, if we let the language speak to us, all six days were ordinary Earth days.



Also, the sun is not needed for day and night! All what is needed is light and a rotating Earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase "evening and morning" certainly implies a rotating Earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning Earth, there can be day and night. As to where the light came from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates that it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on day four to rule the day He had made. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed, as the glory of God will light the heavenly city.



Perhaps one reason why God did it this way was to illustrate that the sun did not have the priority in the creation that people have tended to give it. The sun did not give birth to the Earth as evolutionary theories postulate; the sun was God's created tool to rule the day that He had made (Gene. 1:16). Down through the age people, such as the Egyptians, have worshipped the sun. God warned the Israelites in Deuteronomy 4:19 not to worship the sun like the pagan cultures around them did. They were commanded to worship the God who made the sun - not the sun that was made by God.



Evolutionary theories (e.g. the big bang for instance) state that the sun came before the Earth, and that the sun's energy on the Earth eventually gave rise to life. Just as in pagan beliefs, the sun is, in a sense, given credit for the wonder of creation.



The early church father Theophilus provides some interesting insight into this:

"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on the earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it." [Emphasis mine]

You must start thinking supernaturally, not just in materialistic terms. There's much, much more than what we see or can test.


Also I do not believe that anyone who does not take Genesis 1 literally is a compromising christian. Compromising in what way? Almighty God is still Almighty God, whether he took 6 hours, 6 days or 6 billion years to create the world. He still sent his Son to die for our sins. He is still Holy, pure, righteous, our creator and our Father. We are not compromising our faith in this God if we say that we don't think that a particular passage in the Bible should be taken literally.



Compromising God’s Word with man’s fallible theories about our origin, i.e. evolution, just as the Christians did when they believed science when it taught that the solar system was geocentric and then they tried to justify their beliefs from the Bible and fit and bent it. The idea of billions of years is foreign to the Bible and is not consistent with many Biblical verses and notions, e.g. marriage and Exodus 20:11. By rejecting Genesis, you have unknowing destroyed the foundation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Please don’t get the idea that I’m saying that you are a non-Christian, because to be a Christian all that is required that you believe in Jesus and what He did, but you have no basis to believe in Him and His mission.



If you want food for thought, I would suggest going onto the science message boards of the BBC website. YECers, who insist that the earth is only 6000 years old, are, time after time, being given references and scientific examples that disprove their assertions. To be frank, they are being laughed off the board and are making Christianity a laughing stock.



What's wrong with that? Jesus said that Christians who stand up for their faith and the truth will be persecuted. In fact, I'd be worried about any Christian who has not been scoffed at or persecuted for their faith, because Jesus told us that we would face such resistance. If you're compromising with the world's view, then you are not a "threat" to what it believes and it will leave you alone. If you're not being persecuted or scoffed at for your faith you're either an ineffective witness for Christ or there is something wrong with your spirtual life. You must learn what the difference is between proving a position wrong and scoffing. Sometimes, they can be very hard to distinguish between. When people can't do anything about the evidence, they will often scoff at the person or try to destroy their reputation by spreading lies or making them out to be fools -- this is called scoffing.



NOTE: They have not proven the Christian creationary position wrong - becauase they can't - so they scoff at the Christians. This is typical. Btw, BBC is also known as the Bible Bashing Corporation and it does not surprise me that they present anything anti-Christian, including evolution.

Here's an interesting fact for you, do you know what book out of all the Bible is under the most attack by anti-Christians and skeptics? Genesis! Do you know why that is? Because these anti-Christians realise that if you destroy the book of Genesis you destroy the very reason why Jesus' earthly life was made neccessary, and hence, you also destroy the Gospel and its promises of eternal life. A structure cannot stay standing without its foundations. In the same way, the Christian structure will collapse as its foundation, i.e. Genesis, is destroyed or rejected.

God Bless.

 

[Strong in Him]

Hi Delta,

You must start thinking supernaturally, not just in materialistic terms. There's much, much more than what we see or can test.

I have no problem with miracles and the supernatural. I am talking about taking a passage of Scripture literally, when I doubt it was inteded to be taken literally. Why? Partly for the reasons previously given, partly because if the earth was only 6000 years old, every scientific discovery would inevitably lead to that conclusion. There would be nothing else to discover. Every scientist who has ever lived, and ever will live, would come to the conclusion that the creation of the entire earth was a miracle, trees just appeared fully formed and mature etc etc. There would be no books giving lengthy explanations of the evolution of mankind and so on, because it wouldn't have happened like that.

Some people talk about not believing in miracles of healing unless they can see written or pictorial evidence (x rays) of the original diagnosis. If they see concrete evidence from doctors that a person had a brain tumour, or whatever, and then see evidence that it has disappeared after prayer etc and without treatment, they would most likely agree that a miracle had taken place. They would have seen evidence of illness followed by evidence of non illness. Christians may even be quick to produce this evidence because they want to prove that God heals. So when we have evidence and scientific findings that the earth is older than 6000 years, why are Christians trying to dismiss it? How can we say that some evidence affirms God and his work in the world, while other evidence is not to be trusted? As I've said elsewhere, this has nothing to do with the Gospel - people who accept evolution (it's not a belief) can still accept Jesus as their Saviour and be born again. Scientists who have researched into the origins of life can write papers about how life evolved, while still believing that there is a God who made it all in the first place. More than that, they can still believe that the Bible is the word of God and be committed christians.

What's wrong with that? Jesus said that Christians who stand up for their faith and the truth will be persecuted. In fact, I'd be worried about any Christian who has not been scoffed at or persecuted for their faith, because Jesus told us that we would face such resistance.

Being laughed at for your faith - that the Lord Jesus came to die for our sins and that through him we have eternal life - is one thing. This is faith because it cannot be proved. Being laughed at because you make scientific claims that can be proved to be nonsense, is completely different. If someone teaches that science says one thing, and others, who know far more science than the original poster, can give evidence that it says another, then that first person is not being mocked for their faith buit for their ignorance.

"God created the world." This is a statement of faith; we cannot prove that God exists or that it was he who created, we just believe that he did. Similarly no one can prove that God doesn't exist and that he didn't create.
"God created the world in 6 days of 24 hours each, and made everything suopernaturally from nothing". This is a claim that can be tested. If the evidence backs it up, then it's true, and we have undeniable proof to present to non christians that at least one chapter of God's word is correct.

 

[Delta One]

Hello Strong in Him (again ),

Why? Partly for the reasons previously given, partly because if the earth was only 6000 years old, every scientific discovery would inevitably lead to that conclusion. There would be nothing else to discover.

I have explained it on another thread that I've finished with for the night that the evidence must be interpreted through a person's worldview, because the evidence can't speak for itself. These interpretations are based on a person's preconcieved beliefs or underlying belief systems (i.e. presuppositions). To evolutionists, anything that goes against evolutionism is a lie. This is their mentalitiy.

Being laughed at for your faith - that the Lord Jesus came to die for our sins and that through him we have eternal life - is one thing. This is faith because it cannot be proved. Being laughed at because you make scientific claims that can be proved to be nonsense, is completely different. If someone teaches that science says one thing, and others, who know far more science than the original poster, can give evidence that it says another, then that first person is not being mocked for their faith buit for their ignorance.

As has been explained many times, science cannot prove evolutionism to be true or false; equally it cannot prove nor disprove creation. How can you prove an event in the distant unobservable, unrepeatable, and unexperimental distant past to which you have no knowledge of what it was like. This is where assumptions come into the picture. A well known example of an unproven evolutionary assumption that I am certain you would have heard of is the geological principle that says that processes have been going on the same as they are today forever and a day. However, direct observation from the present, e.g. floods, volcanic explosions, for example, deny this theory of it's validity.

Whether or not you know more science and maths than me is disputable, but one thing I do know is that scientists from ICR or AiG could easily beat you in a debate over the scientific evidence. Of course, they, nor I, would mock you, but I'm just illustrating that what people believe to be true is just that - a belief. The scientific evidence can be interpreted in such a way that it supports either theory. THIS, is the true nature of the creation/evolution debate. It is not a debate over science, or science vs religion, it's religion vs religion or philosophy vs philosophy.

I see what you mean, however, but if one loses Genesis, they have no basis for the entire Gospel! Essentially, when anti-Christians attack Genesis, it is a direct attack against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why Christians must defend the basis of the Gospel, i.e. Genesis. It is more than possible to do. Believe it or not, but many atheists mock Christians for their beliefs that God exists, that He made everything (many say that a belief in God is illogical and irrational).

"God created the world in 6 days of 24 hours each, and made everything suopernaturally from nothing". This is a claim that can be tested. If the evidence backs it up, then it's true, and we have undeniable proof to present to non christians that at least one chapter of God's word is correct.

Please inform me of how such an idea can be "tested" because you've totally got me stumped...

It is my conviction that many of the atheists on this forum are "strong atheists" who will never change their opinion no matter what evidence they are presented with that denies their position. In fact, many scientists are turning from the atheistic evolution position to theistic evolution (not Christian TE) because they realise that atheistic evolution is impossible. They hope to solve the problems created by atheistic evolutionism by turning to a "god". This position is known as agnosticism. We must pray for those who are blinded to the truth that God created.

 

[Delta One]

Hi SBG,

I don't know how he could be a theologian. People like him who hold his beliefs are a disgrace to theology - he doesn't even take the very Bible (for purposes of illustration I will ignore Genesis and just concentrate on the NT) literally and does not notice that the virgin birth of Jesus is neccessary for Him to be a perfect sinless man! Hence, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, He would be a normal sinner and His life would be worthless and we would still be in our sins.

7. He said the real power of Jesus’ death was in its benevolent, selfless example – nothing more.

There are several people that I would gladly give my life away for, does that put me on the same level as Jesus? I think not.

I would argue that this man is not a Christian and just a wolf in sheep's skin. I also agree that his beliefs are harmful to Christianity; and I would go further to say that IMO he is a disgrace to our faith and should not be a theologian - he gives it a bad name, one thing that it doesn't need right now given the mistrust for it's validity.

 

[Strong in Him]

Hi Delta,

Anyone can beat me in a scientific debate; there are people around who could also tear Aig's assertions to shreds, (so I've been told.) I think when I did a google search it came out at something like .15% of all scientists who believe in a young earth. That's an awful lot of scientists who don't, and I'm sure they're not all non Christians.

I don't know exactly how the claim that God made the world in 6 days can be tested - I'm not a scientist. The point is that those who do know have done so. I suppose you could say that when God decided 4 billion years ago to make the earth, he did it in 6 days. But there might be some knowledgeable people who would dispute even that. As I've said, there are scientists who accept that evolution is the best explanation of how life began who are also christians and preach the word of God. There are no doubt people who've been brought up in a christian household and accepted Christ from an early age who have an interest in Science and go into research. Darwin himself was educated by a series of clergymen and went to Cambridge to begin training for ordination. I don't know if he completed his stuidies, but I don't think there's any evidence that he didn't have any faith, or lost the faith he did have.


And I don't know about interpreting evidence, but it ought to be blantantly obvious whether a thing - ie the earth - is 4 billion years old, or less than even 1/8th of a million. If the earth is only 6000 years old, why is everyone lying about it being older? What does that prove? That they can't use their God-given gifts, that they are liars, idiots or that they are conspiring together to disprove the first chapter of Genesis, in the hope that people will then conclude that the entire Bible is false, and no one will receive Jesus as their Saviour and be born again? If the latter, it's not working.

 

[Vance]

It is a complete cop-out and falsity to say that all scientific conclusions are entirely determined by a persons "worldview". This is only the case for those who insist that their worldview control their reading. For the rest, what I said elsewhere is true:

YEC’s will insist that science also starts with preconceived concepts, such as the basic tenets of evolution, or of gravity, or hundreds of other building blocks upon which they do their current work. And, to an extent, this is true. But there are a few major differences:

1. These theories or concepts first arose *from* the physical evidence and data, not the interpretation of the data from a conclusion. YEC’ist preconceptions arose from a particular reading of Scripture (and one that *only* YEC’s accept).

2. The entire scientific community is set up to encourage challenges and criticisms of theories and concepts. THat is why there are always arguments, fights, debates, etc. No one just accepts an idea in order to "toe the party line". The YEC community states right up front that their preconceived starting points (an old earth, some limitation on God’s ability to create through evolution) are not up for debate.

3. Scientific theories will be abandoned if and when there is sufficient evidence and cogent analysis which shows that it can not be true. In short, the scientific community will go wherever the overwhelming evidence leads them, even if the path is not what they expected or if it upsets their comfort zones. The YEC community has placed a very specific line where they will not go, no matter what the evidence says.
4. Lastly, there IS no common worldview among all in the scientific community. There are Christians and non-Christians, those who fully accept the supernatural and those who reject it. For an idea to be accepted it must run the gauntlet of critique from thousands of scientists from a wide variety of worldviews.

 

[SBG]

Hi SBG,

I don't know how he could be a theologian. People like him who hold his beliefs are a disgrace to theology - he doesn't even take the very Bible (for purposes of illustration I will ignore Genesis and just concentrate on the NT) literally and does not notice that the virgin birth of Jesus is neccessary for Him to be a perfect sinless man! Hence, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, He would be a normal sinner and His life would be worthless and we would still be in our sins.

7. He said the real power of Jesus’ death was in its benevolent, selfless example – nothing more.

There are several people that I would gladly give my life away for, does that put me on the same level as Jesus? I think not.

I would argue that this man is not a Christian and just a wolf in sheep's skin. I also agree that his beliefs are harmful to Christianity; and I would go further to say that IMO he is a disgrace to our faith and should not be a theologian - he gives it a bad name, one thing that it doesn't need right now given the mistrust for it's validity.

Hi Delta,

I agree with you. They say he was a 'great' theologian. Personally, if you disagree so much with the Bible that you teach Jesus Christ is not divine, not Virgin Born, His miracles were nothing more than a natural event, and He only died as an example, how can you even call yourself a Christian?

This is our world, Jesus is trivialized, God giving life is really god of death, and the 'oh, Jesus isn't coming back anytime soon.'

I see this last, coming from the mouths of many Christians today. They have stopped watching, that is when Satan moves in. It is not wonder why the Church is in a state of that which it is in.

It saddens me that He died, so we wouldn't have to, and this is how His Body treats all that He did, and said. (NT and OT - for Jesus was there before creation)

 

[SBG]

It is a complete cop-out and falsity to say that all scientific conclusions are entirely determined by a persons "worldview". This is only the case for those who insist that their worldview control their reading. For the rest, what I said elsewhere is true:

This is a blantant attempt at deception. Everyones perceptions are based on a world view. No one can avoid this.

I have not said the entire scientific conclusion is based on a world view. I have explained this in another thread. Scientists intrepret data with logic that is based on their world views.

No one can say they look at evidence with no previous thoughts about how that evidence arrived to what it is. Since all people do this, they tend to look what logical explanation can support their world view.

Case in point, ever decided that your next car is going to be X? You never really saw this car very often, but you really like. Now that you are aware of it, you see it everywhere now. We see what we want to see.

Difference between Christians and non-Christians: I didn't see because I wanted to see, I saw because God lead me to the Truth and He changed me.

Creation, as the Bible teaches it, is a God to us relationship. God reveals to us how God did it.

Evolution is an us to God relationship. We reveal to ourselves how God did it.

YEC’s will insist that science also starts with preconceived concepts, such as the basic tenets of evolution, or of gravity, or hundreds of other building blocks upon which they do their current work. And, to an extent, this is true. But there are a few major differences:

1. These theories or concepts first arose *from* the physical evidence and data, not the interpretation of the data from a conclusion. YEC’ist preconceptions arose from a particular reading of Scripture (and one that *only* YEC’s accept).

2. The entire scientific community is set up to encourage challenges and criticisms of theories and concepts. THat is why there are always arguments, fights, debates, etc. No one just accepts an idea in order to "toe the party line". The YEC community states right up front that their preconceived starting points (an old earth, some limitation on God’s ability to create through evolution) are not up for debate.

3. Scientific theories will be abandoned if and when there is sufficient evidence and cogent analysis which shows that it can not be true. In short, the scientific community will go wherever the overwhelming evidence leads them, even if the path is not what they expected or if it upsets their comfort zones. The YEC community has placed a very specific line where they will not go, no matter what the evidence says.
4. Lastly, there IS no common worldview among all in the scientific community. There are Christians and non-Christians, those who fully accept the supernatural and those who reject it. For an idea to be accepted it must run the gauntlet of critique from thousands of scientists from a wide variety of worldviews.

Scientific theories will be abandoned if....

How well does this ring through, when we had a 30 year secret on a dating of a human fossil, that was blantantly wrong? 30 years to be abandoned? 30 years for science to figure out a guy was lying? That does not seem like good science to me.

If a company lied for 30 years about what its product contained, and then finally admitted it, the company would be ruined.

Yet science is praised, because they found this out.....30 years later!!! After continuing the lie, upon lie, upon lie. And this is called good science, that is not based on world views, but on pure logic that is truthful.