• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The dangers of YEC'ism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will." ~Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 1982

"The church serves no good end by clinging to failed interpretations of the Bible and refusing to explore new directions. Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God's truth wherever it can be found. Conservative scholars must develop a more aggressive attitude toward creation and encourage the church's youth to enter not only the pastorate, mission work, and theology but also such fields as the natural sciences, archeology, an-thropology, and the social sciences. If anything, Christians should be preeminently motivated to investigate the intricacies of God's created order; confident that a better grasp of both God's Word and God's works will be forthcoming." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pp 304-312.
 

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The real danger is in YEC teaching that evolution is entirely inconsistent with Scripture and you have to choose one or the other. I have no problem with people believing in YEC'ism. My problem is in teaching our children that if evolution is true, then the Bible can't be trusted. Isn't the danger in this position obvious? Also, when presenting Christ to the non-Christian, if they have been presented with the idea that Scripture absolutely teaches that the earth is 10,000 years old, a very large majority will assume that the Scripture can't be trusted then.

The beliefs on these issues are not salvation issues, but YEC's have conflated them to salvation issues to the detriment of Christianity itself.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Alternatively:

A. Evolution contradicts AV1611's interpretation of the Bible
B. Evolution is true
C. AV1611's interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
May be you had better read Genesis chapters 1 and 2 where God created the earth in six days; not weeks, months, years or millions thereof, but six literal days. Evolution therefore contradicts the Holy Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
[mode=Sarcasm]
Wow! I never thought of that! I'll go and read Genesis 1 and 2!
[/mode]

Of course I've read these passages. I do not interpret them the way you do. Do you imagine that if I read them often enough I will?

Why do read mythological literature as if it were historical? Do you do the same with Arthurian legends or the Eddas?
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Why do [you]read mythological literature as if it were historical?
Well no wonder you are a backslider if you believe that the Holy Bible is mythological literature and place it on the same level as Arthurian legend.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Give the angry smiley a rest.

I do not equate "the bible" with myth. I equate Genesis 1-11 with myth. It's not on the same level as Arthurian myth, because it has a loftier function, but it is in the same genre because neither are literally and historically factual.

Talking snakes, symbolically named trees, numeralogically significant creation chronologies - it looks like myth to me.

And please spare me the usual exchange of posts where carefully and painfully I have to explain why "myth" does not equal "false" or "lie", because I don't believe for a minute you are stupid or uneducated enough to make that ridiculous equivocation.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Why not? Probably a lot of it is. Certainly legendary, at any rate. I am agnostic on the subject of the literal existence of Abraham.

Bear in mind I tend towards the idea that when the book of the Law was "found" in the Temple the ink may not have been entirely dry.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
That's running through a large number of disparate texts that are of different genres.

Are you trying to find out which books I think are historically accurate (answer - none of them), which are historically based with a lot of legendary material (Genesis 12 onwards), or trying to prove some other point?
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins i.e. substitutory atonement? If so how do you know? Could this not be just a legend? How do you determine what is truth and what is myth when you read the Holy Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now, wait a second. Are you even aware that the majority of Christians in the world today do NOT read Genesis 1 and 2 literally?

You act as if the Bible must be literal history in order to be Truth. Maybe you should do a bit more reading and follow some of these threads a bit more first before making blanket statements.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
The dispensationalist has a consistently literal method of Biblical interpretation. We give to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage. Sometimes called the grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. Symbols and figurative language are interpreted plainly and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.

Many Christians I have talked to do not hold to Genesis 1 and 2 being literal however they are then unable to defend their own faith. :crosself:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.