The issue with YEC

[gluadys]

I wouldn't say they denied the fossil exists when they are looking at it. I would say they interpret it differently.

Of course, they are not denying the fossil exists. But they are refusing to deal with the dinosaurian characteristics of the fossil.

This is the difference between people. Some can look at things and get a different perspective than you. You aren't trying to say that everyone thinks and perceives the same are you?

When it comes to the stratigraphic placement of the fossils, it is quite simply impossible to make it agree with any sort of flood scenario. If you do not know this, it indicates that you do not know what the stratigraphic placement is and why it cannot, under any circumstances, be attributed to a global flood.

I don't think they deny that geology exists. Maybe you can show me where they say this - I don't spend too much time reading up on creationists or evolutionists.

Of course, they do not deny that geology, as a study, exists. But they do deny/ignore the specific geological evidence which cannot be explained by a YEC scenario. I gave you two examples.

It seems that some te-ist mission here is to counter creationism with evolutionism, thinking this will solve the falling away issue. Something that doesn't focus totally on Jesus Christ will not solve the falling away issue.

I don't think any TE here would say that putting this controversy behind us would solve the falling away issue any more than putting the heliocentric/geocentric issue did. But it would remove an unnecessary stumbling block.

Then, if that is not the real issue, people could not use it as an excuse.

Well this forum is suppose to be a place of fellowship, isn't it? Or is it a place to war against beliefs?

As I understand it, the subforums are for fellowship. This one is for discussion and debate among Christians. Just like apologetics.

You would think this might hit someone to mean something. Maybe the fact that one cannot reconcile evolution with scripture and creation can be?

The fact is that if one was diligent enough to understand the Bible in the original language and read the very early church father's writings throughly, one would see that an allegorical teaching of creation where God used billions of years is not to found. In fact you will find the contrary to be true that all the early church fathers believed in a literal creation.

I do believe in a literal creation. I do believe that God really, literally created a real world. I just don't believe in the creationist version of how and when God did that, and you can find plenty of ancient Jewish and Christian teachers who agree that the 6 days are not necessarily literal. Vance has more expertise in that area than I do, so I will let him provide the references.

Creationism has its time in churches to counter naturalistic evolutionists.

IMO, it is better to counter naturalistic evolutionists with theistic evolution.

The Bible supports God creating man as a special creation. It does not support man as just another animal.

And I don't disagree with that.

Was man given stewardship over the animals even though he is one.

Yes. Are you forgetting that in ancient households the steward who was given rule over the household slaves was also himself a slave?

Evolutionism confuses the fall of mankind, it confuses when the soul was breathed into man, it confuses the reason why man was made.

I don't doubt that you are confused when you try to examine these things from an evolutionary perspective, largely because you don't really understand evolution, but I can assure you, I have no confusion on these matters.

Look at Peter, he took his eyes off Jesus and sank in the water. Do you believe that if one falters in their faith because of creationism that you should teach them evolutionism and not Jesus Christ?

I think you should make it clear that they have freedom to believe in either creationism or evolution, as it is not a salvation issue and they can be true followers of Jesus Christ whatever they decide on this matter. IOW, just as you say, refocus their attention on Jesus. But, if necessary, refer them to TEs you know who can explain the TE position clearly so they are not left in limbo, not knowing what their options are.

You don't think that it would be Satan's tool to have us spend more time arguing about evolution vs creation and less time on Jesus Christ the one who gives eternal life?
You don't think Satan would want us to counter a problem with one of the two theories rather than Jesus Christ? Satan doesn't fear evolution or creation. He fears Jesus Christ. So preach Jesus Christ.

I do. So, I put it to you again. Who is putting the time and effort into maintaining this controversy?

Well that is the truth, I am sorry to say. You can still believe in Jesus Christ and evolution. But it is not consistent with scripture. Yec's also believe in things that are not consistent with scripture.

No, it is not the truth. It is only if one insists the early chapters of Genesis must be interpreted as literal history that any inconsistency occurs between scripture and science. So what you really mean is that evolution is not consistent with this interpretation of scripture, not that it is inconsistent with scripture per se.

Your believe doesn't make the Bible wrong. It is our misunderstanding that is wrong, not the Bible. We tend to make this argument that we are right and the Bible must be wrong, kinda of thinking.

And I never claimed my belief makes the bible wrong.

We cannot afford to be wrong about Jesus Christ. And it is through Jesus Christ that we are kept in faith. Look to what Paul spoke of about this. He didn't say creation keeps us in faith, he didn't say Moses keeps us in faith, he says Jesus Christ keeps us in faith. And if someone is falling from faith, they were not being kept in Jesus Christ; they didn't keep their eyes on Him.

And we can do that without rejecting what science has told us about evolution. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to keep our eyes on Christ. Evolution does not take our eyes away from Christ until someone starts insisting that there is a conflict here. And who is doing that?

Evolution is not a topic of teaching because it has not place in the church for being taught. It is inconsistent with scripture.

No, it is inconsistent only with your interpretation of scripture.

Young people do not need to deal with creationists. All they have to do is look to Jesus Christ and if someone questions them about it, they can simple ask where does salvation come from.

But they have to be taught that. There is a teaching ministry in the church for a reason. After all, scripture is not just a guide to salvation, but also to Christian doctrine and Christian living. One does not automatically wake up the morning after one has accepted Christ with full knowledge of what to think and do as a Christian. Even the church as a whole needs to be guided out of error. Look at how long slavery was tolerated by Christians.

So the church has a duty to address the questions new Christians will raise about marriage and divorce, working on the sabbath, the doctrine of predestination, and yes--the reconciliation of science and scripture. None of these are salvation issues, but they are important to Christians seeking to live as Christians in this world.

I am not aware of any that spend their time preaching creationism rather than Jesus Christ. Maybe you can help me so that I can know.

I was a member of such a church for nearly five years and I have seen it in at least half a dozen others just in my own community. The church I belonged to was an evangelical Baptist church. And the others included Christian Reformed, Associated Gospel and Pentecostal churches.

How does evolution fit into God redeeming mankind? Does evolution assist Jesus Christ with salvation? I don't see it having anything to do with it.

You are right. Evolution has no more to do with redemption than gravity does. That is another reason it should be a non-issue in the churches.

I would think that if a true theistic evolutionists really wanted to be truthful and consistent with evolution, they would believe in a literal fall as written in Genesis 3.

I do

That is an important understanding and to suggest it is a myth or an allegorical statement that didn't happen but we all need salvation anyways is to undermine its teaching.

Believing that the scripture tells us about the fall in a story that bears all the literary marks of a myth is not at all the same thing as believing the fall itself did not happen. The evidence that the fall did happen is all around us, and when we are honest with ourselved, we see it in us. The details of when and how the fall happened are not important. Genesis gives us a portrait of the fall that is true, whether or not it is literal.

If we need a realistic salvation, it is because of a realistic fall of mankind that happened ages ago.

And even more so because we fall and are fallen today.

You would think if you wanted to keep the belief that the earth is old you would go the gap theory way. It is actually a much better theory than evolutionism. It relies on the original language usage which many evolutionists omit in trying to say Genesis is a myth. The claim is inconsistent with the actual texts.

No, gap theory is even more incredible than young-earth theory.

It seems to me that you have, by stating that because creationism should be on par with mormons and jehovah witnesses, put creationsim/evolutionism on par with Jesus Christ's divinty. That is what is in question in those two religions. This is the real problem I see with so many here that origins is somehow equal to Jesus Christ. You have demonstrated to me by this statement that this is your belief. And this is where the problem lies. It is rather unfortunate.

I hadn't put it on those terms in my mind, but you may be right. John tells us that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, and that by him all was created. Paul likewise confirms that through Christ and by him and for him all things were made and in him all things hold together.

I cannot affirm Christ as creator and sustainer of the universe and also hold that all the evidence for the age of the earth and the evolution of its creatures is so much smoke and mirrors. To me the face of creation is the face of Christ. (No, I am not suggesting pantheism.) And to deny what is plainly written in creation is to deny the One who made it as it is.

But you haven't always kept it, just like I have not always kept it.

I was drawing your attention back to the context in which the issue was raised. When you generalize it to all of life, of course we have all sinned against God and neighbour.

I can still truthfully affirm that I have not despised anyone on the basis of their belief or of our mutual disgreement.

I can also truthfully confess that I have despised people for other reasons. I have, for example, despised men who beat their wives, especially if they also professed to be Christians.

 

[SBG]

Of course, they are not denying the fossil exists. But they are refusing to deal with the dinosaurian characteristics of the fossil.

Wouldn't that be an interpretation of the evidence issue and not the flat denial that the evidence is non-existent?

When it comes to the stratigraphic placement of the fossils, it is quite simply impossible to make it agree with any sort of flood scenario. If you do not know this, it indicates that you do not know what the stratigraphic placement is and why it cannot, under any circumstances, be attributed to a global flood.

You can't say impossible because people are doing it. You may think it is wrong, but it is not impossible.

I don't care that you know I don't have an education in stratigraphic placement. I could easily google it, if I found the desire to do so.

I do have an education in Jesus Christ and I believe that is what truly matters.

Of course, they do not deny that geology, as a study, exists. But they do deny/ignore the specific geological evidence which cannot be explained by a YEC scenario. I gave you two examples.

So yec-ist say the two examples you gave are non-existent, or do they interpret them differently? Remember your first claim is that yec's deny the existence of evidence not that they interpret it differently.

I don't think any TE here would say that putting this controversy behind us would solve the falling away issue any more than putting the heliocentric/geocentric issue did. But it would remove an unnecessary stumbling block.

Of course not the pride loves to try and prove we are right and someone else is wrong.

Yeah, God creating as the Bible states is a stumbling block. You can make this your mantra, but I am not falling for it. You can claim it is this belief that ruins peoples faith, but God knows the truth. God's teachings aren't always the easiest to grapple with and can cause people to fall away. Yet there is no need to remove them. The solution lies in Jesus Christ and Him alone. I don't see how hard that is to understand.

Then, if that is not the real issue, people could not use it as an excuse.

Really? I can demonstrate this to be wrong, but I bet you won't believe me. When God came down to the garden of eden, Adam and Eve hid from Him. When they told God what they did, Adam blamed Eve, which was really blaming God for what he did. That wasn't the real issue why Adam did what he did, but he used it anyways.

People use excuses that are not real issues all the time.

As I understand it, the subforums are for fellowship. This one is for discussion and debate among Christians. Just like apologetics.

You don't think at any place you ought to fellowship rather than war against Christians? How about the many non-believers that read what we are saying? Should we be an example for them in this forum, or should we continue to be ignorant of this?

This forum goes beyond debate. It goes to personal ridicule, personal attacks, attacks on the Bible, and no one here listens to what another says but rather looks for what they can refute. Is that the example you are hoping to set for the non-believers to read?

I do believe in a literal creation. I do believe that God really, literally created a real world. I just don't believe in the creationist version of how and when God did that, and you can find plenty of ancient Jewish and Christian teachers who agree that the 6 days are not necessarily literal. Vance has more expertise in that area than I do, so I will let him provide the references.

Do you believe God created as written in Genesis 1-2? Do you believe He actually did this creating as written?

All Vance has presented is Augustine saying he believes in a instanteous and literal six day creation. Not one church father states a billion year, million year creation, not one.

IMO, it is better to counter naturalistic evolutionists with theistic evolution.

Personally, I would counter all non-believers with Jesus Christ crucified and risen. I don't see why anyone would try the origin route instead.

And I don't disagree with that.

Evolution says man is a higher animal.

Yes. Are you forgetting that in ancient households the steward who was given rule over the household slaves was also himself a slave?

We are slaves, whether believers or not. I haven't forgotton that. But we are not all animals. There was a distinction made there when God did put Adam in charge of the animals. Unfortunately, many miss this.

I don't doubt that you are confused when you try to examine these things from an evolutionary perspective, largely because you don't really understand evolution, but I can assure you, I have no confusion on these matters.

Ah well, thank you for asserting that you understand evolution better than me and providing an example of pride. You will notice that I never said 'I' in the sentence you were responding to.

I have yet to see anyone here explain to someone who asks when the soul was put into man with an actual real Biblical answer. All I see is speculation.

I think you should make it clear that they have freedom to believe in either creationism or evolution, as it is not a salvation issue and they can be true followers of Jesus Christ whatever they decide on this matter. IOW, just as you say, refocus their attention on Jesus. But, if necessary, refer them to TEs you know who can explain the TE position clearly so they are not left in limbo, not knowing what their options are.

I think we ought to be true to Biblical teaching and not to what we want to believe concerning issues that are covered in the Bible. So far, each te that has responded to me in the last few days has asserted that Jesus and evolution need to be presented to the one faltering in their faith. I believe this is wrong.

You have one simple option. Believe in Jesus Christ or not. It is simple as that.

I do. So, I put it to you again. Who is putting the time and effort into maintaining this controversy?

On this forum? Easy enough, theistic evolutionists by far keep this debate going. You bring the attention on yourselves here. If you kept quiet, the issue would go away here, because creationists wouldn't have anyone to debate against. Ever think about that?

Are you aware how big of a push is made for the belief of evolution? In the schools? When comparing the big picture evolution dominates over creationism. And because there is a handful of people who have made a small presence trying to refocus people on the teachings of the Bible - creation - evolutionists have a problem because they have not successfully silenced everyone.

No, it is not the truth. It is only if one insists the early chapters of Genesis must be interpreted as literal history that any inconsistency occurs between scripture and science. So what you really mean is that evolution is not consistent with this interpretation of scripture, not that it is inconsistent with scripture per se.

No. There is no need to assume what I am saying. I have been rather clear. Evolution is not compatible with Scripture, period. Simple as that. Take the time and learn hebrew, read Genesis 1-3 in its original language, study how ancient hebrew allegorical stories were written and you will see that the verb usage is different.

And we can do that without rejecting what science has told us about evolution. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to keep our eyes on Christ. Evolution does not take our eyes away from Christ until someone starts insisting that there is a conflict here. And who is doing that?

If you agree that we need to keep our eyes on Jesus Christ, why even bring up evolution to one who is faltering in their faith as if it will save them?

I insist that evolution is not compatible with Scripture. You want to believe, go right ahead. But if one is faltering in their faith, it is not evolutionism that will bring them back to faith. I don't understand why anyone would think this would be the answer, even in the slightest. Jesus Christ brings people to faith and keeps them in faith.

No, it is inconsistent only with your interpretation of scripture.

No. If you were aware of the different usages of verbs in the hebrew language that are used in literal writings and in allegorical writings you would then understand that Genesis 1-3 were meant to be read literally.

But they have to be taught that. There is a teaching ministry in the church for a reason. After all, scripture is not just a guide to salvation, but also to Christian doctrine and Christian living. One does not automatically wake up the morning after one has accepted Christ with full knowledge of what to think and do as a Christian. Even the church as a whole needs to be guided out of error. Look at how long slavery was tolerated by Christians.

So the church has a duty to address the questions new Christians will raise about marriage and divorce, working on the sabbath, the doctrine of predestination, and yes--the reconciliation of science and scripture. None of these are salvation issues, but they are important to Christians seeking to live as Christians in this world.

Then preach the truth. As I said, a study of the hebrew language will help one understand the difference.

I was a member of such a church for nearly five years and I have seen it in at least half a dozen others just in my own community. The church I belonged to was an evangelical Baptist church. And the others included Christian Reformed, Associated Gospel and Pentecostal churches.

And they primarly taught creation rather than Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

You are right. Evolution has no more to do with redemption than gravity does. That is another reason it should be a non-issue in the churches.

Well some people want to be in correct doctrine. I do. So we seek the truth. God has given His truths in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Jesus is above all things and if we struggle with issues in the Bible, a refocus on Jesus is needed.

I do



Believing that the scripture tells us about the fall in a story that bears all the literary marks of a myth is not at all the same thing as believing the fall itself did not happen. The evidence that the fall did happen is all around us, and when we are honest with ourselved, we see it in us. The details of when and how the fall happened are not important. Genesis gives us a portrait of the fall that is true, whether or not it is literal.



And even more so because we fall and are fallen today.

We don't refall today. To say so is the claim we were at sometime in a sinless state, which is not truth. There was one literal fall of mankind and one fall was all that was needed because no matter who was there, excluding Jesus Christ, we all would have done the same. Jesus came because only He could do what we could not and that is what makes Jesus significantly different than us, He is God and did what none of us could.

No, gap theory is even more incredible than young-earth theory.

Gap theory rides on the interpretation of the hebrew word hayah in Genesis 1:2. It has many meanings and one of the meanings can be used to interpret that there is a significant time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is much more legitimate than theistic evolutionists who assert the original language means what it clearly doesn't.

I hadn't put it on those terms in my mind, but you may be right. John tells us that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, and that by him all was created. Paul likewise confirms that through Christ and by him and for him all things were made and in him all things hold together.

I cannot affirm Christ as creator and sustainer of the universe and also hold that all the evidence for the age of the earth and the evolution of its creatures is so much smoke and mirrors. To me the face of creation is the face of Christ. (No, I am not suggesting pantheism.) And to deny what is plainly written in creation is to deny the One who made it as it is.

Do you believe that evidence alone speaks?

I just don't see how you can say creation/evolution are equal to Jesus Christ and His divinty. So much for what the Bible says when it says Jesus Christ is above all things.

I was drawing your attention back to the context in which the issue was raised. When you generalize it to all of life, of course we have all sinned against God and neighbour.

I can still truthfully affirm that I have not despised anyone on the basis of their belief or of our mutual disgreement.

I can also truthfully confess that I have despised people for other reasons. I have, for example, despised men who beat their wives, especially if they also professed to be Christians.

We are all sinners in desperate need of Jesus Christ, whether we believe in Him or not. We who are Christians are the worse offenders because we know better, yet sin anyways. I am not looking for your admitting of anything, I am pointing to the simple fact that whether we are Christians or not, we are in desperate need of Jesus Christ, His grace, mercy and forgiveness. And the fact that He died for everyone, including anyone you despise.

 

[Vance]

No, SBG, the point is that YEC's have put the "origins" issue into play. It is already effecting the message. It is already effecting people's faith. We don't need to bring it up. I have had many Christians and non-Christians alike express doubts in Scripture due to the YEC teaching. This means I have to spend some time trying, with the Spirit's help and guidance, to help them over this hurdle, and show them that Scripture IS still true and reliable, before the discussion can move forward to the Gospel message, since the Scriputre is the foundation of that message. If I say, "but that doesn't matter, because all you need to do is accept Jesus!" they simply respond, "yes, but if Scripture is not true, then why should I believe any of that stuff?" and I have to go back to the issue which is causing them doubts.

Go try and witness on a college campus and you will see! I am a Gideon, and we do Bible distributions at colleges, which is a wonderful place to also present the Gospel message, but you would be amazed how often this issue comes up as a barrier.

 

[gluadys]

Wouldn't that be an interpretation of the evidence issue and not the flat denial that the evidence is non-existent?

They are not dealing with the evidence of dinosaurian traits. They think that having named it "bird" that they can wave away that evidence as if it did not exist. That is not interpretation; it is denial.

You can't say impossible because people are doing it. You may think it is wrong, but it is not impossible.

You would have to show me where, because I have never seen a flood-based explanation of fossil stratigraphy that actually deals with the evidence.

So yec-ist say the two examples you gave are non-existent, or do they interpret them differently? Remember your first claim is that yec's deny the existence of evidence not that they interpret it differently.

I believe I have seen acknowledgement that angular unconformities exist. I have seen no attempt to explain them that conforms to the evidence. In the case of forests on top of forests, I haven't even seen any acknowledgment that the evidence exists.

Yeah, God creating as the Bible states is a stumbling block. You can make this your mantra, but I am not falling for it. You can claim it is this belief that ruins peoples faith, but God knows the truth. God's teachings aren't always the easiest to grapple with and can cause people to fall away. Yet there is no need to remove them. The solution lies in Jesus Christ and Him alone. I don't see how hard that is to understand.

You miss the point. There are plenty of real stumbling blocks in Christianity (like a man rising from the dead). If people are going to reject Christianity, let it be on the basis of essentials like these, not on the basis of unnecessary pseudo-problems like creationism.

People use excuses that are not real issues all the time.

Sure---like the hypocrisy of the preacher. But at least the church is not promoting that sort of excuse. The church is promoting creationism.

You don't think at any place you ought to fellowship rather than war against Christians? How about the many non-believers that read what we are saying? Should we be an example for them in this forum, or should we continue to be ignorant of this?

If we keep the debate civil, I don't think it is inappropriate to discuss our differences. It is not as if the rest of the world is unaware of them.

This forum goes beyond debate. It goes to personal ridicule, personal attacks, attacks on the Bible, and no one here listens to what another says but rather looks for what they can refute. Is that the example you are hoping to set for the non-believers to read?

And when it does, it should be reported. I agree, there is no place for personal attacks in a Christian only forum.

Attacks on the bible? Be careful you are not choosing to see certain statements in that light when they are not intended as such. A different interpretation of scripture is not an attack on scripture.

Do you believe God created as written in Genesis 1-2? Do you believe He actually did this creating as written?

If you are asking do I believe the framework of six days refers to a literal chronological sequence, no. I believe the author was inspired to give us a quasi-poetic account of creation which he chose to set in a six-day framework based on the common cosmology of the time--a cosmology and a chronology which we now know to be inconsistent with the reality of creation.

I still believe this is inspired scripture given to us by the will of God for the purpose of leading us to understand that the universe is his making.

Personally, I would counter all non-believers with Jesus Christ crucified and risen. I don't see why anyone would try the origin route instead.

Certainly, that is the primary approach. But when the unbeliever raises the issue, is it appropriate to duck it?

Evolution says man is a higher animal.

No it doesn't. Evolution does not designate any species as higher or lower.

Ah well, thank you for asserting that you understand evolution better than me and providing an example of pride. You will notice that I never said 'I' in the sentence you were responding to.

Stating a fact is not pride. I do understand evolution better than you. See your statement and my reply just above.

I have yet to see anyone here explain to someone who asks when the soul was put into man with an actual real Biblical answer. All I see is speculation.

The biblical answer is obvious. But unless you can determine the presence of a soul from bits of a skeleton, why should there be a scientific answer at all?

So far, each te that has responded to me in the last few days has asserted that Jesus and evolution need to be presented to the one faltering in their faith. I believe this is wrong.

Only if that is given by the one faltering as a reason for their doubt. It is appropriate to deal with any question the doubting one lays on the table. It is not appropriate to raise questions they are not asking.

You have one simple option. Believe in Jesus Christ or not. It is simple as that.

And if the believer is taking Biology 101 and learning about evolution, and wants to know how this relates to creation---do you just duck the question?

On this forum?

No, not on this forum. In the churches and in the public. This forum would not exist if it were not an issue in those arenas.

Are you aware how big of a push is made for the belief of evolution? In the schools?

I am aware that misguided Christians are trying to overturn the American separation of church and state and get their religious beliefs taught in science classes, yes. I am probably not aware of how ferocious that fight is, because I am protected by the Canadian border, and such things are not happening here. Even though, ironically, we do not have a tradition of church-state separation. In my province and some others, some religious schools are tax-supported. And they teach the theory of evolution in their biology classes, just as the public schools do.

No. There is no need to assume what I am saying. I have been rather clear. Evolution is not compatible with Scripture, period. Simple as that.

And that is your opinion. Simple as that.

Take the time and learn hebrew, read Genesis 1-3 in its original language, study how ancient hebrew allegorical stories were written and you will see that the verb usage is different.

I have studied with people who do know Hebrew and they have not found the verb usage of Genesis to require literal interpretation. I have also seen that Jewish rabbis do not seem to find that Hebrew grammar requires a literal interpretation of the text.

If you agree that we need to keep our eyes on Jesus Christ, why even bring up evolution to one who is faltering in their faith as if it will save them?

I agree. Don't bring it up. Unless they do. If being assured that they do not have to choose between Christ and evolution means they remain focused on Christ, then you have helped them keep their eye on Christ. Is that not what you are asserting is important?

As long as you make it an either/or issue: evolution or Christ---some will turn away from Christ on that basis. And since it is not an either/or issue, your insistence that it is is what has turned them away. Just as surely as the Judaizers' insistence that Christian practice required circumcision and following the whole law of Moses would have kept many Gentiles out of the church.

I insist that evolution is not compatible with Scripture.

Insist all you like. It is still not true.

And they primarly taught creation rather than Jesus Christ crucified and risen?

Oh, they knew where the evangelical focus is properly placed, but they also made it a point to teach creationism and to teach that only creationism was consistent with scripture. It was clear that in their perspective a Real Christian (TM) could not accept evolution.

We don't refall today. To say so is the claim we were at sometime in a sinless state, which is not truth.

Another point of doctrine on which we disagree. Save it for a different thread.

Do you believe that evidence alone speaks?

Absolutely. Whether it is the evidence of things not seen, which we can only apprehend by faith, or the evidence of things seen, which we apprehend through sense and/or reason--the faculties given to us by God for this purpose.

I just don't see how you can say creation/evolution are equal to Jesus Christ and His divinty. So much for what the Bible says when it says Jesus Christ is above all things.

Well, I didn't say they were equal, but that Christ, being the creator and sustainer of the created world (which implies that Christ is above all things) is inconsistent with a denial of what we know of the created world from its own testimony about itself. Nature is incapable of lying about itself. Only we humans do that.

I am not looking for your admitting of anything, I am pointing to the simple fact that whether we are Christians or not, we are in desperate need of Jesus Christ, His grace, mercy and forgiveness. And the fact that He died for everyone, including anyone you despise.

Right. Why would you assume I thought differently on this?

 

[Sinai]

I think it is bad theology additionally because it leads to this whole "no death before the Fall" error and fails to focus on the idea that it is SPIRITUAL death that we are redeemed from.

It also is bad theologically in the way it is presented because it undermines the validity of Scripture, and thus the Gospel messages. YEC teaches a false dichotomy which causes many to doubt Scripture as a whole when they come to doubt the YEC'ism they have been indoctrinated with.

Can't get any worse theologically than that.

It might be relevant to point out that the Bible speaks of "death" in three principal ways:

1. Physical death: The separation of an organism's life from its body; when the organism is a human being, it can also refer to the separation of a person's spirit from his body. This is what most people think of when "death" is mentioned, and is what the Bible means when it says someone lived X years and then died. Another example would be Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..."

2. Spiritual death: The separation of man's spirit from God while that man is still physically alive in this world. This is the natural state of man on Earth without Christ. Since the person's sins have not been covered over by the blood of Christ, that person is still unredeemed; he is dead to God (see 1 Tim. 5:6).

3. Eternal death: The separation of a person from God's presence forever (also called the second death)--an eternal state of being dead to God.

 

[Vance]

Very good points, Sinai.

 

[1denomination]

SBG,Vance,glaudys, I would just like to say that I hae never more enjoyed reading a thread than I have this one. Great job. God Bless.

 

[ChristianMuse]

Billions of years or thousands of years? Doesn't matter for me, I can take either date and my faith remains the same. Whether there was a process of evolution or not before 6,000 years ago... does not matter. What does matter is that Adam was the first man and Eve was his wife, taken from his side. That Adam fell and that the Second Adam came to redeem those sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. All life currently on this planet is from that time. All life before that time, if there was life, is nonsequitur to our own genesis timeline. I certainly enjoy the discoveries but I do not necessarily accept their conclusions. When you get down to it, that man (or life)evolved over a long period of time and that timeline is our own, is a faith statement. This is not a contradiction of science but a different view of the "facts".

God bless guys and gals...

 

[Calminian]

Billions of years or thousands of years? Doesn't matter for me, I can take either date and my faith remains the same. Whether there was a process of evolution or not before 6,000 years ago... does not matter. What does matter is that Adam was the first man and Eve was his wife, taken from his side. That Adam fell and that the Second Adam came to redeem those sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. All life currently on this planet is from that time. All life before that time, if there was life, is nonsequitur to our own genesis timeline. I certainly enjoy the discoveries but I do not necessarily accept their conclusions. When you get down to it, that man (or life)evolved over a long period of time and that timeline is our own, is a faith statement. This is not a contradiction of science but a different view of the "facts".

God bless guys and gals...

At the end of day six God said He looked at all He made and it was all "very good." In the billions of years theory that would mean death and suffering were going on for millions of years before sin ever entered the world. And according to God it was all not just good but very good. This doesn't bother you at all?

And BTW most TEs on the board disagree with what you think is important. They deny that Adam was the first man or that he ever existed. He was merely a story character.

 

[shernren]

Calminian, where in the Bible is animal death moralized? God killed animals to provide Adam and Eve with fur skins. Where in the Bible do animals suffer, or have the moral capacity to avoid suffering?

SBG, I agree that sometimes it is not the evidence itself but what the evidence says. However two positions that can explain all the physical evidence, may not be able to explain all the philosophical evidence. For example, let's take the picture and autopsy of JFK with a bullet in his brain. Person 1 says JFK was killed by a bullet to the brain. Person 2 says God stopped JFK's heart miraculously, and then created a fake bullet track and a bullet in his brain to make it look like he was shot dead.

Both theories explain the physical evidence. But doesn't theory 2 seem unlikely in light of the character of God and the nature of creation and the world He has created?

That's what we mean by the difference between appearance of age and appearance of history.

 

[ChristianMuse]

At the end of day six God said He looked at all He made and it was all "very good." In the billions of years theory that would mean death and suffering were going on for millions of years before sin ever entered the world. And according to God it was all not just good but very good. This doesn't bother you at all?

It doesn't bother me at all. If it is just six days of creation and nothing before then well and good for the statement. If it is billions of years, these billions of years occured before the six day period and were not a part of it. It is the six day creation period that God said was very good. I believe there may have been a period between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Either way it doesn't change the veracity of God's statement. The bible reflects the covenants that God has made with man. It does not cover the previous ages, if there were previous ages.

And BTW most TEs on the board disagree with what you think is important. They deny that Adam was the first man or that he ever existed. He was merely a story character.

Then they believe the first prophecy of the Christ, the lineage of Jesus to Adam (and all lineages), the fall of mankind, the need for a redeemer, etc, are all lies? Fables? That the NT when it mentions the lineage of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, is also a lie? The NT mentioning Adam, was a con? I guess then, from your statement, that most TE's would say "yes". How sad from my point of view.

 

[Vance]

Actually, most TE's would say "no". Nothing in Scripture is a lie or a fable, even if Adam was not literal. But many TE's here do, indeed, believe that Adam was a literal historical figure. I have not come to any firm conclusion on this. My leaning is toward the idea that Adam was a figurative symbol for all of Mankind, but I would not be shocked to learn when I get to heaven that he was a literal individual.

 

[Calminian]

It doesn't bother me at all. If it is just six days of creation and nothing before then well and good for the statement. If it is billions of years, these billions of years occured before the six day period and were not a part of it. It is the six day creation period that God said was very good.

If anything, even if I don't change your mind, perhaps I can help you understand why others have concerns. Here is the passage in question:

31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Couple this with Moses' statement:

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

and we have quite a problem. The Exodus passage quite explicitly rules out a gap theory between Gen. 1 & 2. Therefore God looked at the entire universe after He had created man and said it was all "very good." This would have to include the death and suffering before man got here. I see that as a problem, I'm not sure if you do.

Then they believe the first prophecy of the Christ, the lineage of Jesus to Adam (and all lineages), the fall of mankind, the need for a redeemer, etc, are all lies? Fables?

I think they would prefer terms like figurative stories. Most TEs don't take any of these people in Genesis literal until Abraham.

That the NT when it mentions the lineage of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, is also a lie? The NT mentioning Adam, was a con? I guess then, from your statement, that most TE's would say "yes". How sad from my point of view.

Well no not a lie, nor con, but nonetheless Adam, Seth, Noah, etc. according to them were not real people.

 

[Vance]

I will post this again:

Actually, most TE's would say "no". Nothing in Scripture is a lie or a fable, even if Adam was not literal. But many TE's here do, indeed, believe that Adam was a literal historical figure. I have not come to any firm conclusion on this. My leaning is toward the idea that Adam was a figurative symbol for all of Mankind, but I would not be shocked to learn when I get to heaven that he was a literal individual.

And I would add that I think it is a distinct possibility that CS Lewis is right on this point.

 

[shernren]

So far nobody has answered me: is it an insult to Jesus to say that the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son were not real people? Jesus seemed to be saying the parables as if he was telling an actual story. Even up to today we still dissect the stories as if they were historical, looking at why the priest and Levite acted as they did towards the wounded man, or asking what the significance of the ring the father put on the Prodigal Son was. We exhort our congregations to follow their example. And yet these are fictional people! Does that mean we are preaching lies?

Secondly, many TEs would not have a problem with Genesis 3's Garden Fall being an actual happening.

Thirdly, what would a lion have looked like before the Fall? Were there defensive adaptations before the Fall?

 

[ChristianMuse]

But many TE's here do, indeed, believe that Adam was a literal historical figure.

This conflicts with an earlier post from someone else. Has there ever been a poll to establish how many are TE's and what percentage of them believe Adam to be a historical figure?

 

[ChristianMuse]

If anything, even if I don't change your mind, perhaps I can help you understand why others have concerns. Here is the passage in question:

31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Couple this with Moses' statement:

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

and we have quite a problem.

I can see where you are coming from in this post. I have read the material and have pondered on it many times. It gives strength to a literal six days Gen 1.1-31 for the beginning of the universe. I can accept this as a possibility. Yet I have other scriptures and how the words are used to show a much greater expanse of time. One which can include up to and including billions of years. Evolution in this case playing a part up to but not including the last six thousand years. I can accept this as a possibility. I am comfortable with either case being true because each have their own merits. There is a problem when we try to imply what either case means since we have to read into the history what God has not revealed... (yet?)

What I was pointing out is the current era of about six thousand years, which has the six days of creation at its beginning, to be the part which is relevant for the human race as it came down through Adam and Eve. It is this newness of life that began 6,000 years ago that I accept without rejecting what may have come before.

 

[Calminian]

I can see where you are coming from in this post. I have read the material and have pondered on it many times. It gives strength to a literal six days Gen 1.1-31 for the beginning of the universe. I can accept this as a possibility.

Yet I have other scriptures and how the words are used to show a much greater expanse of time. One which can include up to and including billions of years.

Most TEs I know say the the Bible leaves the duration undefined. I've not yet heard any passages used to directly imply billions of years. Please cite them I'd be interested in looking at them.

Evolution in this case playing a part up to but not including the last six thousand years. I can accept this as a possibility. I am comfortable with either case being true because each have their own merits. There is a problem when we try to imply what either case means since we have to read into the history what God has not revealed... (yet?)

Just so you know this is something I've struggled with. In fact you might be interested to know the gap/recreation theory was the first theory I jumped to after initially being a YEC. I wasn't a scientist nor familiar with any scientific arguments but I knew from a very young age that all scientists believed the earth was old and dinosaurs and man never lived together. So something more compatible with modern theories was much more desirable. But what am I to do with Ex. 20:11?

As to each theory having it's merits, well I'm still struggling with that. It's not a salvation issue that's for sure, but how important is it? This issue seems to be different than any other. When the Bible seems to contradict a modern naturalistic theory we just reinterpret it to make it fit and continue to call the Bible inerrant. But couldn't this be done with any religious book? It seems the Bible should be the one that causes us to reinterpret modern theories. Otherwise where is its authority?

What I was pointing out is the current era of about six thousand years, which has the six days of creation at its beginning, to be the part which is relevant for the human race as it came down through Adam and Eve. It is this newness of life that began 6,000 years ago that I accept without rejecting what may have come before.

The issue of a literal Adam is very important in my view. At least we're in agreement there. My guess is you also hold to a literal worldwide flood?

But here's the problem. I think you're going to find the gap theory doesn't fit with modern scientific theories either. This is why most OEers are grabbing onto other models. A newly created earth nor newly recreated earth does fit the evidence as they (modern scientists) interpret it.

 

[shernren]

No, Cal, we start by believing that the Bible is inerrant, believe also that reality possesses the properties it displays (i.e. evidence for evolution and an old earth?) and then see what the Bible's inerrancy means in the light of reality. At no point whatsoever do we adjust the Bible itself, or doubt its inerrancy. In fact we come up with all this to cement and defend its inerrancy, by finding what form of inerrancy is the most defensible.

 

[ChristianMuse]

Most TEs I know say the the Bible leaves the duration undefined. I've not yet heard any passages used to directly imply billions of years. Please cite them I'd be interested in looking at them.

The simplest one is the gap theory that has an unexplained duration. That is what I was refering to with the "up to" billions of years remark. It being an open ended time period.

Just so you know this is something I've struggled with. In fact you might be interested to know the gap/recreation theory was the first theory I jumped to after initially being a YEC. I wasn't a scientist nor familiar with any scientific arguments but I knew from a very young age that all scientists believed the earth was old and dinosaurs and man never lived together. So something more compatible with modern theories was much more desirable. But what am I to do with Ex. 20:11?

This is that time period.

What I was pointing out is the current era of about six thousand years, which has the six days of creation at its beginning, to be the part which is relevant for the human race as it came down through Adam and Eve. It is this newness of life that began 6,000 years ago that I accept without rejecting what may have come before.

Additionally it can be read that on the first day water covered the earth. God separated the waters and a heaven was created. The earth (Hebrew: dry ground) appeared as part of the process. Then continue on from there. This is not ironclad logic but a possible rendering of the text. This is support for OE with the gap theory. A slight twist and it is YEC.

Otherwise where is its authority?

The authority of scripture rests where and on what it always did... faith in what is revealed. Interpretations are the blessing and cursing that follows the heart and mind's attempt to reason it out.

The issue of a literal Adam is very important in my view. At least we're in agreement there. My guess is you also hold to a literal worldwide flood?

Yes

But here's the problem. I think you're going to find the gap theory doesn't fit with modern scientific theories either. This is why most OEers are grabbing onto other models. A newly created earth nor newly recreated earth does fit the evidence as they (modern scientists) interpret it.

If I draw an old man, the picture is new but the image of the person appears old. If I can do that with my imagination what can God do with his? Create a universe that appears older (to all scientific investigation) yet be freshly minted. That isn't a problem at all.

Where faith ends, speculation begins and its child is called presumption.

Thanks for the dialogue.