Young Earth Creationism

[mark kennedy]

That's a great line. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

It really sums up the modern problem of religious scientist worship. We look to these high priests to answer questions about everything, even those outside their field of expertise, like questions of ontology (existence) and origins (beginnings). They're experts on natural normative processes to be sure, but don't realize they can't even use their own system of investigation and prove the absolute uniformity of natural laws. They merely have to assume nothing outside of normal processes has affected anything, ever! And that's a religious assumption, not a scientific one.

Thus we have men who are experts in one field commenting on subjects they almost understand nothing about. They're often less equipped than the average sunday school student (provided they're raised in a biblical environment.)

Science has, for some four hundred years, been understood as disciplines focused on natural phenomenon. I don't think anyone realistically expects God's divine attributes and eternal nature to emerge as the result of empirical testing. It is clearly understood from the things that were created but God exists apart from the created universe. When critics of Christian theism argue that Creationism isn't science I want to laugh, of course it's not, it's natural revelation not natural science.

I don't really know how to express to most people what I find to be the single strongest evidence for the Bible, it's the Hebrew and Christian communities. Think about it, those documents have been in the custody of living people and yet skeptics want to deride and ridicule Scripture the first time some gnostic drivel turns up in an Egyptian curio shop. The Scriptures are a living witness and it is clear, to me at any rate, that God's revelation is not only evident and obvious, it's unavoidable.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Percivale]

The scientific findings regarding the age of the earth I consider part of the context of Genesis 1, just like the history of Assyria and Babylon are part of the context of II Kings. In both cases, when you study both together and harmonize all the facts, you get a coherent picture. But if you ignore the scientific context regarding creation, its easy to get an interpretation of the passage that conflicts with some of the clearest scientific findings concerning the past. If we were atheists or gnostics such a conflict would be less surprising, but since we have a God who created everything that exists and who is orderly and truthful, the creation must be orderly and not have deceptive patterns in it--if there is a consistent pattern of radioisotopes showing more age as you go deeper, and many other patterns consistent with an old earth, the earth must really be old, otherwise God would be a liar or not be the creator.

Day, with evening and morning sounds like 24 hour days to us, but we can't be certain it did to the original audience. Genesis 1 is a unique genre in the Bible--unlike normal narrative, it records no human actions, and is laid out in a pattern with days 1, 2, and 3 paralleling 4, 5, and 6. Genesis 2 starts the regular narrative that most of Genesis consists of. And the way it parallels scientific findings is interesting. Plate tectonics and volcanoes pushed land and continents out of the water, plants formed early, photosynthesis changed the atmosphere so the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky, fish appeared first of current animals, followed by 'Great Lizards' ('Whales' in KJV is a poor translation), then birds, and everyday land animals like cattle and lions appeared last before man. Since God is the only actor in Genesis 1, it is not surprising that in that passage day may mean thousands of years, and that is what the fossil record shows.

 

[KWCrazy]

The scientific findings regarding the age of the earth I consider part of the context of Genesis 1

Really? What verse was that? All I saw in Genesis was the word of God; no science at all.

But if you ignore the scientific context regarding creation, its easy to get an interpretation of the passage that conflicts with some of the clearest scientific findings concerning the past.

No disrespect intended, but even a cursory glance at Genesis shows that it doesn't have the least thing in common with scientific theories of origination. You have two opposing interpretations of truth. Compromising a truth makes it a lie. The question is, do you choose a truth or follow what you know to be a lie? BTW; what does science say about floating an ax head on the water?

since we have a God who created everything that exists and who is orderly and truthful, the creation must be orderly and not have deceptive patterns in it

Nothing deceptive about it. God described the creation in great detail. If you think a supernatural creation must follow natural laws so that science can affirm it, then you really don't have a good understanding of either science or the supernatural.

--if there is a consistent pattern of radioisotopes showing more age as you go deeper, and many other patterns consistent with an old earth, the earth must really be old, otherwise God would be a liar or not be the creator.

Someone is lying, but it it isn't God.
Everything in Genesis was created in its mature state, including the earth.
Trees were created bearing fruit.
Water existed, so the hydrological cycle had to be created intact.
There were rocks, dirt and sand. How can this be if sand comes from eroded rocks?
The light God created shone on the earth immediately, as did the sun, moon and stars. How could this be if some stars are thousands of light years away?
Adam was created from the dust, able to walk and talk immediately. How old was he, then, one second after birth?

Day, with evening and morning sounds like 24 hour days to us, but we can't be certain it did to the original audience.

It was probably 23 hours and some odd minutes, since the earth is slowing. Nothing in the Scriptures suggest long ages.

Genesis 1 is a unique genre in the Bible--unlike normal narrative, it records no human actions, and is laid out in a pattern with days 1, 2, and 3 paralleling 4, 5, and 6.

It records the creation up to the creation of man, so why WOULD THERE be human interaction?

And the way it parallels scientific findings is interesting.

Or vice versa?

Plate tectonics and volcanoes pushed land and continents out of the water,

Yes, at a command from God.

plants formed early,

Yes, on day 3.

photosynthesis changed the atmosphere so the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky,

No, the sun, moon and stars were created on day four; most likely from the entity called light because there is currently no unexplained light in the universe which lights the Earth.

fish appeared first of current animals, followed by 'Great Lizards'

What chapter and verse describes the great lizards? I don't recall that in Genesis.

then birds, and everyday land animals like cattle and lions appeared last before man.

They didn't just appear, they were created en mass in their adult stage.

Since God is the only actor in Genesis 1, it is not surprising that in that passage day may mean thousands of years, and that is what the fossil record shows.

It is not possible that God would take thousands of years to create the universe and then say that He had done it in six days. Moses recorded Genesis, but likely Adam was told the same thing in the beginning. Adam walked and talked with God. The Scriptures don't record what was discussed.

By the way. A thousand year day has a thousand year night, in which all of life would die.

 

[Willtor]

...

Nothing deceptive about it. God described the creation in great detail. If you think a supernatural creation must follow natural laws so that science can affirm it, then you really don't have a good understanding of either science or the supernatural.

Someone is lying, but it it isn't God.
Everything in Genesis was created in its mature state, including the earth.
Trees were created bearing fruit.
Water existed, so the hydrological cycle had to be created intact.
There were rocks, dirt and sand. How can this be if sand comes from eroded rocks?
The light God created shone on the earth immediately, as did the sun, moon and stars. How could this be if some stars are thousands of light years away?
Adam was created from the dust, able to walk and talk immediately. How old was he, then, one second after birth?

...

Creation need not follow natural laws for science to investigate whether it happened according to the modern literal interpretation. Merely, if it seems to have happened that way, science cannot investigate the mechanisms. Using the floating axe as an example:

Science wants to investigate whether the axe actually floated. The scientists involved look for evidence for or against. I think you think that they will try to float an axe. They will not do that (or, they might, but when they can't, they won't conclude that it didn't happen). The reason is that whether they are able to float an axe is irrelevant. The text doesn't say that all axes can float on water. Rather, we are meant to think that this was strange and unusual, or Elisha would not have used it as a sign.

On the contrary, for this one-off case, science must be forensic. This is the same with creationism. You have a particular interpretation of Genesis, and science can use forensic means to investigate it.

You may be right, of course, about your interpretation of Genesis. After all, God may have created the world to appear as though there were civilizations more than 6000 years old, along with the bones of creatures that never actually lived, light from stars that never really existed -- a history that never was. The point is, it _looks_ like the universe is old and that there is a history that is distinct from your sense of the beginning of the world.

But what science _can_ do, is observe that the apparent (but not real) history is internally consistent, detailed and nuanced, and seems to be very real.

 

[miamited]

Science wants to investigate whether the axe actually floated. The scientists involved look for evidence for or against. I think you think that they will try to float an axe. They will not do that (or, they might, but when they can't, they won't conclude that it didn't happen). The reason is that whether they are able to float an axe is irrelevant. The text doesn't say that all axes can float on water. Rather, we are meant to think that this was strange and unusual, or Elisha would not have used it as a sign.

Hi willtor,

You wrote: They will not do that (or, they might, but when they can't, they won't conclude that it didn't happen).

I started a thread about the show on netflix 'The Truth About Noah's Ark'. If you have time to watch it you may find that your position isn't particularly accurate. The entire show is about proving that the ark could not have remained afloat and, therefore, it didn't happen.

They spend some time setting a model vessel in a wave pool that is designed to simulate the kind of waves one might expect in a flood of rain and water that would come from a long and enduring storm. The boat sinks! Then they have a guy who built a boat out of wooden planks such as they would imagine that Noah built the ark out of and show how it just isn't possible, even for a small row boat sized vessel, to be water tight made of such materials. They put the craft in water and within a very short time it begins taking on water and they flat out say, "So, as you can see, there's no way that such a craft could be built water tight."

The whole show is about how science, while making a good faith effort to replicate the ark, can't get it to stay afloat and the final premise is that it just couldn't have happened. I'm sorry, and I know that you like to champion the scientific method, but....

This idea that you have that just because science cannot replicate something in the Scriptures wouldn't disqualify it as actually being true, is, in fact, wrong according to the show.

Now, I know you're probably going to humor me with how some TV show isn't real science and I am in complete agreement that there may be other scientists working on the matter that aren't ready to throw in the towel and claim that the ark account is impossible because we can't replicate it. But the fact is, this show is about real scientists doing real work to try to 'prove' that the ark did exist and the possibility that the large vessel could have existed just as God's word says, but in failing to do so actually do claim that because we can't do it...it didn't happen.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

You wrote: They will not do that (or, they might, but when they can't, they won't conclude that it didn't happen).

I started a thread about the show on netflix 'The Truth About Noah's Ark'. If you have time to watch it you may find that your position isn't particularly accurate. The entire show is about proving that the ark could not have remained afloat and, therefore, it didn't happen.

They spend some time setting a model vessel in a wave pool that is designed to simulate the kind of waves one might expect in a flood of rain and water that would come from a long and enduring storm. The boat sinks! Then they have a guy who built a boat out of wooden planks such as they would imagine that Noah built the ark out of and show how it just isn't possible, even for a small row boat sized vessel, to be water tight made of such materials. They put the craft in water and within a very short time it begins taking on water and they flat out say, "So, as you can see, there's no way that such a craft could be built water tight."

The whole show is about how science, while making a good faith effort to replicate the ark, can't get it to stay afloat and the final premise is that it just couldn't have happened. I'm sorry, and I know that you like to champion the scientific method, but....

This idea that you have that just because science cannot replicate something in the Scriptures wouldn't disqualify it as actually being true, is, in fact, wrong according to the show.

Now, I know you're probably going to humor me with how some TV show isn't real science and I am in complete agreement that there may be other scientists working on the matter that aren't ready to throw in the towel and claim that the ark account is impossible because we can't replicate it. But the fact is, this show is about real scientists doing real work to try to 'prove' that the ark did exist and the possibility that the large vessel could have existed just as God's word says, but in failing to do so actually do claim that because we can't do it...it didn't happen.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yeah, as you say, it's a TV show. It's like in Mythbusters, they like to say they're doing science, but not really. Frankly, without a more detailed description, it's hard to know that they're reproducing it. Nevertheless, let's go with it:

Now, the passage doesn't say that the ark floated by miraculous means. On the contrary, the whole passage seems to explain how it was kept water-tight and was supposed to float. If we take that its floatation was not miraculous, the show can actually take a shot at debunking it using scientific means (given the caveat above). After all, if it isn't a miracle, we should still be able to do it. However, although a natural means of floatation is the most natural reading, perhaps it's the wrong one. If it's miraculous, they have to use forensic means -- it wouldn't be a question of trying to reproduce it.

TL;DR: They think the passage means to say that the ark floated by natural means.

 

[miamited]

Yeah, as you say, it's a TV show. It's like in Mythbusters, they like to say they're doing science, but not really. Frankly, without a more detailed description, it's hard to know that they're reproducing it. Nevertheless, let's go with it:

Now, the passage doesn't say that the ark floated by miraculous means. On the contrary, the whole passage seems to explain how it was kept water-tight and was supposed to float. If we take that its floatation was not miraculous, the show can actually take a shot at debunking it using scientific means (given the caveat above). After all, if it isn't a miracle, we should still be able to do it. However, although a natural means of floatation is the most natural reading, perhaps it's the wrong one. If it's miraculous, they have to use forensic means -- it wouldn't be a question of trying to reproduce it.

TL;DR: They think the passage means to say that the ark floated by natural means.

Hi willtor,

Yes, but it seems you're missing the point. The point was that yes, scientists do often try to recreate events that happened in the Scriptures and when unable to do so, merely accept that because they can't do it, it can't be done and therefore is a myth.

I'm not really pointing out anything about the scientific process, but merely your statement that said if they couldn't recreate it, then they wouldn't just say it didn't happen. Some 'scientists' apparently do and I imagine it's a much larger group than you may be willing to accept, but that's just my thinking.

Much like the account of the Exodus, scientists will only allow some natural event as the cause of the water standing. Be it more than hurricane or tornado force winds or whatever. Just like the sun going dark in the middle of the day at the crucifixion. I've shared with even 'christians' who try to pinpoint the time of Jesus' death based on natural phenomenon such as a solar eclipse that we know would have happened on such and such a date. No one in the scientific community is willing to allow that the sun was darkened merely by God's command that it be twilight. There is no place in the scientific process where one would say that such and such happened merely because God made it happen.

No one is willing to read the account of the passover lamb in the twelfth chapter of the Exodus and then agree that God made the sun dark so that the true passover lamb, Jesus, death would agree with God's command of the passover. God's command for the passover was that they were to slaughter the lamb at twilight. When Jesus, our passover lamb, was slaughtered, God made it twilight. He didn't use a solar eclipse. He just made the sun to not shine. For me, God can do that. He's already proved He can make the sun stand still in the sky or go backwards in its ability to cast shadows, surely He can also blot it out when He wants it blotted out.

BTW, I don't see how forensics would give us any more knowledge about miraculous events than regular science. Do you think that if we had the ark here today that we would somehow be able to 'prove' how God held the water from entering it? Or kept it on even keel?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Yes, but it seems you're missing the point. The point was that yes, scientists do often try to recreate events that happened in the Scriptures and when unable to do so, merely accept that because they can't do it, it can't be done and therefore is a myth.

People do this on TV, but not in journals/conferences. Peer review would kill something that said that a miracle did not occur when one is asserted and forensic evidence does not show otherwise -- see below for an example.

I'm not really pointing out anything about the scientific process, but merely your statement that said if they couldn't recreate it, then they wouldn't just say it didn't happen. Some 'scientists' apparently do and I imagine it's a much larger group than you may be willing to accept, but that's just my thinking.

Much like the account of the Exodus, scientists will only allow some natural event as the cause of the water standing. Be it more than hurricane or tornado force winds or whatever. Just like the sun going dark in the middle of the day at the crucifixion. I've shared with even 'christians' who try to pinpoint the time of Jesus' death based on natural phenomenon such as a solar eclipse that we know would have happened on such and such a date. No one in the scientific community is willing to allow that the sun was darkened merely by God's command that it be twilight. There is no place in the scientific process where one would say that such and such happened merely because God made it happen.

No one is willing to read the account of the passover lamb in the twelfth chapter of the Exodus and then agree that God made the sun dark so that the true passover lamb, Jesus, death would agree with God's command of the passover. God's command for the passover was that they were to slaughter the lamb at twilight. When Jesus, our passover lamb, was slaughtered, God made it twilight. He didn't use a solar eclipse. He just made the sun to not shine. For me, God can do that. He's already proved He can make the sun stand still in the sky or go backwards in its ability to cast shadows, surely He can also blot it out when He wants it blotted out.

BTW, I don't see how forensics would give us any more knowledge about miraculous events than regular science. Do you think that if we had the ark here today that we would somehow be able to 'prove' how God held the water from entering it? Or kept it on even keel?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Forensics is hard for the Ark. But let me suggest an alternative miracle that will be easier to see. Recall the apologetic that responds to the following criticism: "The religious leaders stole Jesus' body." You have heard the obvious response to it. It's the forensic response.

Consider the reason for this: it doesn't matter that physics is the same now as it was then. It's that when people are alive, you don't have their corpses. For this reason, if we had Jesus' corpse scientists would say that he didn't rise from the dead. Further, there is/was no evidence that anybody had his body. But if we had such evidence, science would be making a statement about whether a miracle occurred.

 

[SkyWriting]

God could have created instantaneously, recently, or whenever, but I believe it would be more to his glory to do it in a way that gives everything in the universe a back story, that makes the universe vast not just in space but also in time, one that gives the most scope to scientific discovery.

The complaint against the "back story" model is that
it suggests that man arose from mud, naturally, with
no real purpose.

I have yet to hear a scientific purpose for life either.

Scientifically, what is the purpose of life?

 

[Percivale]

The complaint against the "back story" model is that
it suggests that man arose from mud, naturally, with
no real purpose.

I have yet to hear a scientific purpose for life either.

Scientifically, what is the purpose of life?

That's a total false dichotomy. You're saying, Either God created in six literal days or he didn't create at all. The Bible says man came from mud, but not naturally; rather God shaped it miraculously and created man's soul. Whether he did it six days after creating the universe or 13 million years after doesn't affect whether he did it. If you are not an atheist then it makes sense to believe we were intended by God and given purpose by him, no matter how or when you believe God produced man.

Of course the purpose of life is not a scientific question, we all know that except a few extreme atheists.

 

[KWCrazy]

You're saying, Either God created in six literal days or he didn't create at all.

God said that He created the world in six days. Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God. Since we know that God is real and His word is truth, we can trust the six day creation.

Whether he did it six days after creating the universe or 13 million years after doesn't affect whether he did it.

Except that God said "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Since He was speaking to Moses who recorded very specifically that the six days were literal, for your interpretation to be right the Bible must be wrong.

Of course the purpose of life is not a scientific question, we all know that except a few extreme atheists.

Yeah, well.... God doesn't believe in them either.

 

[Percivale]

God said that He created the world in six days. Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God. Since we know that God is real and His word is truth, we can trust the six day creation.

God said the earth is millions of years old, in the rocks he created. Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God. Since we know that God is real and he created a consistent, orderly universe, we can trust the universe is 14 billion years old.

God created the universe through Jesus Christ, and it is interpreted by humans.
God inspired the Scriptures through 40 some different humans, and it is interpreted by humans.
So in a sense clear scientific facts are a step closer to God than Bible verses are. It is more possible that there are mistakes in the Bible than that God did not create a consistent universe.

 

[KWCrazy]

God said the earth is millions of years old, in the rocks he created.

Really? The only time I recall rocks bearing testament to the age of the earth was when, as recorded in Exodus 20:11, that the Lord carved into rock that the heavens and earth were created in six days. Which rocks told you otherwise? This is based on somebody's complete rejection that God could have created a rock; that it had to form itself over billions of years. You seem to embrace that lunacy but reject the clear written word of the Lord. Why?

Do you doubt that the Lord could create another planet just like this one by simply commanding that it be so? The Lord could do that as simply as an author could pen, "The fire truck rose up and transformed into a robot."

Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God.

God cannot lie, so either His word is true or there is no God. You reject His word because someone told you He could have done it that way and you value that teacher's opinion more that the word of God. Why is that? If the Lord had made the world over billions of years it would be an even greater miracle, showing incredible patience. Sorry to inform you, but the world isn't that old and it won't last another million years. When Jesus returns this place is toast.

Since we know that God is real and he created a consistent, orderly universe, we can trust the universe is 14 billion years old.

Since you will never find anything in the Scriptures to support your rejection of God's fourth commandment as written, what you're teaching here is heresy. You reject the parts of the Scriptures you don't like; just as the high priests were doing when Christ rebuked them. You're cloaking a lie in the Scriptures. Stick with the word of God. His word will never fail.

God created the universe through Jesus Christ, and it is interpreted by humans.

Who gave humans that authority? I never read that.

God inspired the Scriptures through 40 some different humans, and it is interpreted by humans.

How many of those humans do you believe? Clearly, you reject anything in the Bible that disagrees with what your teachers have told you. What about Adam and Eve, the global flood, Jonah and the "great fish," the exodus and other miracles that Jesus very specifically mention. How many of these do you reject? Jesus taught that every word of the Bible is true. You say differently. Why should I reject His teaching and heed yours?

So in a sense clear scientific facts are a step closer to God than Bible verses are.

That depends on which God you serve, doesn't it? If science tells me that Lazarus could not be revived after three days of decomposition and the Scriptures say he did, why should I reject the word of God and follow the opinion of your teachers?

It is more possible that there are mistakes in the Bible than that God did not create a consistent universe.

Why, then, believe any of it? If you get to decide which verses are true and which are not, does that make you a prophet? Should I discard the Bible and follow you?

What is consistent is that everything was created in its mature state, including the planet itself. It is consistent that God always chose to do things the hard way to demonstrate His authority, even burning a hill saturated by water or freezing time for a day because He was asked to do so. God alone is supreme. Where the word of man disagrees with the teaching of the father, the word of man is wrong.

 

[miamited]

God said the earth is millions of years old, in the rocks he created. Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God. Since we know that God is real and he created a consistent, orderly universe, we can trust the universe is 14 billion years old.

God created the universe through Jesus Christ, and it is interpreted by humans.

Yes, and many get it wrong.
God inspired the Scriptures through 40 some different humans, and it is interpreted by humans.

Yes, and many get it wrong.
So in a sense clear scientific facts are a step closer to God than Bible verses are. It is more possible that there are mistakes in the Bible than that God did not create a consistent universe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Percivale]

KWCrazy: Since you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a sinful heretic, I don't think we can have a reasonable conversation. But I'll give it one more shot. I have not found conclusive evidence that the Bible is inerrant, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable or I can just pick and choose what to believe in it. Consider if you lived in 50 AD and were listening to the Apostle Peter preach. We know Peter made mistakes, Paul called him out on one. But he was also filled with the Holy Spirit and had been personally taught by Jesus. So you would believe what he said generally but not if there was a strong reason not to. As John Wesley advised, you'd use scripture, reason, experience and church tradition all together in deciding what is true. That's how I view scripture; sort of true unless proven false. To me, the scientific evidence is so consistent with an old earth that God would have been lying if he created this earth as it is 6000 years ago. Since I believe in a God who is the creator and cannot lie, I believe he created it much longer ago.

Ted: I agree. Whether reading words or rocks, we sometimes misunderstand.

 

[Papias]

Double post.

 

[Papias]

KW wrote:

God said that He created the world in six days. Since God cannot lie, either that's the truth or there is no God. Since we know that God is real and His word is truth, we can trust the six day creation.

KW, you are again acting as if your interpretation is the word of God. It's not. God's word is God's word - and it is sometimes literal, sometimes symbolic, and so on. To say that only your literal reading is permissible is as illogical as to say that Exodus 19 means that God literally flew the Jews of out Egypt on giant Eagles:

As has already been pointed out, God also speaks through His creation. Through dozens of different dating method voices, He makes it clear that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Through anatomy, He tells us about evolution. Through genetics, He tells us about evolution. Through biogeography, He tells us about evolution. Through the fossil record, He tells us about evolution. Through geology, He tells us about earth's history. Through biochemistry, He tells us about evolution. And so on. It seems clear that God does't lie, except perhaps in scripture, where it says that God does lie.

in Christ-

Papias

P.S. _ Percivale, let's return to our earlier topic after working through this new one? Sound good?

 

[KWCrazy]

KWCrazy: Since you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a sinful heretic, I don't think we can have a reasonable conversation.

I don't ask anyone to agree with me. I ask them to agree with the Lord. I ask them to agree with His word, and not to reject it because of the vacuous claims of men.

I have not found conclusive evidence that the Bible is inerrant,

Let me help with that.

Christ knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.1

2. He believed every word of Scripture.

3. He believed the OT was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Gn 2:24 and Mt 19:4–5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Here are some examples of historical facts:

Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the Flood (Lk 17:26–27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; 11:23–24 (Lk 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Lk 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (v. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
source

Consider if you lived in 50 AD and were listening to the Apostle Peter preach. We know Peter made mistakes, Paul called him out on one. But he was also filled with the Holy Spirit and had been personally taught by Jesus.

We know that humans are fallible, which is why we need the Scriptures to be our guidepost. Man errs in allowing his own thoughts and opinions to cloud the teaching of the Holy Spirit. I think this is why we see Paul correcting Peter; to show us that even the righteous can go astray if they teach outside of the Scripture. For this reason we value the word of God above the word of any man, and we pray to the father to reveal the truth through the Holy Spirit.

As John Wesley advised, you'd use scripture, reason, experience and church tradition all together in deciding what is true.

Either that or you trust in the revelation of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with studying the Scriptures and seeking understanding from the learned. However, when man begins to stray from the Scriptures, he strays from the truth. No truth can be better understood with a mixture of falsehood.

That's how I view scripture; sort of true unless proven false.

Personally, I see the Scripture as the revealed word of God; as Christ did and as he taught us. His truth is never proven false; certainly not by the claims of men.

To me, the scientific evidence is so consistent with an old earth that God would have been lying if he created this earth as it is 6000 years ago.

If you met Adam one second after he was created, when he was walking and talking like any other man, how old would you think him to be?

If you saw a tree bearing fruit one minute after it was created and you knew that it would take fifteen years to do so how old would you judge the tree to be?

If you made a balanced terrarium in science class, did you start with plants or seeds? Obviously, you started with plants because that's how you achieve balance. According to the Scriptures, everything was created in its mature state, include flocks of birds and the waters teaming with fish. God very specifically carved onto stone tablets by His own finger that He created the Heavens and earth in six days; the basis of the fourth commandment. He told Moses that man was created on the sixth day. He gave the name of the first man, the name of his wife, the amount of time that he lived and the generations from Adam to Jesus. Apparently, it was important to the Lord that we know our history and that we are all descendants of Adam and Noah's family. This is the testimony that Jesus affirmed.

The creation was a supernatural event by a supernatural God. No process of science can prove or disprove it, since science concerns itself only with the physical world; things that can be tested by the scientific method.

Basic biology tells us that a human being, not embalmed, begins to decay after death. Rigor mortis sets in after death, and the body becomes totally rigid after 12 hours. Livor Mortis is the next stage, beginning within 6-12 hours after death. Without the heart pushing the blood around it pools in the lowest area. After three days the body becomes soft again as decomposition continues.

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus rose again on the third day. How could this be if His body had begun to decompose? If He was dead, there could be no returning from such a state. Yet, if you are a Christian, you believe that this is exactly what happened. Science says this cannot happen. The Scriptures say it did happen. Should your knowledge of science lead you to a conclusion that the death and resurrection never happened? Or maybe, your knowledge of the Lord will convince you that the miracles of the Lord defy science.

 

[KWCrazy]

KW, you are again acting as if your interpretation is the word of God.

Actually, I haven't interpreted anything. I posted the word of God. You guys are the ones doing the interpreting. You know fully well that Genesis is written as a factual account; that there is no possible way of justifying it with the claims of evolution, and that the generations of man from Adam to Christ belie any such claims of an old earth.

Your claim very simply cannot be justified in the Scriptures.

It's not. God's word is God's word - and it is sometimes literal, sometimes symbolic, and so on.

So far as I've seen, there are no Hebrew scholars who claim that the Genesis account is symbolic. In fact, great pains were taken to leave no doubt that the six days were, in fact, six days. The Scriptures also refer several times to the fact that man was formed from the dust of the earth; that he did not evolve from anything. You know this, which is why no T.E. can justify what he believe with the Scriptures.

As has already been pointed out, God also speaks through His creation.

Rocks speak to you? In what language? I read the Scriptures and pray to the Lord, and I count on the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth. The truth cannot and does not deviate from the Scriptures. Any claim of man contrary to the Scriptures is quite simply false.

Through dozens of different dating method voices, He makes it clear that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

You never read the generations of the Bible, have you, where the Scriptures list the births of the generations from Adam to Christ. This means that the Lord knew someday we would wonder about the age of our planet and He gave us the answer in advance.

Genesis shows us how the Lord created a mature world. Everything from tree to bees were in their mature state from the beginning. had He wanted to take billions of years, He would not have said he did it in six days. BTW, there wouldn't be a Fourth Commandment either.

Through anatomy, He tells us about evolution.

Evolution absolutely did not happen according to the Scriptures and the son of God who affirmed their accuracy.

It seems clear that God does't lie, except perhaps in scripture,

You've chosen to believe the lies of man over the word of your Lord, which is unfortunate. God does not lie. The great deceiver is not God, but the one who blinds men's eyes with delusions of their own enlightenment.

 

[Papias]

KW wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

KW, you are again acting as if your interpretation is the word of God.

Actually, I haven't interpreted anything. I posted the word of God. You guys are the ones doing the interpreting.

Simply false. We've pointed out that it need not be interpreted literally, which you insist on doing.

I'll ask again: Does the plan text of Exodus 19 prove that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on giant Eagles? I didn't see a response from you on that.

You know fully well that Genesis is written as a factual account; that there is no possible way of justifying it with the claims of evolution, and that the generations of man from Adam to Christ belie any such claims of an old earth.

Here again is your explicit interpretation, with nothing to back it up. You simply make statements with no support and expect people to swallow them?

Your claim very simply cannot be justified in the Scriptures - because Genesis itself is clearly poetic.

It's not. God's word is God's word - and it is sometimes literal, sometimes symbolic, and so on.

So far as I've seen, there are no Hebrew scholars who claim that the Genesis account is symbolic. In fact, great pains were taken to leave no doubt that the six days were, in fact, six days. The Scriptures also refer several times to the fact that man was formed from the dust of the earth; that he did not evolve from anything. You know this, which is why no T.E. can justify what he believe with the Scriptures.

Simply false. You have two problems here. First, you make a claim and then expect others to prove you wrong - when a reasonable person instead supports their own claims, instead of being lazy - and second, your other problem is that you are just plain wrong. There are many Jewish scholars today who reject a literal reading of Genesis 1 - in fact, there even have been Jewish scholars throughout history who did so.

Look, I can do some of your own work for you.

Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.
​

From :
Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)

As has already been pointed out, God also speaks through His creation.

Rocks speak to you? In what language?

Math. Math is the language of God - the only language that isn't invented arbitrarily by humans. God has given us the tools, through science, to read more of His word in His creation, through math.

I read the Scriptures and pray to the Lord, and I count on the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth.

You read them in English, which they weren't written in, and I wonder how you know that you are not mistaking your own presuppositions for the "Holy Spirit".

The truth cannot and does not deviate from the Scriptures. Any claim of man contrary to the Scriptures is quite simply false.

Of course, and your claim that one has to only go by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is just that - a man's interpretation. In fact, it's a man's interpretation shown wrong both by God's word in His creation as well as by Genesis itself.

Through dozens of different dating method voices, He makes it clear that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

You never read the generations of the Bible, have you, where the Scriptures list the births of the generations from Adam to Christ. This means that the Lord knew someday we would wonder about the age of our planet and He gave us the answer in advance.

Of course I have - I've read all of my Bible - more than once. That's why I know that the Gospel of Mt clearly tells us that those generations are to be taken figuratively - since Mt gives a different version than Chr.

Specifically:

My Bible, and likely yours too, clearly shows that they are symbolic, by showing later writers changing them as if they weren't actual geneologies. You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:


Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:
1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was
2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,
3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,
5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son
................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,
................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,
7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,
8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,
9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,
10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,
11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,
12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,
13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Angican Bishop Ussher and YECs are in error in using it to establish a 6,000 year age for the earth.

Genesis shows us how the Lord created a mature world. Everything from tree to bees were in their mature state from the beginning. had He wanted to take billions of years, He would not have said he did it in six days. BTW, there wouldn't be a Fourth Commandment either.

No, they weren't. First of, Gn is symbolic, as explained by scripture itself, and secondly, even taken literally he has "the land bring forth plants", etc, showing gradual change. The 4th comandment works well with a symbolic genesis too.

Evolution absolutely did not happen according to the Scriptures and the son of God who affirmed their accuracy.

Simply false. Jesus mentioning a well known story doesn't mean he takes it literally - only that he uses it to show a point. I myself have said, when something like a glass breaks, that "we can't put humpty dumpty together again" to my kids. I'm not suggesting to them that humpty dumpty was real - and they are smart enough to know that.

You've chosen to believe the lies of man over the word of your Lord, which is unfortunate. God does not lie. The great deceiver is not God, but the one who blinds men's eyes with delusions of their own enlightenment.

I think that's true of you - not me. Creationism is a human fabrication, obscuring the meaning of Genesis 1.

In Christ-

Papias