Why would God use billions of years?

[Vance]

Verse 9: God wants us to take the seventh day of the week to rest. This is a literal, straightforward commandment, as is the commandment to rest your field every seventh year. Both are based on . . .

Verse 11: refers back to the literary presentation of Genesis 1, which they would have taken seriously, and would have talked about it in these exact terms, whether they considered that account of the past to be strictly literal or not. This may be hard for us to get our head around, being moderns, but they would have talked about it in historical terms, even applied it to their lives as if it was talking about an historical narrative, even if they did not consider it strictly literal.

Here is the best example I can give. Let's say Jesus said something like "I command you to care for those in need. For the Samaritan aided the one in need, even an enemy, and you are to do the same."

Now, that reference to the Samaritan is EXACTLY as it would be given if the Good Samaritan was a literal, historical person, and the events were historical events. But if you heard that, after hearing the story of the Good Samaritan, would you then believe that the Samaritan story was literal history? Probably not. And yet, if someone asked you why you were aiding your enemy in need, you might even say "because I must do as the Samaritan did", saying it exactly as you would if the Samaritan was an historical person, but still not thinking that he is.

Now, here is what is important about all of this. Whether you think this is the correct reading of the text, you can see (I think) that it is a viable and possibly correct alternative. Even if only, in your minds, a 20% likelihood. Or 10% likelihood. Now, consider that this entire approach actually fits with the most likely interpretation of the evidence of God's Creation as well. (BTW, even w/o the scientific consistency, I find the view I have presented to be well over 90% in likelihood, and with the addition of the scientific evidence, more like 99%).

Given all of this, should any YEC be dogmatic about their YEC teaching, to the extent of saying, as many YEC's do, that evolution is simply and conclusively contrary to Scripture? Should they present it in the "either/or" method they do, basically saying that if evolution is true, Scripture is false? Now, you may not do this, but the YEC ministries and even many YEC's here do this.

I just find it somewhat irresponsible when you consider that there are other viable alternatives believed by millions of Christians around the world. In the end I don't care what any other Christian believes on these issues, I just oppose anyone presenting their viewpoint in a way that is so dogmatic as to create a potential stumbling-block to another's belief.

 

[gluadys]

Just give me the down and dirty cliff notes please.

The point of the 6 day framework in Genesis is not to tell us how long God took to create, but to tell us to rest on the seventh day. Both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 (written by the same author) are making the same point. God created the sabbath and connected the sabbath with creation. So we are to remember the sabbath and make it a regular part of our lives---on both a weekly, seven-yearly and seven x seven year cycle. (Jubilee: Leviticus 25)

Deuteronomy (written by a different author) gives a different reason for remembering the sabbath. There the sabbath is connected with the exodus instead of the creation.

Both, by the way, strongly connect the Sabbath with the great biblical theme of just and righteous dealing with others, even with the earth and the wild animals. There is much, much to be learned here that is far more important than the chronology of creation.

 

[vossler]

Verse 9: God wants us to take the seventh day of the week to rest. This is a literal, straightforward commandment, as is the commandment to rest your field every seventh year. Both are based on . . .

Verse 11: refers back to the literary presentation of Genesis 1, which they would have taken seriously, and would have talked about it in these exact terms, whether they considered that account of the past to be strictly literal or not. This may be hard for us to get our head around, being moderns, but they would have talked about it in historical terms, even applied it to their lives as if it was talking about an historical narrative, even if they did not consider it strictly literal.

OK now we're getting somewhere.

Verse 9 speaks of directly of six days and doesn't even mention the seventh. But I'm not here to get nit-picky, because verse 10, day seven, is also important to define and if I've read you correctly you would also say that since verse 10 is literal then verse 9 is also.

Verse 11: Now here things get a little dicey. Here you refer to the "literary presentation" and I'm guessing "framework" that people in biblical times would have used. Am I at least half-way right here? You essentially give a lot of hyperbole to say, without really saying, that the verse can or cannot be literal depending on how you want to read it. So, we have a literal verse 9 being compared to a "literary presentation" or "framework" verse, for me this is an apples and oranges comparison. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like God.

Now, here is what is important about all of this. Whether you think this is the correct reading of the text, you can see (I think) that it is a viable and possibly correct alternative. Even if only, in your minds, a 20% likelihood. Or 10% likelihood. Now, consider that this entire approach actually fits with the most likely interpretation of the evidence of God's Creation as well. (BTW, even w/o the scientific consistency, I find the view I have presented to be well over 90% in likelihood, and with the addition of the scientific evidence, more like 99%).

I would put the likelihood at less than 1%. Ahhh...here's where the rubber meets the road. The "interpretation of the evidence of God's Creation" is truly the crux of the issue here and not God's Word. The evidence requires man's interpretation of the physical evidence. Here is where we are on two different sides of the spectrum. Man's record for accuracy on any of these matters is, at best, shakey. Regardless of what you may say, to put it as simply as I can, it is apparent to me that you come from the evidence based on man's interpretation to the bible while I come from the bible to the evidence.

Hey, I'm not here to argue who's interpretation is more correct. That wasn't my purpose for this thread. It was solely for fact finding. You along with others have presented you case and I have what I was looking for. My understanding of your position has been greatly enhanced. Thank you very much for your time and effort, I truly appreciate it. May God Bless all of you!

 

[Vance]

No, verse 11 would not be taken be taken as either literal or non-literal as they "want" to read it. You have to shake your mind loose of your modern assumptions for a minute and try to think like a person in an ANE culture. They had no problem at all with taking a story about their past and not caring at all whether it is actual, literal, factually correct history, but still taking every word seriously. When God used the six day presentation, with the resting on the seventh day, they would have seen this as a very direct statement and a very "real" statement, even while not even really caring whether there, back in history, the actual event took place over six 24-hour days. They would have used that as a framework of thought, would have talked about it that way, would have treated that six day chronology as important and in basically every way would have thought and talked about it the same as if they DID think it was literal history. BUT, if you were there and asked them, pointedly, "yes, but do you think that is what really happened back at the beginning, that God created over six days?" They would be a bit confused because that would hardly be a meaningful question for them. They did not even consider that you could tell about events dealing with God's Creation of the world in the same way you could talk about what happened last thursday, or even when your grandfather was alive.

So, they would take the figurative story presentation as just the way you tell about the past, and since they believed that God chose the very words for the presentation, they would take it seriously, even as real, but not as strictly historical.

Again, this is difficult for our modern minds, I know, but once you "wallow" around in their ancient culture and literature for a while (my degree from university was in ancient history, way back in the day, and has been my area of study, but not occupation, since then), you can get a feel for their way of thought. Again, ask ten different professionals in this area, and you will have at least 8 of them agree with this completely. Probably all ten.

As for which "wags" which, I can assure you that I began to view Genesis 1 ad 2 in this way before any of the scientific ideas had any influence. I grew up being taught YEC versions of science and indoctrinated to believe that secular science was both wrong and anti-Christian, at home (father was an evangelical minister), at school (attended evangelical schools) and at church. Even while I still believed in a young earth creation concept, I had a real problem with the "traditional" reading of the Creation stories, and when I began to study the ancient cultures and literature, it was basically "hey, wait a minute here!" So, it was actually my new insights into the proper reading of Genesis that eventually led me to reconsider my YEC viewpoint on the science!

And I, too, take the Bible AS evidence. But that evidence simply does not say to me what it says to you. If I was convinced that the ONLY way to read Genesis 1 and 2 was as you do, then I would be more inclined to doubt the conclusions of science on these matters. But I realized before even considering that science that we are talking about Man's interpretation either way: of Scripture and God's Creation. Both are just as likely to be fallible and subject to error.

And what YEC's need to always keep in mind is that their reading of Scripture is NOT the only one held by Bible-believing Christians. Many different denominations have concluded that th analysis I have shown above is either the correct one, or is very possibly the correct one, and it is not something we can be sure about. In fact, worldwide, this is the majority opinion. While appeals to numbers are not important, it does strike me that most YEC's really think that their literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is that predominant view and that the alternative is just some liberal fringe, easily dismissed.

But, most importantly, would you be willing to say what proposed in another post:

"You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal. But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

 

[vossler]

Again, this is difficult for our modern minds, I know, but once you "wallow" around in their ancient culture and literature for a while (my degree from university was in ancient history, way back in the day, and has been my area of study, but not occupation, since then), you can get a feel for their way of thought. Again, ask ten different professionals in this area, and you will have at least 8 of them agree with this completely. Probably all ten.

I'm not a historian and won't even attempt to pretend that I know anything with regard to this subject. However, I will make an observation concerning this thought process you've taken. If, as you say, people from the day of the writing of Genesis didn't think like we do and so today we need historians such as yourself to tell us how they thought in order to correctly intrepret God's Word; I think we have a problem.

As for which "wags" which, I can assure you that I began to view Genesis 1 ad 2 in this way before any of the scientific ideas had any influence. I grew up being taught YEC versions of science and indoctrinated to believe that secular science was both wrong and anti-Christian, at home (father was an evangelical minister), at school (attended evangelical schools) and at church. Even while I still believed in a young earth creation concept, I had a real problem with the "traditional" reading of the Creation stories, and when I began to study the ancient cultures and literature, it was basically "hey, wait a minute here!" So, it was actually my new insights into the proper reading of Genesis that eventually led me to reconsider my YEC viewpoint on the science!

You've certainly come to your viewpoint in a most interesting way. Would it be safe to say that you used to read Genesis in a literal fashion until "educated" to see it otherwise?

And I, too, take the Bible AS evidence. But that evidence simply does not say to me what it says to you. If I was convinced that the ONLY way to read Genesis 1 and 2 was as you do, then I would be more inclined to doubt the conclusions of science on these matters. But I realized before even considering that science that we are talking about Man's interpretation either way: of Scripture and God's Creation. Both are just as likely to be fallible and subject to error.

Yet they are very different in my mind. With scripture we've been given the Holy Spirit to assist us in the interpretation, creation or nature is left with the knowledge man possesses or can attain. I know many TEs see nature as the 67th book of the bible, but I don't.

And what YEC's need to always keep in mind is that their reading of Scripture is NOT the only one held by Bible-believing Christians.

No, but almost all the well-known preachers who are known for their strong support of biblical doctrine and truth do support a young earth. As I sit here and think about it I can't think of a single one who doesn't. Maybe you can share some who do.

"You know, it doesn't really matter. The Bible is still correct, regardless of the exact timing and procedure of the Creation process. I believe the earth is young and that all the species were created at once over six 24 hour days because I think the text is literal. But, I realize this is not the only possible reading, and other Christians DO read it differently, and so conclude that the earth is billions of years old and God created using evolutionary processes. It really doesn't matter. Scripture is true either way, and none of it is a salvation issue, and should not be a stumbling block to anyone."

You know I read that thread and was tempted to respond, but held back. I'll give you my short answer.

To concur with this statement is to say that I believe scripture can have more than one interpretation. I don't. It always matters how scripture is interpreted! Is it a salvation issue, obviously not, but that doesn't mean it's not a stumbling block to a non-believer.

 

[Vance]

1. No, we don't need an historian to teach us what Scripture really says, because we should be able to recognize from the text alone that what God is telling us in the text is the essential truths that we ALL believe, regardless of whether it is read as literal history or not. What has happened is that people have mistakenly gotten sidetracked onto the "historicity" issues and lost focus, to some extent, on the essentials of what is being told to us. Also, consider the Westminster Confession and Augustine who both admitted that much of the Scripture is not clear and easily understood. Why do you think that one of the gifts of the spirit is "teaching"?

2. No, I used to read Genesis literal as a child just because I was told that was what it meant. It was not while I was still a youngster that I began to see problems with the strictly literal reading, and pressed my father the minister with a lot of tough questions. The text just didn't read like "history" to me at all, and I felt like it was a matter of the Emperor's New Clothes, and everyone just read it that way because they had been told that was how to read it. Now, I see that it is more a matter of the modern mind's empirical conditioning. So, really, it was a matter of getting to Scripture BEFORE I became indoctrinated too deeply in both literalist indoctrination and modern Western empiricism. Then, as I began to study the culture and evidence, it was very much "Now, wait a second, I see what is going on here!" I already knew that a strictly literal/historical reading of Genesis was almost assuredly wrong, and now I could see why.

3. Are you saying that Christian scientists who agree with the theory of evolution (which is the vast, vast majority of Christian scientists) are not equally led by the Spirit in their scientific studies as in their Scriptural studies? And think about the effectiveness of the Spirit's guidance on interpretive issues. We have hundreds and hundreds of different Scriptural interpretations, all by people who feel convinced they are bieng led to that conclusion by the Spirit. Humans obviously can err even with the Spirit's guidance. And, no, I would not call nature the last book of the Bible, but simply another source of God's revelation to us. Another factor to be considered in determining what really happened.

4. I will post a list just below this of religious denominations which accept evolution, or at least do not oppose it.

5. Yes, of course there is only ONE right interpretation. What that statement is saying is that I am humble enough to accept that the one I THINK is the right one may not be the right one. And, as for a stumbling block, I think the only stumbling block in this whole issue is that people are being told that the YEC intepretation is the only possible one, and that if evolution is true, Scripture isn't. So, for those who believe in evolution already, a MAJOR stumbling block. For those who later come to believe that it is true, it can cause a crisis of faith in Scripture. This is why such a statement is important.

 

[Vance]

Here is what some prominent Christian denominations (and one Jewish organization) are saying about creation and evolution:

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A.

[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction" [/font] [font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] [/font] [font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that "Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture," and that "a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator."[/font]


[relevant part of a resolution adopted by the Assembly]
Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation-science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature -- where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific -- is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,

Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,

Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,

Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,

Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce "Scientific" creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.

Passed June 1984, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.

THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION
[excerpts]

Rather, the evolutionary dynamisms of today's world compel a more realistic confrontation. One area of reality after another has been analyzed and described on the basis of some kind of progressive change until the whole may be viewed as a single process. The standpoint of the one who views this unitary development may be avowedly atheistic in the sense of ruling out the supernatural (Sir Julian Huxley) or just as avowedly Christian in the sense of finding in evolution an infusion of new life into Christianity, with Christianity alone dynamic enough to unify the world with God (Teilhard de Chardin).

. . .

With biological evolution (ostensibly a matter of pure science) thereby becoming a metaphysics of evolution it needs to be determined whether religion's proper quarrel is with the science which permits itself such dogmatic extension or whether the misgivings are primarily with the particular philosophical interpretation involved. To the evolutionary concept in general there are however (in spite of innumerable variations) basically two religious reactions.

As in the days of the Scopes trial all evolution may still be denied on the grounds of a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, especially Genesis 111. Not content with the commitment of faith in the Creator expressed in the First Article of the Apostles' Creed this interpretation may demand a specific answer also to the questions of when creation occurred and how long it took. On the premise of a literal acceptance of the Scriptures as authoritative also in matters of science the whole of past existence is comprehended within the limited time span of biblical chronologies and genealogies. The vastness of astronomical time with its incredible number of light years may be accounted for as an instantaneous arrival of light and the eras of geological and biological time with their strata, fossils, and dinosaurs pointing to the existence of life and death on the earth ages before the arrival of man may be reduced to one literal week of creative activity.

On the other hand there are those who can no more close their eyes to the evidence which substantiates some kind of lengthy evolutionary process in the opinion of the vast majority of those scientists most competent to judge than they could deny the awesome reality of God's presence in nature and their own experience of complete dependence upon the creative and sustaining hand of God revealed in the Scriptures.
. . .
An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution's assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology's affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Pope John Paul II

Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

Under the standards so clearly articulated by the Supreme Court, Proclamation 60 and Board Rule 5, as presently written, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. In order to comply with the applicable constitutional provisions, the proclamation and board rule should be revised in three ways. First, evolution should be clearly included in the science curriculum. Second, evolution should be taught as are all scientific theories and should not be singled out for special negative comment. Finally, the proposed textbook standards should make clear that scientific creationism is not to be taught as scientific theory. Rather, because there is no constitutional objection to teaching about religion, public school teachers should simply tell their students, when evolution is taught, that there are certain religious groups whose members do not accept the Darwinian theory and advise them to consult with their parents or religious advisors for further guidance on the subject.

 

[vossler]

Vance,

This list of denominations and their views of creation doesn't surprise me in the least. Most denominations have taken similar pragmatic approach. Yet, still every doctrinally sound, well known, biblical preacher I know hasn't. I'm still waiting to hear about one from you that does.

 

[Vance]

Well, I guess I would have to know what would qualify as a "doctrinally sound, well known, biblical preacher"! It sounds like you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy, if basically any preacher who is doctrinally sound for you would be an evangelical fundamentalist, since someone from that group would almost assuredly be a young earth Creationist. Now, I do know that Billy Graham rejects a young earth Creationist view, believing instead in old earth creation.

What I have shown you is that many, many (maybe even most) Bible-believing Christians accept evolution. I am not sure it is a very good response to say, "well, none of those count!" Of course, they may not count for you, and that is fine, as long as you recognize that this IS an issue that has Christians on both sides in great numbers.

 

[vossler]

Just give me a well-known name who you feel is a strong biblical preacher. Someone who has a congregation and, to you at least, is doctrially sound. If nothing else I'll find out who it is you respect.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The late John Paul II.

 

[seebs]

Just give me a well-known name who you feel is a strong biblical preacher. Someone who has a congregation and, to you at least, is doctrially sound. If nothing else I'll find out who it is you respect.

I'd nominate Gordon Atkinson, aka Real Live Preacher.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The late John Paul II.

A man whose wisdom of heaven and Earth is already missed:

"“People of science are also called upon to practice their own special priesthood. Yes, in a certain sense, every true scientist is a priest… Precisely because they perceive more and more profoundly, the greater is their duty, on the one hand to recognize, praise, admire and thank God in all the elements of His Creation, and on the other, to make and an honest and responsible use of their ingenuity and the great and small achievements which spring from it.”


"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world. A world in which both can flourish...the church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science. The unprecedented opportunity we have today is for a common interactive relationship in which each discipline retains its integrity, and yet it's radically open to the discoveries and insights of the other...Such bridging ministries must be nurtured and encouraged."

 

[Vance]

As I said, Billy Graham rejects a young earth, although he sticks to a literal reading. I know Dr. Dobson has discussed these issues and leans away from a young earth as well. Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel has also come out in opposition against the "stumbling block" that is young earth creationism.

You have to recall that "preachers" in the sense of national figures like evangelists, etc, tend to all come from the evangelical tradition. You don't have mainline protestant, Anglican or Catholic "preachers" out on the preaching circuits. So, by asking for "preachers" you are already indicating people who are fundamentalist for the most part. I would point to the thousands of ministers who "preach" in pulpits every day in protestant churches around the world.

 

[Vance]

On this same topic, I just got an email from an expert on the Ancient Near East, a distinguished professor named Dr. Robert Oden. I had just finished up a series of lectures on "God and Mankind" by him and wrote to tell him that I enjoyed the series. I also took the opportunity to get his thoughts on this very issue of how the ancients would have viewed their writings about their past. I was not surprised that he completely agreed with my analysis of Genesis and of the thinking of the ANE cultures in general. He also pointed to examples in Egypt (since he was just returning from there) where the EXACT same actions were attributed to more than one pharoah, and commented "they conceived of history as being and doing something other than what it does and is for us".

 

[herev]

Sorry if this has been covered, but I'm back after a hiatus (spelling?). Anyway...

This is for all the TEs out there:

According to most TEs and Evolutionists the earth is at least 3 billion years old. Many believe it to be 13 billion years old, but for this thread let's go with the lesser.

Let's

So, with that as the starting point God put into motion His creation.

My questions are:

1. Why would God use such an astronomical amount of time to develop His creation, especially when compared to the amount of time man (His purpose for creation) has been in existence?

Why would God do anything? Why would God make a mosquito? The question is not answerable...

2. Then we have God, the great communicator,

Actually, I thought that was Ronald Reagan?

telling us in His Word that the earth was created in six days, but He really wants us to understand or figure out that the six days of which He speaks are not literal days as we know a day to be. That each day is in fact at least a few hundred million years long! Why would He do this?

Most of us TE's don't think He really cares, so it's not that he wants us to understand that it is not literal, but that He doesn't care--the message is the same--either way--God is and God is the Creator --two messages for one

Lastly, didn't God say: 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

Yes, I beleive He did, and if not, someone speaking about Him did, either way, I believe it. I am not confused one bit.

For the common man to believe billions of years he would have to rely upon the expertise of a few "scientists" in order to be able to come to that conclusion.

perhaps to get to the 3 billion number, yes the common man would, but to know that it was not meant as literal takes no such reliance upon any scientists, (few?)

Now His creation is in the hands of these so called experts, many of which have a few billion years between them when "figuring" out how long the earth has been here.

But do you really believe that--His creation is in His hands, I believe--why are you abdicating for God?

Pretty interesting assessment.

not really

Very, very worldly and little or no biblical backup to support it. hhhmmmm....

very, very, sarcastic and judgmental, with little or no respect for God's creation showing forth in this comment. hhhmmmm...

 

[herev]

Just give me a well-known name who you feel is a strong biblical preacher. Someone who has a congregation and, to you at least, is doctrially sound. If nothing else I'll find out who it is you respect.

Rev. Tommy Conder, a respected, well known (at least in this area), and doctrinally sound preacher, who believes in Theistic Evolution. And it has not once, ever, ever, affected his sermons.

and if anyone laughs, I'll be hurt

 

[SBG]

As I said, Billy Graham rejects a young earth, although he sticks to a literal reading. I know Dr. Dobson has discussed these issues and leans away from a young earth as well. Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel has also come out in opposition against the "stumbling block" that is young earth creationism.

But Billy Graham does not reject man as special creation instead of evolved man. Chuck Smith also follows a young earth view point. Recently Chuck got together with some well known people from ICR to do sermons and evanglism on this very topic and how important it is.

I speak of these two in particular because Billy is a family friend and Chuck I have known since I was a baby. Let's add in there Greg Laurie as well since I have known him for quite some time as well as his son. He also holds to a young earth, special creation view point.

I do not know Dr. Dobson but have heard him speak. He doesn't subsribe to evolution as well.

And for the record Billy Graham leans towards the gap theory.

Remember just because some may think the earth could be old doesn't mean they believe in evolution as it pertains to man evolving from a single-celled organism that was once non-living.

And if God did not care about how we understood creation, why did God have it included in His Word to mankind about His pursuit of mankind? God could have given account in history, could have said so many things, because the BIble is relatively small in comparison to what He has done. John speaks of this nicely when he says that if they were to record all that Jesus did, the world itself could not contain the volumes written. And if that is true about Jesus and HIs time spent here on earth, even more can be said about God. And to realize this and to dismiss parts of the Bible as something God doesn't care about us understanding is absurd.

 

[Vance]

Sorry, it was Chuck Smith, Jr. who opposes a young earth. Here is what he said about the book "A New Look at an Old Earth":
"I wish to congratulate Don Stoner for his courage and compassion in producing this excellent work. Courage because, though accurate, his views run contrary to popular fundamentalist dogma. Compassion because he cares for intelligent people who have experienced unbearable tension straddling scientific discovery and young earth theories produced by people who claim there is only one way to interpret the biblical data - their way. As Roman Catholic Cardinals were afraid to look into Galileo's telescope for fear of what they might discover, some closed-minded Christians may choose not to take a look at A New Look at an Old Earth. But those who do look are likely to find an important truth about our universe."

Chuck Smith Jr., Sr. Pastor, Calvary Chapel of Capo Beach​

And, yes, I did not say any of these agree with evolution, I just said they rejected Young Earth Creationism, which they do.

As for God's communication, who said anything about dismissing ANY part of Scripture. I agree that God could have given us a detailed account of HOW and WHEN He did things, and if it had been important for us, He would have done so. The fact that INSTEAD, He has given us something written in such figurative, poetic and stylized language is just that much more evidence that the detailed HOW and WHEN is NOT what God was conveying.

Let's look at it this way. If God wants to convey a message, you think He can do so without any issues, right? Then what is God conveying to us in Genesis? It would most likely be that which we all (all of us who believe it is God's Holy and inerrant Scripture) agree is there, which is the message about the WHO and the WHY.

So, yes, I agree that if God had thought it was important for us to know the details and timing of His Creation process, He could have told us all about it. The fact that He only told us what He did, and how He did, is very indicative of what He wants us to get out of the text.

 

[SBG]

Sorry, it was Chuck Smith, Jr. who opposes a young earth. Here is what he said about the book "A New Look at an Old Earth":
"I wish to congratulate Don Stoner for his courage and compassion in producing this excellent work. Courage because, though accurate, his views run contrary to popular fundamentalist dogma. Compassion because he cares for intelligent people who have experienced unbearable tension straddling scientific discovery and young earth theories produced by people who claim there is only one way to interpret the biblical data - their way. As Roman Catholic Cardinals were afraid to look into Galileo's telescope for fear of what they might discover, some closed-minded Christians may choose not to take a look at A New Look at an Old Earth. But those who do look are likely to find an important truth about our universe."

Chuck Smith Jr., Sr. Pastor, Calvary Chapel of Capo Beach​

And, yes, I did not say any of these agree with evolution, I just said they rejected Young Earth Creationism, which they do.

As for God's communication, who said anything about dismissing ANY part of Scripture. I agree that God could have given us a detailed account of HOW and WHEN He did things, and if it had been important for us, He would have done so. The fact that INSTEAD, He has given us something written in such figurative, poetic and stylized language is just that much more evidence that the detailed HOW and WHEN is NOT what God was conveying.

Let's look at it this way. If God wants to convey a message, you think He can do so without any issues, right? Then what is God conveying to us in Genesis? It would most likely be that which we all (all of us who believe it is God's Holy and inerrant Scripture) agree is there, which is the message about the WHO and the WHY.

So, yes, I agree that if God had thought it was important for us to know the details and timing of His Creation process, He could have told us all about it. The fact that He only told us what He did, and how He did, is very indicative of what He wants us to get out of the text.

As I have stated numerous times on this board, the age of the earth really isn't a disputing factor. It is the fact that non-living became living through abiogenesis and that man evolved rather than created.

I don't honestly care how old the earth is. I tend to lean to the side that it is young, but really, I don't care. It is the thought that is put forth as fact that non-living soon evolved into living (on its own) and this living (on its own) some time later evolved into human beings. It is the flat out rejection of there being a historical fall of mankind, the rejection of Adam and Eve being real, the rejection of there being a real Garden of Eden and the rejection of the six day creation that I do not agree with. These views are widely expressed here on this forum among Christians.

It is simply clear that six day creation is present in the Bible. If you refuse to see it, then you refuse to see it. Exodus 20:11 talks of it, Exodus 31:17 talks of it. Do you refuse to see it there as well?

If you really and truly are after harmonizing science and the Bible together, there is a much better way. I am not talking about just a young earth view either or any traditional view point out there today. If you believe the Bible is truthful in all aspects then you would be sincere in keeping to the way it is written. You claim there are two creation accounts or more written, yet I know you must be fully aware of past and present tense usage of verbs. Instead of trying to have an agenda, try and keep true to that which Jesus has given you. There are not three chapters in Genesis and numerous references throughout the Bible to those just for the sake of saying God created the universe and leaving us with nothing about how He did so.

God is revealed in three persons we call the Trinity. God is also revealed in three ways to humanity, The Creator, The Reedemer, The Righteous Judge. In each is an account of why and how He is such. And each of these are historically and literally true.

Lastly, it is the yec's who say Genesis is both historically and literally accurate and delivers a greater message. It is the theistic evolutionists who say it is either or.