Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

BCP1928 said:

No one else needs to find it either convincing or necessary.

Click to expand...

That statement is much too far reaching and generalized.

Vambram said:

I was giving my personal opinion answering your question. However, I choose to use and believe by faith the NAMES that the Lord God inspired Luke and Paul to use.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why they would need to be inspired on that point. The Genesis story was well known to them.

Vambram said:

That statement is much too far reaching and generalized.

Click to expand...

I don't know why. None of the essential doctrines of the faith depend on YEC and most Christians do without it. Some Christians always have.

BCP1928 said:

I'm not sure why they would need to be inspired on that point. The Genesis story was well known to them.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that the Scriptures were inspired, or God-breathed, by the Lord God to the authors of the original manuscripts?

II Timothy 3:14-17

Vambram said:

Do you believe that the Scriptures were inspired, or God-breathed, by the Lord God to the authors of the original manuscripts?

II Timothy 3:14-17

Click to expand...

Yes, and I think that it is universally believed by all Christians.

BCP1928 said:

I don't know why. None of the essential doctrines of the faith depend on YEC and most Christians do without it. Some Christians always have.

Click to expand...

If I have doubts about what the Scriptures says concerning Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden, if the Bible is telling a story that is inaccurate concerning them, then it is reasonable to me to doubt the accuracy and inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures by the Lord Jesus Christ concerning anything else in the Bible.

Vambram said:

If I have doubts about what the Scriptures says concerning Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden, if the Bible is telling a story that is inaccurate concerning them, then it is reasonable to me to doubt the accuracy and inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures by the Lord Jesus Christ concerning anything else in the Bible.

Click to expand...

As I said, if you would have those doubts then you had better stick with YEC. Consider Matt 5:30. Maybe for you that "right hand" is science.

Vambram said:

For me, if I doubt the many different passages of the Bible in the OT and the NT which teach that Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans in the Garden of Eden, then I will also doubt the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the doubt the rest of Scripture.

Click to expand...

I would not nor do I, nor do many others. That's very much a you problem over anything else.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I would not nor do I, nor do many others. That's very much a you problem over anything else.

Click to expand...

I don't consider that to be a problem at all for myself or anyone else who strongly believes YEC is correct based upon all of the Bible Scriptures on that topic as well as interpreting the scientific evidence from a YEC point of view. This is absolutely not a problem for me at all. Therefore, it is imperative for OEC Christians and YEC Christians to continue to try to disagree, agreeably.

Vambram said:

Do you believe that the Scriptures were inspired, or God-breathed, by the Lord God to the authors of the original manuscripts?

II Timothy 3:14-17

Click to expand...

I'd say that the Creation Story that found it's way into the beliefs of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe of desert people made it's way into their culture by way of previous religions before it.

dlamberth said:

I'd say that the Creation Story that found it's way into the beliefs of an ancient nomadic middle-eastern tribe of desert people made it's way into their culture by way of previous religions before it.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree because that point of view negates the various passages of Scriptures in the OT & NT on the topic of Creation, the Garden of Eden, and Adam & Eve.

PsychoSarah said:

Why make a world that appears older than it is, BEYOND what is necessary for function? Earth wouldn't have to have all these qualities that indicate old age to have a sustainable environment.

It's as pointless as the idea of Adam from creation myth having a belly button.

Click to expand...

What we perceive as embedded age might just be the result of the creation process.

PsychoSarah said:

Forbid people copied down the bible a little incorrect. I don't even think "billion" was in the ancient vocabulary.

Click to expand...

There are several examples in scripture that are used to convey millions or billions. They used multiplication like ten thousand thousands, and they used terms like as numerous as the stars or like the grains of sand in the ocean. What is never used in reference to huge numbers like this is the term 6 days.

Vambram said:

...interpreting the scientific evidence from a YEC point of view.

Click to expand...

There we have a problem. All of the interpretations "from a YEC point of view" we have seen so far (including Creation.com) are inadequate and sometimes outright mendacious. The worst fault with them are that they are so often contrasted with misrepresentations of conventional science. It's gotten to the point where if a creationist says something like "Atheistic science tells us..." or "The theory of evolution requires..." you can just about bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib. Interpreting the evidence "from a YEC point of view" is bootless. You shouldn't waste your time with it.

Vambram said:

Respectfully, I disagree because that point of view negates the various passages of Scriptures in the OT & NT on the topic of Creation, the Garden of Eden, and Adam & Eve.

Click to expand...

You brought that up in a previous post, but I still don't follow the logic of it. Anybody discussing the theological implications of the Garden story would use the names Adam and Eve, even if they though it was a myth.

BNR32FAN said:

There are several examples in scripture that are used to convey millions or billions. They used multiplication like ten thousand thousands, and they used terms like as numerous as the stars or like the grains of sand in the ocean. What is never used in reference to huge numbers like this is the term 6 days.

Click to expand...

Of course not. There is no historiographical or linguistic support for the so-called "day age" theory.

BCP1928 said:

You brought that up in a previous post, but I still don't follow the logic of it. Anybody discussing the theological implications of the Garden story would use the names Adam and Eve, even if they though it was a myth.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this opinion because God inspired Scriptures in the New Testament specifically does name Adam. It boggles my mind to consider the New Testament verses confirming Adam IF he & the Garden of Eden was a myth.

BCP1928 said:

There we have a problem. All of the interpretations "from a YEC point of view" we have seen so far (including Creation.com) are inadequate and sometimes outright mendacious. The worst fault with them are that they are so often contrasted with misrepresentations of conventional science. It's gotten to the point where if a creationist says something like "Atheistic science tells us..." or "The theory of evolution requires..." you can just about bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib. Interpreting the evidence "from a YEC point of view" is bootless. You shouldn't waste your time with it.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I shall continue to disagree with your characterization of the authenticity of the YEC scientists and their interpretations of the evidence.

Vambram said:

I disagree with this opinion because God inspired Scriptures in the New Testament specifically does name Adam. It boggles my mind to consider the New Testament verses confirming Adam IF he & the Garden of Eden was a myth.

Click to expand...

What else would you call him? I really don't see why Luke or Paul would need to be inspired to do so. They already knew that Adam was the name given by God to the first man.

Vambram said:

Respectfully, I shall continue to disagree with your characterization of the authenticity of the YEC scientists and their interpretations of the evidence.

Click to expand...

OK, but I have to remind you, as one Christian to another, that creation science is not honest science and using it to evangelize puts Christanity in a bad light.

Here is what Augustine of Hippo had to say on the point:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

And again, Thomas Aquinas:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."