• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Why is one religion so devided?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by Archie Dupont, Nov 27, 2017.

  1. 6000 years old

    9 vote(s)
    42.9%
  2. 10.000 years old

    1 vote(s)
    4.8%
  3. 4.9 billion years old

    11 vote(s)
    52.4%
  1. Archie Dupont

    Archie Dupont New Member

    80
    +25
    United States
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be. There are those who literally believe the scriptures that the earth was created in a weeks time (and consequently no more than about 3000 years old). Other Christians believe that the world is about 10.000 years old. There are those who believe that the whole concept of evolution is true but designed by God.

    How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint. Unity on this subject is a long way away and therefore paints the perfect bullseye for atheists and skeptics on one of the must controversial aspects of religion.

    I have tried to to find a good answer to this problem but absolutely everyone thinks something else. I hope people can give insight on this subject, both for me and for a lot of other people who struggle with the same question.

    Blessings and peace
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  2. HereIStand

    HereIStand Regular Member Supporter

    +1,622
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Sadly, it is a topic fraught with controversy. For some reason, there are those who believe the basics of Christianity, yet bend themselves into contortions when it comes to the age of the earth and our origins. Based on the Bible, there is no reason to believe in an earth that's billions of years old or that creation came about through a gradual evolutionary process.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
  3. Shoetoyou

    Shoetoyou Forgiven Sinner Supporter

    +1,445
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don’t have an answer, but I would say that all of these arguments within Christianity about the age of the earth is really missing the point of being Christian - that is, the salvific mission of Christ to reconcile humankind to God and allow us to draw nearer to Him.

    I am sure there is a true answer to how old the earth is, but squabbling about it doesn’t help us reflect God’s grace and love to the world.

    “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:35 (NKJV)
     
  4. Archie Dupont

    Archie Dupont New Member

    80
    +25
    United States
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    I think getting to understand these questions is essential to Christianity. If person A says that X=1 and person B says that X=2, only one of them can be right (or both are wrong). If person A says the earth is 6000 years old and person B says it is 10.000 years old, one of them must be wrong (or both) and therefore I would not like to follow the beliefs of that person. If he is wrong in one of these aspects, he might be also wrong in others. That is a very slippery slope.

    If a person is wrong in his beliefs (even though he may think he is right), I wouldnt know if his way of 'being Christian' is the right way. So answering those difficult questions is in my opinion essential to find out what is the right way to be a Christian and who to follow.

    I hope you follow me so far as to why I asked this question
     
  5. Shoetoyou

    Shoetoyou Forgiven Sinner Supporter

    +1,445
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    No, I understand that there is a right answer, and it is reasonable to discuss the issue.

    It seems to me, though, that I will follow Him the same, whether the earth is 6000, 10000, or 4.9 billion years old. How I love God, my neighbor (the great and second commandments, Matthew 22:36-40) and my enemy (from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:44) does not depend on the age of the earth, or even really whether I see that passage of Genesis as literal or illustrative.

    While seeking an understanding of these things can be valuable, it seems to me that it is secondary to living as Christ call us to, and believing in Him, and I have found that most of us (myself included, sadly) really need to focus on loving others, even in disagreement, first, and only once we are well advanced in that, look to these secondary matters.

    (But what do I know? I’m just expressing my frustrations with the state of things as I see it. Forgive me.)
     
  6. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,636
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    We are not to be following any man but the Christ.

    The age of creation is not a salvation issue, it isn't even mentioned in the Gospel, the Good News of the Christ.
     
  7. Shoetoyou

    Shoetoyou Forgiven Sinner Supporter

    +1,445
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    AMEN, brother!
     
  8. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    855
    +344
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    It is simple. You have scientists, like myself, united behind an old earth. Then you have everyone else, divided, uncertain and all over the place with young earth ideas.

    The reason the division exists? Because scripture doesnt clearly define the age of the earth, or evolution of life. And those who stand behind scripture, but are unfamiliar with science, are unable to distinguish between truthful interpretations of scripture and poor ones.

    And that is the truth.

    Oh and of course, some believe evolution contradicts scripture, so they would never accept it or an old earth, no matter how well understood or proven it was.

    Some believe old earth geology contradicts or stands opposed to a global flood (which it does), or contradicts genesis lineages. In that, they reject old earth geology, no matter what, because they feel that scripture speaks of a global flood and a 6000 year old earth, therefore no matter what, anything other than that is false. Anything short of literally getting into a timemachine, is insufficient to them. It doesnt matter what you say, or what you explain to them, or what you show them. It doesnt matter to those who have their heads in the sand.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Archie Dupont

    Archie Dupont New Member

    80
    +25
    United States
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    But Christ is not telling us anything about the age of the earth. Other Christians do, and they often claim their information to be correct. What if he is my pastor and he is actually wrong. The church is my way to Christ, if I cant trust him to tell me the truth, how can I trust him to lead me to the Lord?
     
  10. Archie Dupont

    Archie Dupont New Member

    80
    +25
    United States
    Protestant
    In Relationship
    I appreciate your view. But how can anyone judge that the other one is the one with the head in the sand? An atheist would accuse you of that behavior by believing an old earth and evolution but believe in scriptures at the same time.
     
  11. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,046
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Conservative
    The important thing is to recognise God as Creator and as the foundation of our existence. I was a Theistic Evolutionist in my twenties now I am a YEC. That makes me tolerant of people with a different view on this. It is not a salvation issue. Personally what changed for me was the priority that I attached to biblical evidence over scientific evidence. This caused me to go back to the science and ask questions about stuff I had taken for granted. I realised that scientists themselves actually take a lot on faith. There is ZERO empirical evidence for chemical evolution for example. Also I see this discussion in the Christian church as a sign of an honesty that is currently missing in the scientific community. The facts are not conclusive when it comes to origins so this discussion should be taking place. We should also have the humility to recognise there may be no answers at all in this life for some of our questions.
     
  12. GBTG

    GBTG Member

    157
    +25
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others

    Corinthians 1:10-31


    "10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

    'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'

    20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, 'He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.'"

    A house divided is easily attacked by the Enemy. The wisdom referenced in this passage is human wisdom, not Godly wisdom for we are to be wise in the ways of God.

    Proverbs 1:20-33

    20 Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.21 She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words: 22 "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge. 23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. 24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke, 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, 27 When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. 28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. 29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the Lord, 30 They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke. 31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be filled to the full with their own fancies. 32 For the turning away of the simple will slay them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them;33 But whoever listens to me will dwell safely, And will be secure, without fear of evil."

    The answers are all in the Bible, man need not have an onion on the matter. This is very simple, it is biblical or it ins't.

    Bible (Gods Word) > A or B

    Fact, you cannot take a translation of any Bible as literally accurate, it is a translation! This should be fairly obvious!

    Once you overcome that hurdle and understand that there are transnational errors from the original scrolls, you would be wise to go and look at the Hebrew...

    If you read the Hebrew you get...


    Genesis 1:1-2

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:1-2 Hebrew – direct translation in English

    “in·beginning, Elohim (God), created, the·heavens, and, the·earth, and·the·earth, she-became, chaos, and·vacancy, and·darkness, over, surfaces-of, abyss, and·spirit-of, Elohim, vibrating, over, surfaces-of, the·waters.”

    Gods word, in the "beginning" of our physical universe. Nothing is prior to this, or God would have said in the beginning and described something else, but He didn't. Unless you disagree with God?

    You can re-post this argument with whatever title you wish, asking the question in whatever form you wish, but you won't get any agreement see the Pharisee post...

    Lastly the age of the Earth predates the sun according to scripture, so the correct answer cannot be chosen as the Earth was created before time. (Time was created in the fourth "day" of creation).

    I was really hoping to avoid posting, but it wounds my soul to see Christ's house divided.

    Warm regards, GBTG
     
  13. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,636
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    There are some things in the Bible that can be viewed differently. It's not that your pastor would be lying to you, he would be telling you what he believes. It is your responsibility to pray for guidance and study the scriptures for yourself.

    The way to Christ is through and by the Holy Spirit. That may happen through preaching that you hear in your church or somewhere else. It could happen by reading the Bible yourself asking the Lord to open your eyes and ears to the truth. It could happen sitting under a tree and just talking to God. He said that those who are truly seeking Him will find Him because He isn't far from you.

    I would suggest that you talk with the pastors here on this forum, they have a private space where you can. Here's the link.
    Ask a Chaplain - Private Area
     
  14. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    207
    +70
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Scripture is not unclear on how/when the created world around us came to be. The division exists, IMO, for a number of reasons:

    1) Mainstream science tells us differently
    2) To varying degrees from person to person, there is a sin nature that rejects the word and truth of God (same as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden)

    There is no getting around these two... and I believe to a certain extent, #1 has some influence from #2. If I look at myself and the sin in my own life, I come up with excuses for myself and I don't want to be held accountable for my sin and so I justify reasons for allowing them to manifest themselves from time to time. If we're honest, we all do this... unless there's someone here in the forum without sin.

    So, what does rejecting God's word about our sin nature have to do with the age of the earth and creation itself? Well, if I don't want to be held accountable to a God for my sin and want to live my life, my way, as my own self-governing "god" then the first thing I'd start doing is re-writing history... without God. How I might first start is by beginning a new opening chapter: "In the beginning there was a particle with all the matter of the universe contained. This particle then rapidly expanded (what we call the 'Big Bang'). Over billions of years, the matter in that particle began to coalesce, forming stars with the outlying matter revolving around. Over many more years, the matter around the stars began to coalesce once again, forming the various planets like we see in our solar system. Earth had just the right conditions for supporting life and in time life in fact arose. Over billions of more years, this life diversified and became the various complex life forms we see today."

    As an an Atheist and an intellectual, I would be quite content with this story and amazed at how incredible life is.

    Since I am not an Atheist (I am a Christian) I do not even consider the above story worthy of washing hogs with such poppycock. Where was God in that version of the beginning? Oh, you didn't see Him? Oh, I guess I forgot to include Him. And on that note, do you ever see mention of God in mainstream scientific articles? Almost never, other than to make some nebulous, non-doctrinal, eye-catching headlines like "The God Particle". In addition to being a Christian, I also believe what the Bible says about creation (ta-da), so I get classified as a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

    Up to this point, I've still not fully brought home an answer that addresses your question as to why the division exists within Christian circles. We can all understand why the Atheist doesn't believe the universe is only thousands of years old. For the OEC (Old Earth Creationist), the Theistic Evolutionist, or some blending of ideas that fall into these camps of thought, I feel there is a kind of mental trap. Trust man... trust God, where will I draw the line?? This is why there is no solid dividing line and why you'll get a million flavors of the OEC view... because each has to judge in their own mind where the ultimate authority lies - with man or with God. Oh, now it's not so black in white... see the OEC argument is not to say (directly) that God's word is wrong, no no no. Man's interpretation of God's word is wrong. Here's the other popular one: Which is easier to misinterpret, evidence or something written in a different culture, a different language, thousands of years ago? To me personally, these just reveal a low view of both the men God chose to work through in writing down His holy word, as well as God Himself, our supreme, perfect, holy, and all-power God. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16)... yet God lacked the ability to clearly communicate who He was in relation to us, as well as when and how He created everything in terms that we could understand? Really?? I'm sure I'll get some flak from my OEC/scientist brothers and sisters on this. For me, I feel the OEC is inconsistent in their logic/thinking... eagerly accepting the miracles of Jesus, the virgin birth, death... burial... resurrection to new life in Jesus Christ forever (can I get an AMEN?!), but just can't hang their hats on the notion that God could also be telling the truth as to when and how He created everything and that it was intended such that simple man could understand and could be correctly interpreted by any lay person picking up and reading the Bible. Another common argument is that God would be deceiving if He made the universe look old, but in fact made it (relatively) young as indicated in His word. When we come up with an excuse to allow our sin, is this because God has not made it clear what sin is? No; I have in fact deceived myself.

    Unity. Unity comes from knowing and accepting a common, shared belief. As I've already stated, we all have a sin nature and so we see that rallying behind the (entire) word of God has never yet been achieved in all of history (however long you believe that to be). I think what's important here is that we can all stand behind foundational theological doctrines of truth, things like: God created the universe, we are all sinners, Jesus died for our sins, Jesus is the way the truth and the life, when we are saved the Holy Spirit indwells us, etc... As for the specifics, we'll probably always have degrees of disagreement among believers. I'd prefer not to be wrong, but if I'm going to be wrong, I want it to be because I ignorantly dismissed what the world told me was true and instead blindly accepted what God told me to be true (sola scrptura - scripture alone, not scriptura per scientiam - scripture as defined by science).

    Respectfully in Christ,
    "Reepicheep"
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  15. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    855
    +344
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    A lowly view of man is correct^, as since the dawn of Christianity, Christians have always been divided over scripture. At the very beginning you have the council of nicea, apocrypha, Christian monasticism, gnostics, arians, donatists etc., let alone modern divisions we see today.

    This isn't division caused by God, but by the flawed attempts people have made in understanding scripture. Should we be surprised that this happens? No, not at all. Thus is the nature of fallen man.

    And so we return to the statement

    "Which is easier to misinterpret, evidence or something written in a different culture, a different language, thousands of years ago?"

    It isn't a question of mans interpretation of scripture versus science. It is a question of which of mans interpretations includes science in its derivation.

    Hands down, evidence such as, physics, that is confirmed through testing, and confirmed through application of building and flying space shuttles, while not perfect, is compelling and is often confirmed in its truth. Those who use it (use science), to assist with forming their interpretations of scripture, are more likely to be correct in their understanding, than those who deny it.

    Also, study of the earth, is study of Gods creation. So, really, it is a question of what party uses research of Gods creation (the earth) to weight in on how they formulate their interpretation.

    Alternatively, those who do not research Gods creation, or deny things like physics (Gods laws), are more likely to misinterpret scripture.
     
  16. GBTG

    GBTG Member

    157
    +25
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Proverbs 1:5 “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels”

    What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

    Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

    Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment.

    The Bible calls for us to be wise!

    Knowing something and not applying it makes one unwise…

    Knowing the bible was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek is of significance, not merely to be pushed aside as an ancient language. Knowing that any English translation is a translation, lets one understand that the “idea” of the translation was what was being imparted or preserved. Therefore, any translation cannot be “literal” unless it’s in the original language. If you dismiss this, you have already conceded wisdom.

    Next comes to credibility: Who is more apt to be accurate in regard to applying science to “anything” a scientist or an artist? In contrast whom better to visually represent an idea, the former or the latter? One should recognize their strengths and weaknesses and not delve into discussions for which they have no credibility, for that is foolishness.

    Using the Bible, God’s word (John 1:1), as the backbone for all discussion is wise. Discounting or changing the scriptures to fit an argument is blasphemy.

    If you have a question about science, and the Bible, one should seek out wise “counsels” as in the biblical example given above. If you want to demonstrate those ideas visually one should do the same.

    Sin has nothing to do with any of this unless you are proactively messing with scripture. If a fornicator follows the directions verbatim to make a cake and a Nun does the same. who made the better cake? So it goes with reading scripture, if we (Christians) read God's word and apply it as described we get the Universe and everything in it. Copernicus was a Christian scientist that gave credibility to both, and did not think of them as mutually exclusive.

    As was asked at the beginning of this post, and has been asked in many of the other posts indirectly; why the stark contrast?

    I think the question is therefore flawed. The real question is what would it take for either YEC or OEC to agree or come to one accord? This again has no tangible answer as is demonstrated on these boards! YEC is tradition, not wisdom, (scripture does not support it, unless you move everything around, and take things out of context), like pre-Copernican thinking the majority (group think) wins regardless of the accuracy. OEC gets no traction regardless of the overwhelming scientific proof, because if you believe in science you therefore are an atheist, and any YEC gets to discount anything you say. I have more then demonstrated this! This is what grieves me so... we are divided not by scripture but by tradition. Unless we change the tradition of the argument or the view of the application of knowledge, we are all accounted as fools. It only takes one bad Christian to make us all look bad.

    Warm regards, GBTG
     
  17. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    207
    +70
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Non sequitur and illustrates scriptura per scientiam in use. Neither do I nor does any YEC reject physics (physics didn't tell you billions of years, you were taught to interpret that what you see in rock layers can only happen as a result of millions/billions of years - just as I was taught to believe scripture is the word of God and is true and noncontradictory to the physical universe around us). By your line of reasoning as I've quoted above, just about every single Theologian, Hebraist, Lexicographer, and Bible Scholar alive (or ever lived) is/was then inadequate for their position as they did not also have a science degree. The truth of scripture is plainly revealed such that it can even be understood by a child. Scripture is also revealed through study (hermeneutics) - following rules around definition, usage, context, historical background, logic, precedent, unity and inference. Scripture is also revealed by the Holy Spirit. No need to study stars, cells, and rocks, nor are any Christian Universities popping out PhD's with dual majors (one in science) in order to be competent Theologians. Genesis is not some abstract, stand-alone book that runs perpendicular to the rest of scripture; in fact, the rest of scripture affirms it as true and narrative.

    Setting aside the creation account/age of the earth for the moment, I find it very interesting that there is agreement that just about everyone (OEC's and YEC's alike) believe Jesus was born of a virgin (and this is what the text says), that Jesus is the son of God (and this is what the text says), that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the one triune God (and this is what the text says), that Jesus performed miracles - healing the sick, blind, lame, restoring those who had even died (and this is what the text says), that Jesus fully paid for our sins (past, present, future) on the cross (and this is what the text says), that Jesus is coming back and the dead in Christ will be raised first with the rest of the saints then meeting up with Jesus in the air (and this is what the text says). So it is quite odd (and illustrates the inconsistent logic/thinking I referred to in my previous post) that when scripture tells us creation occurred in a week and gives us the lineage from Adam to Christ that the OEC flips the switch and says this part of scripture now requires a very lose, very allegorical/poetic view as just this part of scripture (as it is laying down the foundation for everything else to follow) is somehow not reliable, not accurate and not historical (even though doing so subverts all the rules of hermeneutics)? It would seem there is almost unanimous agreement on just about all foundational doctrines of the Bible, except the creation account and the event of Noah's flood. Do you know exactly all of the elements/aspects of the flood and what happened (what it looked like) when the fountains of the deep were released? Were you or I there? Have we not seen canyons carved out in a short period of time in more recent years? There are documented, observed events that repeatedly contradict the never-observed theories of millions/billions of years, yet the OEC is willing to throw out the word of God on the account that they've been taught to believe and interpret evidence differently by their University professors? By definition, this is placing the word of man over the word of God.

    When Jesus was in debates with Pharisees He seemed to always turn to scripture in support of His position - as if it was somehow of highest authority--probably a good idea. When Jesus said, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female" should the 'beginning' here be some other 'beginning' than the beginning in Genesis on the 24-hr day 6 as we're told in the text? What Jesus is saying here affirms Genesis, by definition, usage, context, historical background, etc... just as one would expect it to, if Genesis is true. I'm sure, as a scientist, you can appreciate when multiple sources corroborate the same conclusion and to your words, "is compelling and is often confirmed in its truth." No where in all of scripture is Genesis contradicted, and in fact many areas of the OT, NT, and Jesus Himself affirms it's accuracy, it's authority, and it's historicity. Unlike science, the Bible isn't just some theory or hypothesis that just gets updated or thrown out on the basis of new research. In fact, if new information contradicts the Bible one should logically conclude that the error resides in the new information. What information contradicts Genesis? Rock layers? Distant starlight? Genetic variability within a species? Does this come from scripture? No. Is it a new revelation from God intended to override already-revealed truths? No. Where do these ideas come from? It comes from man. Is the word of man more authoritative than the word of God? That's for everyone here to answer for themselves.

    @Archie Dupont - hopefully from the dialog between @KomatiiteBIF and I here you see illustrated why there is a divergence around the age of the earth. Many Evangelicals hold to scripture found in Genesis being as equally true as the rest of scripture... as it is supported and affirmed by the rest of scripture. Others do have a different perspective and see Genesis in a different light based upon a different and more deeply rooted version of how (and when) life and creation began, and it is alright to disagree on these tertiary matters as we are all God's children, we all serve the same loving God, and it is by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ we are all saved. God bless - and K-BIF, thank you for your comments and insights as always, much appreciated sir.
     
  18. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    855
    +344
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    YECs do reject physics, they are just unaware of why or how that is.

    For example...rocks fracture at 30 and 90 degree angles when under set physical amounts of pressure. We see rocks broken at these angles, we understand that they were affected by those pressures, which has caused their fracturing.

    YECs claim that the layers were laid down by a flood as soft sediment. Soft sediment does not fracture as rocks do.

    Therefore, YECs (perhaps not all of them, but many) reject physics.

    This isnt about interpretation of old versus young, its about who pays attention to physics, and who ignores it.

    Now i will read the rest of your post.
     
  19. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    855
    +344
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Well, we have to begin somewhere. But regardless of what anyone thinks may be inconsistent logic across the board, this doesn't address the topic at hand.

    But it is a good point though, one I agree with.
     
  20. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    855
    +344
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    None that are complex in their geology, such as the grand canyon, not even close.
     
Loading...