Theological Question for Young Earth.

[Hieronymus]

Which is not based on the scientific method and is therefore not a scientific model.

Both models have holes, both use assumptions, both have a belief system as a point of view.

Answers in Genesis received over $100 million dollars in bond sales and individual donations for their Ark Encounter attraction. And that doesn't include $43 million in tax incentives they got from the state of Kentucky.

So you really think both sides have the same backup, support, platform and benefits?
On what planet do you live?

 

[Queller]

Maybe we have different definitions of the word literal:
lit·er·al ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/ adjective

1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
   "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread".
2. (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
   synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter;

Nope, that's my definition as well. That's why when you add in things like the "angelic realm" or the "high mountain" not being a literal high mountain, you are reading the text of the account as metaphorical or allegorical in nature. Nothing wrong with that, it is exactly what I do as well.

That's your opinion, it's not the case.

What is your evidence against the idea that, based on the text, the location that the devil and Jesus went to is meant to be a literal mountain here on earth?

Just cause something actually happens and you don't see it (it was obviously up in a mountain with Jesus and Satan, and there would be no one else there and it's really being unreasonable to think so doesn't mean that it didn't actually take place.

It reminds me of the first question in our Philosophy class (which most of us had to take in College) when our old Philosophy teacher asks us, "how do we know we are really here", lol a real mind bender) and is stated as follows (probably the 2nd question he asked): "If a tree falls in the woods, and you aren't there to see it fall, how do you know if it really fell". Well, I'd say that if it really fell, then it really fell regardless if I saw it fall or not. See that's one of the problems, you want to make God prove everything but what you fail to realize that He doesn't have to prove anything, yet he proves many things, perhaps for His amusement. Another problem is that I believe that God says that it did (based on context and the way it was written), you say that it didn't, who am I supposed to believe?

Based on the context there is nothing supernatural about the event in Matthew 4:8. That's the point I've been trying to make. There's no mention of the "angelic realm", no mention of anything supernatural about the event. Nothing. You have to add those ideas into the account to make it jibe with what we know about the earth.

I'm sorry but there's nothing in Genesis 3 (or anywhere else in Scripture) that says that Satan has authority over this world to the extent that he can plant things in the earth or change physics. The times Satan is referred to as "the ruler of this world" it is man's sin which is being referred to, not physical ownership of the world.
Who said anything about planting something? I sure didn't. And Satan certainly can't change physics (I didn't say that either). Satan can't create. Only God can. Then what exactly did the Bible mean when we were told that Jesus defeated Satan and destroyed the power of death?

Then what makes you think that the devil had enough authority over this world to give all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if He fell down and worshiped him?

It doesn't matter what you say, but what you say doesn't mean that it isn't true. I won't belabor thepoint, it's that not important here or in this discussion. What is important is whether the Bible is speaking metaphorically or if this was an event that really happened. The only reason I brought this up is that I believe you asked if Satan had the ability/right to offer the Kingdoms of the world to Jesus. You do realize when he was showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, he was showing Him future kingdoms as well?

Scripture doesn't support that. But even if you believe it, it means you are reading even more into an event that is described in simple, literal terms with no mention of the supernatural.

Just looking at the text alone, why do you believe there is something supernatural about the event in question?

I gave you some of it, but there is definitely more. Sorry if that is not enough. And I don't believe he has complete authority, I do believe there are limits.

Do you believe that the devil had the authority give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world?

You're absolutely right, it doesn't disqualify the rest of Scripture. It does disqualify a literal interpretation on Genesis however.
In your opinion it does, but you're only one person although's there's probably many more who'd agree with you. Keep in mind though, this is not politics where the majority rules, with God He rules and just because you might be part of the majority doesn't make you right either.

Being part of the minority doesn't make you right either.

Really? Is that why people have been arguing about it for hundreds of years?
People have been arguing about many things for thousands of years, mostly politics and religion. Probably a part of human nature to argue.

You stated that "if you know your bible you can figure it out." Obviously that isn't the case as people who "know their Bibles" have been arguing about the correct interpretation of Scripture for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

Do you discount scientific knowledge as one of those ways?

No. But I look at Science quite differently than you probably do. I look to it not to formulate my belief system, but more to confirm it

How does science confirm your belief system if you believe in a literal, inerrant Bible and a young earth?

and although I find it interesting at times, I don't base my life's existence on it's validity or it's non-validity.

You base a goodly portion of your life around it. Every time you get into a car, take medicine, or sit at your computer to have a discussion with a stranger over the internet, you are putting science's ability to do things that it claims to be able to do to the test.

First off I thought we were referring to the Temptations of Christ portion of Matthew 4, not the rest of it. But let's talk about that for a minute. On what basis should I decide verses 12-15 are not to be taken literally? After all, Carpernaum is a real historical place. Unlike a mountain from which it is possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth.
The point I was trying to make is in trying to interpret scripture in general context is a very important factor. If you look at that entire chapter (other than the verses in question) it should be quite apparent that all those verses were meant to be literal. Thus, if that is the case, it is logical to conclude that all those verses in that chapter were meant to be as well.

Yes, it is quite apparent that the verses are meant to be taken as literal. And that's why you have to add to the event ideas about it taking place in the angelic realm, or the "high mountain" being something other than a literal mountain; because you know if take them literally, IOW,

"taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."

then it cannot be literal, as there is no such place on earth where such an event is possible.

Now I suppose if you believe in an illogical God, you'd feel this way, but I believe in a God who is logical and does not try to deceive, in man when man is a deceiver (which I suppose some do), whoever feels that way I believe is deceiving his own self I believe that God is logical and does not deceive people. Now if anyone tries to prove otherwise, I welcome you to try, but I can assure that you are most likely interpreting it wrong.+

I don't believe God is illogical or a deceiver either. That's why I don't believe certain parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, as they contradict the evidence God left behind in His creation.

And that all of a sudden makes them infallible?
Not all of a sudden. Always has been, and always will. I realize that may be difficult to comprehend for fallible man.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Were the men who wrote the books of the Bible fallible men or not?

 

[Queller]

Both models have holes, both use assumptions, both have a belief system as a point of view.

Only one model uses the scientific method as the basis for their investigations.

Oh, and the only assumption I am aware of in science is that the basic laws of the universe continue to act the same way they always have since the beginning. That assumption, known as uniformitarianism, is accepted because there is no valid evidence against the idea.

So you really think both sides have the same backup, support, platform and benefits?
On what planet do you live?

Oh, I'm well aware that standard science gets far more in terms of actual dollars than do YECs. However, in terms of proportionate amounts based on the number of practitioners of the science involved, YECs get far more in terms of per person dollars than mainstream scientists ever will.

Put it this way, do you think that if a few dozen scientists wanted to build an "anti-Genesis Encounter" where they specifically addressed and debunked a literal Genesis, do you think they would get $143 million in donations and tax incentives to build it?

 

[Hieronymus]

Only one model uses the scientific method as the basis for their investigations.

Uhm.. No.
The proponents of naturalism have decided that everything occurs naturally.
That's why they need billions upon billions of years, and still can't explain the origins and the complexity of things.
Sure, they try, but they fail.

 

[Hieronymus]

Put it this way, do you think that if a few dozen scientists wanted to build an "anti-Genesis Encounter" where they specifically addressed and debunked a literal Genesis, do you think they would get $143 million in donations and tax incentives to build it?

Yes, it's exactly what happens.
But it's not necessarily the scientists that wanted this direction, but the facilitators.
Don't you know what kind of people rule the world?

 

[2tim_215]

Nope, that's my definition as well. That's why when you add in things like the "angelic realm" or the "high mountain" not being a literal high mountain, you are reading the text of the account as metaphorical or allegorical in nature. Nothing wrong with that, it is exactly what I do as well.
Maybe you're a little confused (or perhaps your trying to confuse me). What you're trying to say/do is claiming that because it's a literal event (which I think we both agree) and is being claimed to be that, it's physically impossible and therefore the Bible account is inaccurate. Isn't that what your trying to do?

I say that although it's a natural event which took place on this earth (and not in heaven where it very well could have taken place at) the explanation for the physical improbability is that you are looking at two supernatural beings, one of which is the creator of everything, and thus the laws of physics do not rule Him, He rules them, since He's the one who created them in the first place.

And then you have another being who's is not a human being (a difference species of a created intelligence) who is not ruled by the same physical laws as we are. So very plausible (if you've read and studied your Bible and believe what it's telling you) that this even occurred just the way the Bible says it did but in order to make sense of it, although it was a real event, there were spiritual aspects involved.

The exact details of how that worked, I cannot say exactly (neither can Science btw, which when they cannot figure something out, I guess they just discount it). All I can say is that it did happen and I trust my Bible to give me an accurate representation, as accurate as possible for a supernatural event in human terms that we are able to assimilate to a certain degree.

What is your evidence against the idea that the location that the devil and Jesus went to is not meant to be a literal mountain here on earth?
I don't believe that I said that it wasn't. I don't know what mountain it was. The Bible doesn't tell us which one, it just says that it was the tallest. You can probably try and figure out which one it might have been if you want and most likely there are some who have.

Based on the context there is nothing supernatural about the event in Matthew 4:8. That's the point I've been trying to make. There's no mention of the "angelic realm", no mention of anything supernatural about the event. Nothing. You have to add those ideas into the account to make it jibe with what we know about the earth.
Agreed. However, I think it could be described as a natural event with a supernatural backdrop.

Then what makes you think that the devil had enough authority over this world to give all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if He fell down and worshiped him?
I thought I already explained that. He stole it from Adam in the garden when he tricked Eve into the original sin and Adam followed.

Scripture doesn't support that. But even if you believe it, it means you are reading even more into an event that is described in simple, literal terms with no mention of the supernatural.
No. It means you're not reading enough into it.

Just looking at the text alone, why do you believe there is something supernatural about the event in question?
Again, because it's the only logical explanation for the event as described to have occurred.

Do you believe that the devil had the authority give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world?
I answered that already. Yes. Had he not had that authority, then Jesus certainly would have told him so. Would make sense (which is what you're trying to prove) otherwise.

It doesn't make you right either.
No, it sure doesn't. It makes God right.

You stated that "if you know your bible you can figure it out." Obviously that isn't the case as people who "know their Bibles" have been arguing about the correct interpretation of Scripture for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Well, the question is do those people really "know" their Bible and if so, how well do they actually know it? It would be like asking if a High School Science student "knows" Science? Well the answer may be yes, but to what degree?

How does science confirm your belief system if you believe in a literal, inerrant Bible and a young earth?
I don't know what it has to do with Science. Science doesn't disprove God. Yet you believe that He doesn't exist, right? You may feel that it may help to "confirm" what you believe in some ways, but regardless it's not going to change anything as far as your concerned. Same here. I don't know about a young earth. You guys got me going a bit on that one.
You base a goodly portion of your life around it. Every time you get into a car, take medicine, or sit at your computer to have a discussion with a stranger over the internet, you are putting science's ability to do things that it claims to be able to do to the test.
1 Corinthians 3:21(KJV) Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
2 Corinthians 4:15(KJV) For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
Everything on this earth was given to us by God and He say that it is for our use. He gave the scientists and inventors the knowledge to create what they've created and it is to be for all of mankind. So yes, I thank God for all that. More than likely most of those people got paid for what they've accomplished, and if Christian likely have been blessed in other ways.

Yes, it is quite apparent that the verses are meant to be taken as literal. And that's why you have to add to the event ideas about it taking place in the angelic realm, or the "high mountain" being something other than a literal mountain; because you know if take them literally, IOW,
It didn't take place in the angelic realm, it took place on the earth, on a high mountain, just the way that the account states.

"taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."
You can't really do it that way. You need to look at context. The English language doesn't work that way. You need to try to come up with what would be most logical in the particular situation, not look for what would be most illogical.

then it cannot be literal, as there is no such place on earth where such an event is possible.
That's what you'd like to think.

I don't believe God is illogical or a deceiver either. That's why I don't believe certain parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, as they contradict the evidence God left behind in His creation.
That's true, not all are but if you figure out which is which, there's no contradictions. Here's a suggestion. Stop trying to look for contradictions all of the time, and look for logical explanations before jumping to your conclusion. You might fare better that way.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Were the men who wrote the books of the Bible fallible men or not?
Absolutely. But God isn't. And that's one of the most remarkable miracles of God. He takes fallible men and put His fallible words into them which we are now able to study and meditate upon and learn many of the secrets of life.
2 Peter 1:21(KJV) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Just because we don't know or understand something, doesn't mean that it's not true. There's a lot of things that I don't know about Science. That doesn't meant that many of them are not true. Of course that doesn't mean either that they are all true.

Your entire attempt to discredit God and the Bible is futile. They've been trying for thousands of years and will never succeed because God won''t let them. The Bible says in Psalms 11:
Psalms 11:3(KJV) If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

 

[NobleMouse]

I think you make some very cogent points. Here's a link from a site called the "Stones Cry Out"". He has a pretty good take on the Flood and how it might not have been "global" quite the way most of us think. His background is in Geology and even if he's correct, it still won't make what Jesus said wrong.
The Stones Cry Out - Geology and the Bible: Updated July 8, 2016
A little sidetracked but since you mentioned the flood I thought I'd bring this in and wanted to commend you on your post.

Thank you 2tim_215, I am currently reading this and appreciate you sending it my way!

 

[mindlight]

This is a theological, not a scientific, question for Christians only about the age of the earth only. The question relates only to the book of Genesis with no mind to scientific discoveries.

For those that believe in a young earth is this a theological interpretation, among many, for Genesis, or is this belief held to be the only real/valid interpretation of Genesis? When I read Genesis I don't see a creation point for the earth assigned to a day. I understand the backcounting of the decedents to Adam, and then through the 6 days but where is the earth given a day in which to end the counting? Do you see those that do not place an age to the earth as scripturally in error (and please explain) or do you see them as simply holding a different, but scripturally valid, interpretation. (I think the meaning of Yom can be avoided given that we need a day assigned to the earth to get an age for it. However Yom can be invoked if needed)

Thank you for your responses.

Genesis 1:1 reads : in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth // 4 billion year pause// verse 2 : now the earth was formless and empty..

I am a YEC but I am unsure if the cosmos is not older than the earth for the above reason. God formed and filled the earth in 6 days about 6000 years ago with the miracle of life and us. But did He do so in a creation that was much older?

 

[miamited]

Genesis 1:1 reads : in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth // 4 billion year pause// verse 2 : now the earth was formless and empty..

I am a YEC but I am unsure if the cosmos is not older than the earth for the above reason. God formed and filled the earth in 6 days about 6000 years ago with the miracle of life and us. But did He do so in a creation that was much older?

Hi mindlight,

Yes, and that's exactly why I believe the claim in the law makes the answer to that question quite clear: For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. This seems to clearly explain that the very creation of the cosmos was also included within the six days. The Genesis account does clearly state that the sun and moon were created after the earth and then mentions that God also made all the stars. So, going by the Genesis account alone, yes, I can see that there might be some question as to the time of the creation of the cosmos, but then flipping over to the law as given in Exodus there does seem to be a much clearer explanation that the heavens were also created within the six days being accounted for us in the law.

That's how I understand it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[mindlight]

Hi mindlight,

Yes, and that's exactly why I believe the claim in the law makes the answer to that question quite clear: For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. This seems to clearly explain that the very creation of the cosmos was also included within the six days. The Genesis account does clearly state that the sun and moon were created after the earth and then mentions that God also made all the stars. So, going by the Genesis account alone, yes, I can see that there might be some question as to the time of the creation of the cosmos, but then flipping over to the law as given in Exodus there does seem to be a much clearer explanation that the heavens were also created within the six days being accounted for us in the law.

That's how I understand it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Really cool answer to a question that has bugged me for years. The answer was staring me in the face all the time in the very scriptures I was quoting!

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, it's exactly what happens.
But it's not necessarily the scientists that wanted this direction, but the facilitators.
Don't you know what kind of people rule the world?

Hmmm... This was off topic actually, sorry..
And it sounds quite paranoid too, i must admit..
However, well, never mind..

 

[joshua 1 9]

When I read Genesis I don't see a creation point for the earth assigned to a day.

In Genesis 1:2 the earth was "formless and empty". We see this same use of words in Jeremiah 4:23: "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone." In the KJV we read: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". So verse 1:2 and verse 1:28 could be interpreted that a pre existing earth was in a state of ruin and in need of being restored and replenished.

I believe that Genesis has many layers of meaning. A day can be a day, a day can be 1,000 years or a day could represent an age or era. God says what He is going to do, then He looks back at what He has done. There is really no indication in how much time it took for God to do what He said He was going to do. Theistic Evolution says a very long time and the Kabbalah has an interesting perspective on this also.

 

[JackRT]

The age of the earth is not a theological question --- it is a scientific one.

 

[miamited]

Really cool answer to a question that has bugged me for years. The answer was staring me in the face all the time in the very scriptures I was quoting!

Hi mindlight,

One of the changes to my thinking that I believe has been afforded me by the Holy Spirit is gaining some understanding of the purposes of God in all of this.

For example: I read through the Scriptures from Abraham to Jesus to the current days and I see a perfectly and well thought out plan that God began with calling Abraham. While the man Abraham may have been picked willy nilly by God to become the man he became and the seed of a people, there is a clear plan in God's calling him. Through him God was going to build a nation of people that would be known on the earth as His people.

You see, if all that is required for people to gain eternal life is that Jesus shed his innocent blood, Jesus could have been a son of Adam or Cain or Able or any of the first generations of Adam. He could then have been killed in some way and his blood shed and man would have the way to eternal life. But God, who is certainly wiser than any of us, knew that such a plan wouldn't work. Who would believe it?

But in the plan where He calls Abraham and through His people has all the Scriptures written down with prophecies to prove that He is the God who knows the end from the beginning; and prophecies foretelling of this coming Messiah who would shed his blood in a very specific way and do the very specific things that Jesus did, then people would be more likely to believe it just as many do today. Ask anyone why they believe that Jesus is the Messiah and to a person they will likely tell you that it's because he fulfilled the prophecies of God about the Messiah. How he would live. The things that he would do. Where he would be born. How he would die. Even Jesus used the prophecy of Isaiah to prove himself to a group meeting in synagogue. All of the four gospels draw on the prophecies concerning the Messiah to match Jesus as the person that those prophecies foretold.

If Jesus had just come and died without all the prophecies having been written, then all anyone could say about why they believed Jesus is the Messiah would be nothing more than, "Well, that's what Jesus said about himself." We wouldn't even know that there was some purpose in some man in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago dying on some old Roman cross. Hundreds of people died on Roman crosses. It's the prophecies that tell us the purpose of Jesus beyond his own claims about himself.

So, God's plan was to have his people write down the Scriptures with all the prophecies concerning the Messiah. Then, in the fullness of time, as the Scriptures say, Jesus came to us. As he did all the things that he did, we could look back to the prophecies and say, "Yes, this is the Messiah that God has already told us about." He healed the sick and the lame. He was born in Bethlehem just as the Scriptures foretold. He was born of a virgin just as the Scriptures foretold. He was turned over by a traitor to die on a tree just as the Scriptures have foretold. It was God's great plan, beginning with Abraham, to tell us all about it first and then to do it.

We also know from the Scriptures that mankind was created for a specific reason. To have eternal life with God. If that's the case, then why would the earth and the universe exist before man was created. I'm just afraid that many don't understand the power and glory and purpose of God. That He created all of this miraculously in just a matter of days because the very purpose for Him even saying "Let there be light!" in the first words of Genesis was that He was creating a place for man to live. Oh, it's a vast and extensive place to be sure. Filled with the awe and wonder of God's wonderful abilities to create. But it's entire creation was merely for a place for mankind to live so that He could then call that man Abraham and have everything written down that His Son could come and die for the sins of mankind and for those millions over the ages who have believed, gain eternal life with God. That was always God's purpose in His creating this realm.

But Paul warns us that in the latter days man is going to become more and more wicked. That they will be ever more desirous of worshiping the created rather than the Creator. So, science has now raised up it's great wisdom to turn us away from the truth of God. Just as greed and hate have turned so very, very many away from the truth of God. Satan rules this world and Satan knows that if he can get those who claim to believe in God, a reasonable sounding argument that God isn't who He says that He is, then he's won their souls away from God. He does this with greed, lust, hate, prejudice, national pride, wars and the science of men. The Scriptures tell us that he has flaming darts. Not just one dart, but plural darts. He has many, many ways to turn us away from the truth of God. As the Scriptures also say, our battle is not against flesh and blood, but the spiritual creatures of heaven who have also rebelled against God.

But, there will come a day that God is going to make everything right. He will cast both the rebellious angels and the rebellious of mankind away from Him and His people. He will separate the wheat from the chaff both in this realm and in the angelic realm. In the Revelation we are told that one of the groups that will be cast out will be the unbelievers. What is it that they didn't believe? Some say just that it's only who Jesus is. I say no! The unbelievers are those who don't believe just as Jesus did. In Jesus' final prayer with his disciples he asks the Father to make us one just as he and the Father are one. Would I be considered one with Jesus if I didn't believe what he believed? If I didn't trust and believe what God seems to have pretty clearly told me, would I be considered one with God?

We see this exact picture today in our political arena. Donald Trump wants only people in his administration that believe as he believes. All others are not a part of him.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Hieronymus]

The age of the earth is not a theological question --- it is a scientific one.

I'd say it's a historical question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Jesus could have been a son of Adam or Cain or Able or any of the first generations of Adam.

If I remember the bloodline of Cain died out and went extinct. We can follow the scarlet thread or the bloodline of Jesus all the way through. We find people like a harlot named Rahab and an adulteress called Bathsheba who had a son named Solomon.

Eve came from Adam and Jesus came from Mary a descendant of Adam and Eve. 1Cor11:12 "For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." Mary the daughter of Adam and Eve birthed Jesus the only begotten Son of God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'd say it's a historical question.

History, Science and the Bible all agree and confirm each other. Just like we have Father, Son & Holy Ghost that agree and confirm each other. I was seeking God and God showed me Jesus and Jesus showed the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then lead me to Jesus and Jesus lead me to God the Father. 1John5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But Paul warns us that in the latter days man is going to become more and more wicked.

Lawlessness abounds yet the law becomes more established as the age of Grace comes to an end.

2Thes2:7 Darby Bible Translation
For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only there is he who restrains now until he be gone,

 

[JackRT]

I'd say it's a historical question.

That too.

 

[miamited]

Lawlessness abounds yet the law becomes more established as the age of Grace comes to an end.

2Thes2:7 Darby Bible Translation
For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only there is he who restrains now until he be gone,

Hi jushua,

Thanks for the reply, but I must admit I don't have any idea what it really means. What do you mean when you say that 'the law becomes more established as the age of Grace comes to an end'? Was the law not quite established when it was given? It's one of those fine sounding lines that people often like to quote as homilies, but often times leave me wondering what it really means. Your Scripture quote would only explain that lawlessness doth abound and will likely abound even greater when the one who restrains it is removed. But, I don't see that the law itself becomes any more or less established. The law is the law. It doesn't change and it cannot be broken without consequence. Not today. Not in centuries past and not in the future.

God bless,
In Christ, ted