Wise words Indeed

Yes indeed. Scripture plainly asserts that the world was created by God in six days. It plainly teaches man was created by God.

Click to expand...

With regards to the first half of your claim, no it CENSORED well doesn't. It makes it pretty clear to anyone with an ounce of understanding that it is a POEM.

The second half I don't think any Christian would disagree with.

Micaiah said:

If we question the plain assertions of Scripture regarding the physical world, why should anyone believe us when we proclaim God's message regarding Christ's death and resurrection.

Click to expand...

As I have finally found your definition of plain in another thread:
Until they can provide undeniable evidence for their case, it is proper to assign the term 'plain' to the historical record given in Genesis. It is proper to consider any attempt to equate 'plain' with the TE interpretation of Genesis as a gross distortion of the truth.
Let me say that to being with, your definition is so narrowly focused that is it usless to argue the point of this thread.
Here, added to the word, "assertions," it becomes even more so. The plain assertions of scripture are dependent on interpretation. Since you and I have different interpretations, we each have different beliefs as to what the plain assertions of it are. We TE's don't question the plain assertions of scripture any more than you do.

Read that quote again. It starts off "If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well . . ."

This will apply, then, to those fields which a non-believer knows very well, not theological interpretive issues.

Which is more likely:

-non-believer knows a great deal about geology and knows all the evidence for the age of the earth, and then hears a Christian claiming that the Bible inisists that the earth is 10,000 years old and says "well, if that is the case, so much for the Bible!"

- non-believer knows a great deal about Biblical interpretation and the theological implications. He hears a TE say that an old earth is NOT inconsistent with the Bible because the Bible need not be read literally in every Scripture and says "well, my Biblical exegesis tells me that is hogwash, it MUST be read literally, and if Christians can ignore THAT fact, I will not believe anything they say".

Now, really.

I can assure you that I have ran into a large number who fall into the first category, but have never even heard OF anyone falling into the second.

For those interested, here is the whole quote from St. Augustine, writing in the early Christian period:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?"

(Confessions 1.19)

Sites like this:
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

and this:
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/index.html

Which revealed to me that the best of the YECs are at best evasive and dishonest,

Ultimately led me to this:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html

this:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/schimmrich/index.html

this:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm

this:
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/ceaa151b/index.html

this:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/


And finally this:
http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

Which is about Progressive Creationism, which I don't see anyone discussing in this forum. As an engineer and former YEC'er, I see nothing wrong with Progressive Creationism. But I do see YEC as being a major problem to evangelism when, clearly, YEC'ers turn thier faces away from clear evidence, the TRUTH of God's creation and the desperate need to believe that there was no animal death before Adam. We must think of our children, when they grow up, go to high school or college and are finally presented with the TRUTH / FACTS of GOD'S creation, discovered by reputable and often scientists that are CHRISTIAN. Teaching my child a six, 24-hour day creation is a lie and I won't do it. I won't lie to them or myself about it anymore. God is responsible for ALL creation, but wasn't stupid enough to expect the early believers to understand the time passage during his creation, when in fact, time was probably meaningless during most of it. So he gave it to them in phases, which readily correspond to current scientific understanding of universal origins.

Agreed. I spent some time with Progressive Creation before accepting theistic evolutionary thought, and I have a lot of respect for Hugh Ross, even if I don't think he is right about everything.

He is a very good example of someone who holds to a strict literalism (which I don't agree with), but still understands that the universe and earth are billions of years old. That Phd in Astrophysics is an important point.

Vance said:

Read that quote again. It starts off "If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well . . ."

This will apply, then, to those fields which a non-believer knows very well, not theological interpretive issues.

Which is more likely:

-non-believer knows a great deal about geology and knows all the evidence for the age of the earth, and then hears a Christian claiming that the Bible inisists that the earth is 10,000 years old and says "well, if that is the case, so much for the Bible!"

- non-believer knows a great deal about Biblical interpretation and the theological implications. He hears a TE say that an old earth is NOT inconsistent with the Bible because the Bible need not be read literally in every Scripture and says "well, my Biblical exegesis tells me that is hogwash, it MUST be read literally, and if Christians can ignore THAT fact, I will not believe anything they say".

Now, really.

I can assure you that I have ran into a large number who fall into the first category, but have never even heard OF anyone falling into the second.

Click to expand...

The nearest I have come to the second scenario is the experience of being told by some militant atheists that I was not a "real" Christian because I did not subscribe to the YEC interpretation of scripture.

But every atheist in that group had been raised in a Christian home where YEC was considered an essential aspect of Christianity. And each had experienced a crisis of faith which led not only to a rejection of YEC, but also to a rejection of Christianity. Even as atheists they could not break that linkage, so the rejection of one interpretation of scripture necessarily led to the rejection of the faith altogether.