Is God a liar?

[Speedwell]

I don't care if YEC is taught in schools or not, but neither should the TOE.....

Why not? The purpose of the kind of elementary science courses taught in public school is primarily to teach what science is, how scientists collect data and reach their conclusions. Right or wrong, like it or not, the ToE is science and YEC is not.

 

[SolomonVII]

When was there a time when they were not?

Before the age of Higher Criticism, of course.
We are not talking about people from other faith traditions. We are talking about people within the Christian faith tradition.
There was even a time within my own lifetime, when atheism did not include the larger swath of people that we would meet.

I question that assessment and want to see some back-up. How many RCs, Orthodox or Oriental Christians believe in a "metaphoric resurrection?" Not all non-YECs are wishy-washy American or Western European mainline Protestants.

Polls of the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the lands of former Christiandom are readily available. I think that it would be very easy to refute those numbers, if they are not believed.
Metaphoric resurrection itself is a common theme of liberal Christians. As for metaphoric resurrection not being believed, the larger question would be not so much how many, but why not?
If the evidence of natural science and HC are applied fairly to all of Christian doctrine, and not just arbitrarily chosen to YEC, then belief in a metaphoric resurrection would actually be more intellectually consistent than a disbelief in one, and a blind faith in the other.

I don't care what YECs believe. I just don't want it taught in public school science classes. I also don't particularly appreciate the "You're not a real Christian" attitude and think that a Christians only forum is the right place to work that out.

Nobody here is at liberty to make the 'you're not a real Christian" claim, so this is not the place to work that out.

The YECs don't think so and will be happy to pry our fingers off the gunwale when the time comes.

Oh for sure, Christians devouring their own works both ways. I don't deny you that.
Tit for tat then.
Still, the elephant in the room remains. Once we start pulling on that thread to keep our Christianity in alignment with the discoveries of history and science, where is the coherent argument for Virgin Births and Perpetual Virginity, and hundred year old ladies giving birth to nations?

 

[JacksBratt]

Why not? The purpose of the kind of elementary science courses taught in public school is primarily to teach what science is, how scientists collect data and reach their conclusions. Right or wrong, like it or not, the ToE is science and YEC is not.

2 x 2 = 5..... right or wrong it is math.

Great logic.

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

4. Young Earth Creationism cannot be true because it makes God a liar.

What about lineage of Christ? The names of real people (including Adam) or what?

I am very sure ancient religious Jews (including Jesus and His disciples) are young earth creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

Before the age of Higher Criticism, of course.
We are not talking about people from other faith traditions. We are talking about people within the Christian faith tradition.
There was even a time within my own lifetime, when atheism did not include the larger swath of people that we would meet.

So there were no serious controversies within Christendom about doctrine before the 1880s?

Polls of the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the lands of former Christiandom are readily available. I think that it would be very easy to refute those numbers, if they are not believed.

Depends on which lands you are talking about; Western Europe, maybe?

Metaphoric resurrection itself is a common theme of liberal Christians. As for metaphoric resurrection not being believed, the larger question would be not so much how many, but why not?

So forget about the liberal Christians. What about very conservative Christians who are not YECs? What about the Copts, say, or the Armenians? Are you seriously claiming that the 'metaphoric resurrection' is popular with them? What about your own denomination?

If the evidence of natural science and HC are applied fairly to all of Christian doctrine, and not just arbitrarily chosen to YEC, then belief in a metaphoric resurrection would actually be more intellectually consistent than a disbelief in one, and a blind faith in the other.

It looks like you've swallowed the YEC line on this one.

]Nobody here is at liberty to make the 'you're not a real Christian" claim, so this is not the place to work that out.

People are at liberty here to do whatever the (conservative Evangelical) moderators of this forum allow.

Oh for sure, Christians devouring their own works both ways. I don't deny you that.
Tit for tat then.
Still, the elephant in the room remains. Once we start pulling on that thread to keep our Christianity in alignment with the discoveries of history and science, where is the coherent argument for Virgin Births and Perpetual Virginity, and hundred year old ladies giving birth to nations?

LOL! Look out ! It's the slippery slope! But I have a hard time swallowing that kind of argument. If modern science disappeared tomorrow I still would not accept Genesis as 100% accurate literal history because I don't think that's what the author's intention was.

 

[JacksBratt]

If modern science disappeared tomorrow I still would not accept Genesis as 100% accurate literal history because I don't think that's what the author's intention was.

I'm curious. What, then, do you figure the author's purpose was for the statements "there was evening, there was morning the first day", "second day", "third day"....?

These are pretty specific.

The author also went out of their way to state that each animal was made "unto it's kind"

 

[Aman777]

I don't care if YEC is taught in schools or not, but neither should the TOE.....

What Christians have taught for thousands of years is that in 6 of God's Days, He made everything that exists and then He rests or ceases from ALL of His creating. That is God's Truth which agrees in every way with every discovery of mankind.

The above story IS the Truth Scientifically since today remains the 6th Day. The story is also the Truth Historically and is supported by History. WHY do we settle for teaching a half-truth like the False ToE? instead of God's Truth as written in the first 34 verses of Genesis?

 

[Aman777]

The author also went out of their way to state that each animal was made "unto it's kind"

Not quite since Genesis does not refer to animals as "it's" kind. This is because there are two kinds. Their kind speaks of the Trinity's kind and His kind speaks of the kind Jesus made with His Own Hands.

 

[Aman777]

What, then, do you figure the author's purpose was for the statements "there was evening, there was morning the first day", "second day", "third day"....?

Each of God's "Days" is best understood as Ages since each is Billions of years in length in man's time. We live today on the 6th Day, the Day of Salvation. Today will NOT end until after Jesus rules and reigns here for a thousand years.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm curious. What, then, do you figure the author's purpose was for the statements "there was evening, there was morning the first day", "second day", "third day"....?

These are pretty specific.

And could also be poetic.

The author also went out of their way to state that each animal was made "unto it's kind"

But there is no biblical evidence that "kinds" was intended to establish an immutable divine taxonomy immune to evolution. The Jewish interpretation is that an orderly creation was being described--figs don't grow on apple trees and cows do not give birth to sheep. This is similar to the Darwinian principle of reproductive similarity, that is, no normal offspring will be very different from its parents.

 

[SolomonVII]

So there were no serious controversies within Christendom about doctrine before the 1880s?

that does not follow from anything I said.

Depends on which lands you are talking about; Western Europe, maybe?
So forget about the liberal Christians. What about very conservative Christians who are not YECs? What about the Copts, say, or the Armenians? Are you seriously claiming that the 'metaphoric resurrection' is popular with them? What about your own denomination?

I am seriously suggesting that secular thought in general is rampant among Christianity in general. This would include the EO in places like the former soviets of the USSR. I am seriously suggesting that that the two things that you alluded to in your first reply to me, namely science and higher criticism, has seriously changed the way that people regard the nature of faith.
But this has not yet addressed the elephant in the room...

It looks like you've swallowed the YEC line on this one.

Nope. That is a wrong reading of my intent.

People are at liberty here to do whatever the (conservative Evangelical) moderators of this forum allow.

Or the liberal Christian moderators allow for that point. Moderators here are not a monolith of groupthink. It doesn't change the fact that it is against forum rules to argue that Christians here are not Christians.

LOL! Look out ! It's the slippery slope! But I have a hard time swallowing that kind of argument. If modern science disappeared tomorrow I still would not accept Genesis as 100% accurate literal history because I don't think that's what the author's intention was.

I am not asking you to accept that. I do not myself. What I am challenging you (and myself as well) is to be intellectually honest, and dare to apply the same methods to the rest of the Bible as you(we) are to the first few chapters of Genesis.

Laugh all you want. The elephant in the room remains. That gauntlet laid down by a YECer here pages back remains unanswered by any of us.

 

[Speedwell]

I am seriously suggesting that secular thought in general is rampant among Christianity in general. This would include the EO in places like the former soviets of the USSR. I am seriously suggesting that that the two things that you alluded to in your first reply to me, namely science and higher criticism, has seriously changed the way that people regard the nature of faith.

I'm not so sure that is true on the scale you suggest, outside of Western Christendom. I suspect that the rank-and- file worshiper in the Eastern and Oriental churches hasn't changed whatever ideas he may have on the subject for centuries. No doubt many if not most believe that Genesis is more or less historical, but that doesn't make them YECs.
They are not Protestants; they don't hold with Sola Scriptura; they are not taught literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretation and plenary verbal inspiration. They don't need to go to elaborate ends in interpreting Genesis and denying science just to preserve those doctrines.

Or the liberal Christian moderators allow for that point. Moderators here are not a monolith of groupthink. It doesn't change the fact that it is against forum rules to argue that Christians here are not Christians.

And it doesn't change the fact that only YECs are allowed to get away with it.

I am not asking you to accept that. I do not myself. What I am challenging you (and myself as well) is to be intellectually honest, and dare to apply the same methods to the rest of the Bible as you(we) are to the first few chapters of Genesis.

I don't think that would be intellectually honest. The Bible is an heterogeneous collection of texts spanning centuries, written by different authors in different languages for different audiences and occasions and embodying a variety of literary agendas. Why should we use the same methods on all of them?

But this has not yet addressed the elephant in the room...

Which is? I haven't read the whole thread.

 

[JacksBratt]

And could also be poetic.

But there is no biblical evidence that "kinds" was intended to establish an immutable divine taxonomy immune to evolution. The Jewish interpretation is that an orderly creation was being described--figs don't grow on apple trees and cows do not give birth to sheep. This is similar to the Darwinian principle of reproductive similarity, that is, no normal offspring will be very different from its parents.

Well we know they are and were not immune to "evolving" This is why we have so many different kinds of sheep, goats, dogs, cats, fowl, horses... they all evolved from one "kind" and stayed that way...

It states that each was made as it's kind. It does not say he made the things in the oceans and from that kind and from this kind made another kind... they were all made at the same time and were of a certain "kind" and produced offspring of their specific "kind"

 

[Abraxos]

All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

God would most certainly be a liar if you had interpreted the evidence that way. As others have probably pointed out, you are been deceived. (2 Tim 3:13)

Fossilization can only occur through very specific circumstances. Just burying flora and fauna does not fossilize it. That is why it is extremely rare to see fossilization occur naturally and abundantly today. The earth's conditions are not right and the evolutionary interpretation is not holding up to honest observations.

For example, we have fossils with soft tissue, including hairs, feathers and stomach and intestine contents. We have millions of fossilized Jellyfish, fossilized raindrops, a fossil of a fish still having his brekkie. Why would I assume that fossils occurred slowly? This is evidence of rapid burial and rapid enclosure, sealed safe from oxidation, and other external forces that would destroy it.

Evolutionists have to flop flop to catastrophism to explain this, which poses a problem for them because of the geological formations of slow and gradual change and the placement of fossils in them under uniformitarianism.

 

[Open Heart]

What about lineage of Christ? The names of real people (including Adam) or what?

I am very sure ancient religious Jews (including Jesus and His disciples) are young earth creationists.

Yes, the Orthodox are more inclined to be creationists. But not all of them, I can assure you. I used to be Orthodox and I knew of others who were like myself.

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Yes, the Orthodox are more inclined to be creationists. But not all of them, I can assure you. I used to be Orthodox and I knew of others who were like myself.

Are Orthodox Christians "Old" or "Young" Earthers?

Unfortunately, unlike RCC, there is no systematic creed or catechism in Orthodoxy.

 

[Aman777]

It states that each was made as it's kind. It does not say he made the things in the oceans and from that kind and from this kind made another kind... they were all made at the same time and were of a certain "kind" and produced offspring of their specific "kind"

It's another reason to read the KJV of the Bible, since it identifies the different "kinds".

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

The verse speaks of 'Their" kind and "His" kind. Their refers to those created ETERNALLY by the Trinity. His refers to those creatures made by the Hands of Jesus and which are TEMPORARY creatures, like mankind, subject to death.

 

[Open Heart]

For example, we have fossils with soft tissue, including hairs, feathers and stomach and intestine contents. We have millions of fossilized Jellyfish, fossilized raindrops, a fossil of a fish still having his brekkie. Why would I assume that fossils occurred slowly? This is evidence of rapid burial and rapid enclosure, sealed safe from oxidation, and other external forces that would destroy it.

Sure. So? Catastophes do happen. It doesn't mean Noah's flood, and it doesn't mean a young earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

To the extent that we are believers in the Creator, we are clinging to the same lifeboat...
Is it really the best use of our time to eat our own?

The Christian thing would be to acknowledge that evolution and creationism don't matter to Christian belief, and that both evolutionists and creationists are equally able to be Christians.

And then we can let science sort out the issue, which is where it belongs.

 

[pat34lee]

And then we can let science sort out the issue, which is where it belongs.

Science is just one term for man's attempt to explain God's work (another name is religion). So no, I would rather let God sort it out, because he, not man, not science, is the creator.