Why is one religion so devided?

[NobleMouse]

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.

The majority of the world's leading Hebraists, Lexicographers, Theologians, and Bible scholars that study the original Hebrew do no find evidence for translating the text to English (or any other language) to support an OEC view. The yom's of Genesis are interpreted largely as an actual day, in fact, the entire account is believed to be narrative in nature - not poetic imagery or something of the like.

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.

YEC is tradition, not wisdom, (scripture does not support it, unless you move everything around, and take things out of context)...

Nice ideas, but you have contradicted yourself - first stating that it is wise to use the Bible as the backbone for discussions, then indicating that the YEC view (which holds to all of the Bible being true) is not wisdom. Then you go on to indicate that scripture does not support this view and that everything has to be moved around and taken out of context to support the YEC view... can you provide examples from scripture of where this is being done? The text says what it says, taking something out of context is when we say the text does not say what it says. I would beg to differ that scripture does not at all support hundreds of thousands of generations being skipped to fill up the millions of years that would have existed from Adam to Christ to fit the ever-changing evolutionary timeline... in fact, when corroborated elsewhere in scripture (taken in context) these relationships are shown to be direct descendants (father-to-son); neither does the Bible give a context to suggest that the yom's of creation represent billions of years.

Sin has nothing to do with any of this unless you are proactively messing with scripture.

So for the first person who proposed that life and the universe came about by means other than how the Bible tells us it did, the person was either ignorant of the truth (a possibility, I won't discount) or as you have indicated, was proactively messing with scripture by inventing an alternate truth.

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'd like to apologize if a YEC has ever called you or any other OEC an atheist as this is not a Christ-like behavior/response, nor is it a true statement. As I've stated before, we can disagree on this topic and still all be God's children, all serve the same loving God, all saved by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

Old earth geology does not come from man any more than a tree does.

The question is, when does mankind become aware?

New information comes up in my life. For example, I just found out about some road construction around the corner from me. Its likely been going on 2-3 days based on how much work has been done there.

I didnt make this up, I became aware of it, after the fact.

Old earth geology is the same thing. It is as it is, its just a question of how long it takes people to become aware of it.

And the earth, is not the word of man. It is as it is. It is Gods creation. And our awareness of its age, is not a product of our imagination. It is a response to Gods creation and to Gods power.

And the reason we have taken so long to respond to Gods creation, and the reason it has taken long to become aware of its age, is that in depth research and study of geology, really is only about 300 years old.

There were not geologists in the times of Jesus. Not like there are today. There were philosophers, but there were not scientists advanced in building space shuttles and satellites and nuclear weapons. These are advancements that took people time to become aware of how to understand them.

Nuclear energy is not a product of mankinds imagination either. It just took us time to become aware of it. Just as it took us time to become aware of the earths age.

And unfortunately, not everyone is a nuclear physicist and understands nuclear energy. Likewise, not everyone is a geologist, and not everyone understands the earth or its age.

 

[NobleMouse]

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.

Am I understanding you correct in that the plan here is that science will reinterpret the 'real truth' behind scripture, one topic at a time... right now just starting with creation/flood of Noah? Incredible. I don't need to tell you, but science also shows that we all die, that's it, the end. No more. What scientific evidence have you come across to support the notion of a glorified resurrection body and eternal life spent with God? Do you not believe this, was this just allegory as well? If you do believe eternity will be spent with God, why do you believe it? You have no scientific, substantiated proof of it. Are you just picking/choosing what you want to believe in by faith? Not poking to seem insensitive, just looking to better understand brother.

 

[Job 33:6]

Am I understanding you correct in that the plan here is that science will reinterpret the 'real truth' behind scripture, one topic at a time... right now just starting with creation/flood of Noah? Incredible. I don't need to tell you, but science also shows that we all die, that's it, the end. No more. What scientific evidence have you come across to support the notion of a glorified resurrection body and eternal life spent with God? Do you not believe this, was this just allegory as well? If you do believe eternity will be spent with God, why do you believe it? You have no scientific, substantiated proof of it. Are you just picking/choosing what you want to believe in by faith? Not poking to seem insensitive, just looking to better understand brother.

Just my opinion, I believe everyone picks and chooses what to believe. If we are being honest, when it comes to faith, thats just what we do. And religion is faith based. Just as muslims or jews pick and choose what they wish to believe or not believe.

However, science is on another spectrum. Because a rock remains a rock, regardless of what religion or faith you follow. Regardless of if you believe Muhammad flew on a flying donkey to Mecca, or if you believe a person had risen from the dead. That is why there is an exception to be made.

And sometimes, its not the evidence for something, but it is the evidence for something, as well as against something else.

Im a geologist. I study rocks. And so, that is where my attention points. Do i have selective faith for other matters? I would say so, for example, there may not be clear physical or testable evidence for God, but I believe. Why do I make an exception for God but not the age of the earth? Because there is evidence for an old earth, against a young earth, and I believe in God for faith based reasons that have no physical justification. It is a personal choice, as all faith based matters are.

If you want to talk about why theistic evolutionists believe in God, I would recommend starting another topic, because there is a lot to be said.

For now though, we discuss science and the earth.

 

[NobleMouse]

New information comes up in my life. For example, I just found out about some road construction around the corner from me. Its likely been going on 2-3 days based on how much work has been done there.

I didnt make this up, I became aware of it, after the fact.

Old earth geology is the same thing. It is as it is, its just a question of how long it takes people to become aware of it.

These are not the same, the construction around the corner happened in the present and has been seen happening many many many times over again from beginning to completion. How many grand canyons have been observed forming from beginning to end and are well documented with blueprints?

And the earth, is not the word of man. It is as it is. It is Gods creation. And our awareness of its age, is not a product of our imagination. It is a response to Gods creation and to Gods power.

The earth is not the word of man, yes. The age of the earth (according to mainstream science) is the word of man, yes - God did not say billions of years, and He very well could have if it were so, and we very well would have understood if He had said so, but He didn't. Since God did give a timeline, and it is not billions of years, by definition, an age of billions of years is a product of our imagination.

There were not geologists in the times of Jesus. Not like there are today. There were philosophers, but there were not scientists advanced in building space shuttles and satellites and nuclear weapons. These are advancements that took people time to become aware of how to understand them.

Agreed, but not at all necessary to have conveyed billions of years should that have been the truth.

Nuclear energy is not a product of mankinds imagination either. It just took us time to become aware of it. Just as it took us time to become aware of the earths age.

Nuclear energy we observe in the present, so yes not imagination. Who observed billions of years ago? Still looking to prove God's word wrong on the basis of events never observed? BTW, having a limited understanding of how to manipulate that which God has already created does not make one a qualified expert to attempt to render his word void on the basis of events never observed. Is the clay more wise than the potter?

And unfortunately, not everyone is a nuclear physicist and understands nuclear energy. Likewise, not everyone is a geology, and not everyone understands the earth or its age.

Not needed, God already gave us the age.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not needed, God already gave us the age.

And here is the crux of the conflict. No words need be said beyond this. Young earthers, already have their answer.

They dont need to study the earth. It is already settled for them.

They dont need to know the difference between a greenstone and a blueschist, or anything about rocks at all. It is already settled....for them.

They could understand Gods creation, without even opening their eyes to look at it. Imagine that...

Before the studies even began.

 

[NobleMouse]

Just my opinion, I believe everyone picks and chooses what to believe. If we are being honest, when it comes to faith, thats just what we do... It is a personal choice, as all faith based matters are... If you want to talk about why theistic evolutionists believe in God, I would recommend starting another topic, because there is a lot to be said.

Thank you for confirming. Not saying theistic evolutionists don't believe in God... just curious to know your personal views on scripture in general. Thank you!

 

[NobleMouse]

And here is the crux of the conflict. No words need be said beyond this. Young earthers, already have their answer.

They dont need to study the earth. It is already settled for them.

The age of the earth doesn't need to be studied, yes, but evidence does exist that supports the timeline given by the Bible. If that were not true, organizations like Aig, Creation.com, and ICR would not even exist. My cousin also has a degree in geology and enjoys studying rocks, and also believes God created everything when He said He did.

 

[Job 33:6]

The age of the earth doesn't need to be studied, yes, but evidence does exist that supports the timeline given by the Bible. If that were not true, organizations like Aig, Creation.com, and ICR would not even exist. My cousin also has a degree in geology and enjoys studying rocks, and also believes God created everything when He said He did.

If the earth doesnt need to be studied to understand its age, then physics doesnt need to be studied to fly to outer space...

 

[Job 33:6]

The solution to the dilemma, I would say can only be solved, when people gain an understanding of geology.

A debate cannot be held, if only one side is aware of the science. And that, 99% of the time, is the case, as it is here and now. And so the dilemma remains unsolved.

For those aware of geology, I would say 99% of the time, the dilemma is resolved, and so discussions almost never occur between two geologists old and young, because they move to the old earth side, upon becoming aware. Hence why there are...practically no young earth geologists. At best you can only name 2 or 3 that you have to look up on the internet because they dont exist in person. And ive met a lot of geologists, i would say, at this point, hundreds. And literally, i have not met a single young earth geologist in person. Even amongst christian geologists. Not that they dont exist, but its just a rarity, because with awareness, we are compelled by what is apparent. Compelled by creation and God, to support what we believe is Gods true creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Heres a good question as well, or a good point to make.

When is the last time anyone has met a young earther that isnt a praciticing and serious christian?

They dont exist. Because scientifically, and purely based on evidence, the answer is straight foward. The dilemma only arises through peoples interpretations of scripture, and it has nothing to do with geology or the study of the earth. It has nothing to do with the earth at all. Their opinions and judgement of the earth, has nothing to do with the earth at all. They judge Gods creation, without using their eyes.

Then....after theyve already made their judgement, only then...only then, do things like the grand canyon, somehow, some-way, become evidence of a global flood or a young earth.

Then when you point out how little sense it makes, they retreat behind the "well it was a miracle" response. If it was a miracle, why even try to use science to begin with? Then they try using science again, come up short, retreat and call it a miracle. And the process repeats.

The dilemma exists upon entry into the discussion, because people presupposed the answer, before studying the earth.

 

[Marvin Knox]

None that are complex in their geology, such as the grand canyon, not even close.

How do you believe the Grand Canyon was formed?

 

[dqhall]

I saw the Grand Canyon was made as a river eroded through layers of strata deposited over millions of years. I do not need to go see the Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky complete with model dinosaurs. I can believe God gives life, healing and truth as a result of my studies and experiences. I liked to learn the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles. Jesus did not spend much time giving evidence for the age of the earth. There is a New Testament and an Old Testament in my Bible. It is not one and the same testament.

 

[Job 33:6]

How do you believe the Grand Canyon was formed?

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

Its better to ask the question of how each formation formed, than the whole canyon, as there is a great deal to the canyon.

However, feel free to check out my post above to get a rough idea.

Post number 15 gives sort of an "order of operations" statement, as far as relative dating goes.

Post number 35 describes uplift and erosion, which would have occurred after the order of operations listed in post 15.

Then beyond that, each formation or layer from post 15, would have its own individual story. And there are some 20 formations, so to really answer the question of how the grandcanyon formed, it would take a large amount of text to go through it all. Though i suppose i could go into more detail if anyone would actually be interested in hearing it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And really, I would recommend everyone take a glance at my posts.

Old Earth Geology =Part 1

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = Part 2

 

[Marvin Knox]

And really, I would recommend everyone take a glance at my posts.

Thank you.
I will.

I'm glad to see that you don't hold to the ridiculous idea that it was the Colorado river which carved it over time.

 

[JackRT]

And really, I would recommend everyone take a glance at my posts.

Old Earth Geology =Part 1

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon) = Part 2

I am greatly impressed with your posts. Thank you. I am a 74 yo retired physicist (nuclear), mathematician and educator and, like you, I am a Christian. And again, like you, I am frustrated by those who cannot understand that long before our scriptures were written God left a scripture in the stones and the bones and the stars. It is only in the past few hundred years that we have begun to read that original scripture. The beauty of it is that this record is still in the original manuscript.

I will look for your posts in the future.

 

[GBTG]

The majority of the world's leading Hebraists, Lexicographers, Theologians, and Bible scholars that study the original Hebrew do no find evidence for translating the text to English (or any other language) to support an OEC view. The yom's of Genesis are interpreted largely as an actual day, in fact, the entire account is believed to be narrative in nature - not poetic imagery or something of the like.

I will concede this point if you will concede that it’s God’s Day/Yom, not mans 24hr day. Otherwise we are at an impass (example in next point). I never said I think it’s poetic imagery... on the contrary I think it very accurately describes the beginning of the whole universe every boson, photon, proton, neutron, electron, atom, molecule, matter...

Then you go on to indicate that scripture does not support this view and that everything has to be moved around and taken out of context to support the YEC view... can you provide examples from scripture of where this is being done? The text says what it says, taking something out of context is when we say the text does not say what it says.

As I have demonstrated many times on this forum, YEC’s state the Bible says days/yom in Genesis are 24 hour days. If God did not create time until the fourth day (Suns) in Genesis, how can the 3 previous days be 24hr days?

Please describe the state of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2

One last question can we have an Earth without gravity?

As always I respect your thoughtful posts but respectfully disagree!

Lastly, YEC’s use the scientific definition of Day: 24 hours (86 400 seconds), the word day is used for several different spans of time based on the rotation of the Earth around its axis. An important one is the solar day, defined as the time it takes for the Sun to return to its culmination point (its highest point in the sky).

Where in the Bible does it say the length of a day. If you are using the scientific definition why is this ok, and not the other applications of scientific observations?!

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[mindlight]

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.

I agree we need to be honest about what the evidence actually says. It is when we step beyond that to try and infer from what we know that the divisions start. The hunger to understand is godly but so also is the humility to know when the answer , though reasonable and powerful, might be wrong and cannot be trusted as a foundational truth of our lives.

 

[tulipbee]

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

Religion got divided when a group of men thought Jesus gave the keys to Peter, only, instead of all the apostles. All of the apostles proclaimed the gospel but peter's friends supported Peter but making up that he was the cornerstone and rock instead of Jesus. that roman denomination was invented around 3rd century. that's when they got greedy for money and power. they split themselves from the universal catholic church and created one in thier own for political power