- Dec 22, 2015
- 71
- 24
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Anyone else watch this, I thought he made some hard to overlook points and agree with him.
Anyone else watch this, I thought he made some hard to overlook points and agree with him.
Biblical authority is important, and young earth creationism is undermining it unintentionally. Too many people know that YEC is highly unscientific, so since they've been told it is what the Bible teaches they reject the Bible.
I was homeschooled and the primary source of science education was Answers in Genesis. I also attended a conservative Christian college; it was only my own studies that led me to the conclusion that the earth is old. What really tipped the scales for me was how YEC failed to explain radioisotope dating in any reasonable way. I've come across many other problems with YEC since. Anyway, I'm glad it helped you take the Bible seriously; but I'm afraid that it turns away more people, especially the most intelligent. Seeing Genesis 1 as an allegory in which the days represent ages is likely the way it was intended to be understood; consider that God is the only one acting in Genesis 1, unlike other narratives, and it was Moses who wrote in Psalm 90 that a thousand years are like a few hours (a watch in the night) to God. Compare how allegory was used by Ezekiel, to compress the story of a nation into a story about one or two characters; perhaps Genesis 1 is the same genre as that. Also consider that Ancient Near East culture's other creation stories were allegories, so that was a normal thing in Moses time.If it wasn't for this 17-18 hour YEC creation seminar I watched years ago, I would have just kept ignoring the Bible for the rest of my life. After being convinced Genesis was literal history I took the Bible and everything it said seriously, if I see the very first chapter and it sounds impossible because of all the years of being taught millions of years, then that'll give me ample reason to just toss it and never look at it again or I'll end up doing what a lot of people do and pick and choose what things to believe and not believe in the Bible.
There is a lot of good science to back up a young earth, you just have to look into it, but I've noticed that the indoctrination process that happens in public schools makes it so hard, for some it's close to impossible to accept a young earth, they'll fight against it because it goes against everything they've been taught since being a toddler. I've found that instead of looking into the evidence for a young earth, a lot of people will try to find an argument against it, even though everything about the first chapter of Genesis screams literal, you actually end up pitting yourself against the Word of God. It's like saying well man is right all the time and he's never fooled or deceived, so let's just we decide what God meant, what arrogance that becomes.
You look at a book for children about dinosaurs and the very first sentence in these books is "Millions of years ago...", these kids can barely read and they believe it already, no evidence to convince them, they will simply believe it because that's what everyone is saying. Children are then bombarded with this millions of years in school, almost everyday, for years. And on top of that you have magazines, museums, tv shows, movies, games, billboards, radio, and every possible form of media that will talk about it as some kind of fact. If that's not brain washing, then I don't know what is.
I was homeschooled and the primary source of science education was Answers in Genesis. I also attended a conservative Christian college; it was only my own studies that led me to the conclusion that the earth is old. What really tipped the scales for me was how YEC failed to explain radioisotope dating in any reasonable way. I've come across many other problems with YEC since. Anyway, I'm glad it helped you take the Bible seriously; but I'm afraid that it turns away more people, especially the most intelligent. Seeing Genesis 1 as an allegory in which the days represent ages is likely the way it was intended to be understood; consider that God is the only one acting in Genesis 1, unlike other narratives, and it was Moses who wrote in Psalm 90 that a thousand years are like a few hours (a watch in the night) to God. Compare how allegory was used by Ezekiel, to compress the story of a nation into a story about one or two characters; perhaps Genesis 1 is the same genre as that. Also consider that Ancient Near East culture's other creation stories were allegories, so that was a normal thing in Moses time.
I'm assuming you have not really looked into getting an answer, I say this because they answer almost every objection and topic with a rational, detailed, sometimes even very technical, scientific explanation. Radioisotope dating is not reliable because of assumptions that have to be made, you can learn about those assumptions here https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/ and the following is the site showing all their different articles on radiometric dating https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/ Did you know that if you took some fresh basalt from volcanic ash and dated it using the proper radiometric dating method(I believe potassium/argon) it will not give you an age of zero or even a few thousand years, it'll give you a really old age. Besides https://answersingenesis.org/, this is also a good ministry dealing with YEC topic http://www.icr.org/
Some more info... What many people do not consider or even know is that they almost never date fossils or rock layers using any radiometric dating method, they date the rock layers based on what fossils they find in them, they call them index fossils and then when you ask them about how they know the age of the fossils they will tell you it's based on what rock layers they find them in, circular reasoning is not science. Another bit of good information they will never tell you is the dates they gave/use for the rock layers in the geologic column, were all given before ANY radiometric dating method was ever discovered.
I implore you to look into it, they have a good answer for just about everything. This https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqXevIRaH8LK6kLBWN1T7c7 is the series that got me on to YEC and ultimately the Bible, he covers a lot of topics and does Q&A almost everyday on his YouTube channel. Now I don't agree with him on a few theological things and the KJV-Only thing, but other than that he explains everything in a easy way. Oh and he covers the problem with the gap theory and day age theory in the beginning of seminar 2. Seminar 4 "Lies in the textbooks" is a real good one.
Biblical authority is important, and young earth creationism is undermining it unintentionally. Too many people know that YEC is highly unscientific, so since they've been told it is what the Bible teaches they reject the Bible.
I was homeschooled and the primary source of science education was Answers in Genesis. I also attended a conservative Christian college; it was only my own studies that led me to the conclusion that the earth is old. What really tipped the scales for me was how YEC failed to explain radioisotope dating in any reasonable way.
Seeing Genesis 1 as an allegory in which the days represent ages is likely the way it was intended to be understood;
consider that God is the only one acting in Genesis 1, unlike other narratives, and it was Moses who wrote in Psalm 90 that a thousand years are like a few hours (a watch in the night) to God.
Compare how allegory was used by Ezekiel, to compress the story of a nation into a story about one or two characters; perhaps Genesis 1 is the same genre as that.
You keep reposting this, when all it tells us is what one random professor doesn't know. I recognize that the Bible seems to teach YEC, but I don't know if it was meant to. Our culture and language is very different from that of Moses. Sure, it wasn't meant to teach evolution. But maybe it wasn't meant to address the age of the earth at all, one way or the other. And there is not a lot of textual clues to say whether something is allegorical or not: allegories are often in prose too. Anyway, the scientific evidence is so clear, and the assumptions behind it are ones Christians should hold (since they are simply that the universe is real, orderly, and consistent), that I am not able to believe the earth is young, holding the knowledge I currently do. So if you succeeded in convincing me that the Bible definitely teaches a young earth, I would have to decide the Bible is wrong on that issue; which I'd rather not have to do.As for "What the text says" --
Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=============================================
Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."
You keep reposting this, when all it tells us is what one random professor doesn't know.
I recognize that the Bible seems to teach YEC
, but I don't know if it was meant to.
Our culture and language is very different from that of Moses. Sure, it wasn't meant to teach evolution.
But maybe it wasn't meant to address the age of the earth at all, one way or the other. And there is not a lot of textual clues
Anyway, the scientific evidence is so clear
Do you never try to harmonize two apparently conflicting lines of evidence? Since I accept both the inspiration of Scripture and the reliability of the senses and science, I find it entirely proper that I should try to harmonize the two.BobRyan said: ↑
As for "What the text says" --
Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=============================================
Ex 20:11 "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy."
On the contrary - each of us has opportunity to look up the credentials of James Barr - and what he may or may not know about his own field of study - his own colleagues - but for us your posts are simply one-off comments from an "unknown source" whose "bias" does not appear to allow the observations about the Hebrew text - in the case of "professor of Hebrew and/or Old Testament studies at world-class universities ".
Notice that Barr does not say "I know of no random individual on an internet forum that would not re-imagine the Gen 1 text to fit darwinism".
So also do both Christian and theist readers of the text.
The author did not 'intend' to teach Darwinism - he had never read it - and neither had his readers. None of them were about to "read Darwinism into the text" -- and here is another point where those professors mentioned above would agree. It is the "intent" that is being studied - and they are drawing their conclusion due to the "kind of literature that it is" the fact that it is written as a historic account - "the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" Gen 2:4.
It doesn't teach it at all. Neither does the summary of it - as given in legal code in Exodus 20:11 - teach blind faith evolutionism. Rather - it teaches a 7 day creation week.
We know of trees, of days, of evening and morning. No symbolism, no allegory - pure history as regarding its "intent".
Whether that history is "accurate" depends on whether or not you "believe the Bible".
For many - their choice is not to "Believe the Bible" -- but that does not mean they cannot see that it is written as an historic account, a history of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created.
Well - as those who actually study that "kind of literature" have noted - you are mistaken if you think the 'kind of literature that it is '--- cannot be clearly seen, cannot be "detected". Writing style , the methods used - are clearly historic narrative -
it is written as a historic account - "the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" Gen 2:4.
Here again - after refusing to look at any of the details in the actual text - you resort to an outside agenda.
Those professors would also agree that their imagination about what science can demonstrate as fact - does not agree with the historic account, the historic narrative as written and intended by the author. But that does not give them freedom to 're-imagine' the text.
Bringing in an outside agenda in order to "wrench the text - no matter the details of the text" is pure eisegesis.
in Christ,
Bob
I was homeschooled and the primary source of science education was Answers in Genesis. I also attended a conservative Christian college; it was only my own studies that led me to the conclusion that the earth is old. What really tipped the scales for me was how YEC failed to explain radioisotope dating in any reasonable way. I've come across many other problems with YEC since. Anyway, I'm glad it helped you take the Bible seriously; but I'm afraid that it turns away more people, especially the most intelligent. Seeing Genesis 1 as an allegory in which the days represent ages is likely the way it was intended to be understood; consider that God is the only one acting in Genesis 1, unlike other narratives, and it was Moses who wrote in Psalm 90 that a thousand years are like a few hours (a watch in the night) to God. Compare how allegory was used by Ezekiel, to compress the story of a nation into a story about one or two characters; perhaps Genesis 1 is the same genre as that. Also consider that Ancient Near East culture's other creation stories were allegories, so that was a normal thing in Moses time.
I've read nearly every issue of both Creation Magazine and Acts and Facts, over about a decade. I am familiar with the assumptions behind radioisotope dating, and for quite a while they didn't bother me, since I figured God could create the rocks with any ratio of elements. But then I realized that even if God created all the uranium with a high percentage of lead in it, that wouldn't explain why some rocks date so much older than others, and in a definite pattern that correlates with the fossils. I looked for an answer from the RATE project, but all they concluded is that the rate of decay must have sped up by about a billion times during the flood. That answer was totally unacceptable to me, because either it denies the uniformity of the laws of nature, which is a basic Christian assumption that also underlies science, or it says God did it, when there could be no reason for God to do it and it would amount to God lying to the scientists who study those rocks. Either way ICR's RATE project's answer denies basic Christian beliefs in order to maintain a young earth, and so is unacceptable. No other good answer has presented itself either.
About index fossils, this is how they work: Suppose you find 1000 fossils. Of those, only 100 are from volcanic layers, so those are the only ones that can be dated. Of those 100, 10 are of species x, and all 10 date to about the same age. Now, among the 900 fossils you can't date (since only volcanic layers can be dated), isn't it reasonable that when you find species x they will probably be around the same age as the 10 that you could date? There's no circular reasoning there.
If you are going to be teaching these things, I implore you to look into what Old Earth Creationists have to say, Hugh Ross for instance. Teachers will receive a stricter judgment, James says, so it's especially important for them to make sure they are not teaching error, which is much more likely if you only listen to one source of interpretation.
I believe in a literal fall, and a literal Adam and Eve, who were miraculously designed by God, perhaps 200,000 years ago. But even if Genesis 2 was a myth it would still be normal for Paul to use it as he did, since a myth's purpose is to teach a moral lesson, so an inspired myth would be intended for the very sort of thing Paul used it for.The problem Percivale is the damage your theology does to the bible. You appear to be of the old earth evolution happened sect....
How do you then explain mans sin nature? Genesis tells us we obtained it due to the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden. Paul in Romans tells us death and sin came about by one man. You're theology would seem to disagree with that.
In the NT Paul in a letter to Timothy instructs women on how to behave in church....Paul bases his instruction on an event you would seem to be saying never happened. Perhaps you would call it a myth. Why would Paul base a teaching on a myth?
I'll answer this if you answer why there is distance starlight, why radioisotope dating works at all, and why there are so many more marine than land fossils and no cattle bones mixed with dinosaur bones, or whale fossils in areas dated earlier than the cenozoic.Perhaps you can explain how soft tissue can be found in dino bones. 65+My's is a pretty long time for it to survive. How about C14 in coal and diamonds? Why is it there? It should be pretty much gone in 57,000 years...yet these items dated at millions of years old still contain C14.