Young earth creationist questions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Exactly.

Genesis 1 says nothing about "how" God created the world - only that He did. The Adam and Eve story was never about providing a literal interpretation of how the world began at all. Instead, it's an allegorical story demonstrating how sin has separated us from God.

There is nothing to suggest that God created the world and used evolution as a means to propagate life on it.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
47
Pa
✟6,506.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

and God said let there be light and the night and the day was the first day, on the seven day he rested. Now ethier there was a billions years of sunlight, sorry not sure how old we are saying the earth is this year, or a day was a 24 hour period and it took 6 days. The flood happen a little more than 2000 years after Adam and Eve were kicked from the garden. If i remember correctly. I have been meaning to trace the age as luke gives account of Jesus blood line back to Adam it should be able to tell with in a few thousand years how old the earth is.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.

As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.

What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error. Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.

And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.

Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.

The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored. Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form. Take away medical science and see how long man lives on average, then place that in relation to those closer to Creation and see if the general principle of the effect of sin on the world is not strengthened, and evolution weakened.

Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.

So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible. I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.

Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.

It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."

That's what we need to do: study the genuine, and we will be able to discern the counterfeit.

As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.

Right?


God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.

As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.

What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error. Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.

And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.

Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.

The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored. Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form. Take away medical science and see how long man lives on average, then place that in relation to those closer to Creation and see if the general principle of the effect of sin on the world is not strengthened, and evolution weakened.

Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.

So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible. I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.

Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.

It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."

That's what we need to do: study the genuine, and we will be able to discern the counterfeit.

As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.

Right?


God bless.

agreed
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.

Having been a research biologist specializing in evolutionary biology and now, for the past nine years, working in a Christian apologetics ministry, I have read many hundreds of studies on “both sides of the fence.” Creationist ministries such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International routinely, knowingly, and deliberately “misrepresent” (I am being polite here) the truth about the Bible, the biological and earth sciences, themselves, the 3,000,000 plus scientists who disagree with them, and the hundreds of millions of Christians who believe that the earth is billions of years old.

On the other side of the fence, except for in the medical sciences where the financial motivation for dishonesty is very great, misrepresentation of the truth is so rare as to be nearly nonexistent.

As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a genre of literature that is unique in the body of biblical literature. Literary analysis of this genre of literature and its use in Genesis has conclusively proven that these eleven chapters consist of a collection of extensively redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends. The biological and earth sciences do NOT prove this fact—the Bible itself proves this fact. However, because of the high quality of the today’s biblical scholarship and the high quality of the today’s scholarship in the biological and earth sciences, we find that these areas of scholarship give us results that are in harmony with each other.

What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error.

No—the Christian faith is based upon the Bible; the theory of evolution is based upon the biological and earth sciences. I know scientists who are devout Christians, but I have not been able to find even one creationist who is a devout scientist. Indeed, there is not alive today even one scientist who is familiar with the data regarding the age of the earth and who has had the education necessary to evaluate the data and who yet believes that the earth is less than one millions year old. Indeed every single one of the about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists is a peculiar kind Christian fundamentalist rather than a genuine scientist. Consequently, they are unable to secure employment in the scientific community and thus have no access to laboratories and laboratory equipment, and very little access to current scientific research.

Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.

And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.

No one is denying Scripture by “drawing conclusions based on current conditions” or by drawing conclusions based upon the high quality of the today’s biblical scholarship. What is being denied are not the Scriptures; what is being denied are old, outdated interpretations of Genesis 1-11 that have been incontrovertibly proven by biblical scholars to be severely incorrect.

Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.

The length of time it took for a particular layering to occur is measured by a multitude of factors that give us VERY accurate and incontrovertible information.

The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored.

Scientists do not work from a “baseline,” they work from, in the case of the age of the earth, billions of pieces of data.

Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form.

None of this is true. Evolution has NEVER run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man. The cranial capacity of a skull gives us the size of the whole brain rather than the individual parts of it—such as the part responsible for cognitive thinking. The very recent increase in man’s lifespan in modern, industrialized countries is NOT taught by evolutionists to be due to evolution, but due to the furtherance of medical knowledge.

Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.

Such arguments are offered and debated on Christian message boards, but they certainly are not offered by evolutionists.

So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible.

Hundreds of millions of us have studied the Bible, and we KNOW that it does NOT teach that the earth is young.

I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.

Christians should discuss things that they have studied, and study things that they know nothing about.

Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.

I am a conservative, evangelical Christian whom God has blessed with an excellent education in the biological sciences, biblical exegesis, and translation theory.

It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translations give us only an approximation to the genuine thing. But that genuine thing, read out of the context of its time, culture, and literature can be, and almost always is, terribly misunderstood.

As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.

Right?

No, of course not! A fundamental argument of young earth creationists is that there are scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe in and teach young earth creationism. They know, of course, that there are only 22-25 of them, and that none of them did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution—but their Ph.D. in a field of science is VERY important! If that is true, how about the 3,000,000 plus scientists around the world who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe that the earth is billions of years old? How about the hundreds of thousands of these men and women who did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution and who believe that the earth is billions of years old?

More important, however, is the fate of the hundreds of thousands of people who, every year, reject as nonsense the gospel because it is far too often commingled with young earth creationism—a doctrine that the Bible does not teach and a doctrine that the hearers of the gospel know is not true.
 
Upvote 0

classicalhero

Junior Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,631
399
Perth,Western Australia
✟11,338.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Exactly.

Genesis 1 says nothing about "how" God created the world - only that He did. The Adam and Eve story was never about providing a literal interpretation of how the world began at all. Instead, it's an allegorical story demonstrating how sin has separated us from God.

There is nothing to suggest that God created the world and used evolution as a means to propagate life on it.
Ringo
If Adam isn't literal then Jesus can't be literal also, because Paul compares the two on how one man sin entered the world and one man gave everlasting life. Jesus can't give us everlasting life if Adam wasn't a literal person
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.

Having been a research biologist specializing in evolutionary biology and now, for the past nine years, working in a Christian apologetics ministry, I have read many hundreds of studies on “both sides of the fence.”

Is this supposed to impress me?

You have missed the entire point of my post which is...read your Bible.

Now tell me, why is it that you, an evolutionary biologist, working in evolutionary biology...should not be viewed as biased? You ridicule other scientists, denying their validity as scientists, and present yourself as an authority, one to be listened to, and you present the same arguments I addressed in my post. I say there has been error on both sides of the fence, and you imply that error has only been on the Creationist side of the fence.

Again...should I be surprised?

No more than I would be surprised that a Charismatic, Catholic, Reformed, or Muslim would also tout their "truth" as true.

Your response is not unlike the response I usually get from atheists, who also try, with the arguments you present, to prove the "truth" of evolution. And what Scripture teaches is not Evolution, but dramatic Devolution.


Creationist ministries such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International routinely, knowingly, and deliberately “misrepresent” (I am being polite here) the truth about the Bible,


Polite? Not hardly...you are purposely seeking to discredit other believers. Evolution is pretty important to your theology, apparently.

While I do not agree with everything taught by those above, what I will say is that I view these (first two) groups as sincere believers, not the false teachers you cast them as (I am only familiar with the first two).

Just like many atheists and Theistic Evolutionists I speak with, they do not allow for lack of integrity on the part of Evolutionary Scientists. I give you credit for admitting corrupt motivation in Medical Science, but question your image of Evolutionary Scientists. Again, should I be surprised?


the biological and earth sciences, themselves, the 3,000,000 plus scientists who disagree with them, and the hundreds of millions of Christians who believe that the earth is billions of years old.

And how many of these can open the pages of Scripture and understand what is written?

Like most religionists, most of these are very likely people who have been indoctrinated into a view which has nothing at all to do with Scripture.

Your argument is the very one I presented in my post.

And I am sure that many of these people also embrace doctrines which are easily seen as false, and when we examine their "exegesis" we can identify where their error lies.

Most could probably be identified as not having a belief system of their own, but having adopted the belief system of others, those they feel that cannot be questioned.


On the other side of the fence, except for in the medical sciences where the financial motivation for dishonesty is very great, misrepresentation of the truth is so rare as to be nearly nonexistent.

Right.

The fact of the matter is that Evolution, though called theory, has been for many years presented as fact. You yourself confirm this. Your truth is fact, Creationists purposely teach error.

You can admit that dishonesty occurs in Medical Science, but not...in Evolutionary Science.

Again, should I, or anyone...be surprised?

Sorry, but I do not see that the grass is greener on your side of the fence, my friend. There may be more green on that side, but it is not grass.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a genre of literature that is unique in the body of biblical literature.

Again you confirm the liberal view I spoke about.

You tout scholarship as being the great savior of those seeking to understand Scripture.

If Christ believed in the Flood...that's good enough for me.


Literary analysis of this genre of literature and its use in Genesis has conclusively proven that these eleven chapters consist of a collection of extensively redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends.

Sounds very atheistic, sorry. Sounds very much like a desire to nullify what is written to conform Scripture to your belief system.

Christ did not seem to think the Genesis Account was redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends.


The biological and earth sciences do NOT prove this fact—the Bible itself proves this fact.

The conclusions drawn by scientists such as yourself have at their heart a desire to nullify some very simple passages.

The Bible does not prove that the accounts are redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends.



However, because of the high quality of the today’s biblical scholarship and the high quality of the today’s scholarship in the biological and earth sciences, we find that these areas of scholarship give us results that are in harmony with each other.

On the contrary, because of the high quality of scholarship in the biological and earth sciences...your belief system is beginning to crumble and be seen as a desperate attempt to interpret the data to suit your belief system. As you have done with the Word of God, so too in the sciences, because it is advancing, we see that your belief system has to be altered to fit the factual data.

As far as Biblical Scholarship goes, it is only conservative Christians that maintain the view that Scripture means what it says.

The "harmony" you suggest is not actually there. Evolution has had to alter it's teachings over the years, and you can deny that, but that is simply the case.



Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error.

No—

Yes.


the Christian faith is based upon the Bible; the theory of evolution is based upon the biological and earth sciences.

Yet you cannot divorce the two, and trying to, when you are such an adamant advocate of Theistic Evolution seems rather absurd.

Here you are in the midst of teaching how scholarship on both plains is so much better because a general consensus teaches Evolution as fact.

Many who embrace Evolution do so because they do not want to embrace the Genesis Account. It is a primary Doctrine of the Religion of Atheism, a belief embraced by most of them.


I know scientists who are devout Christians,

Who you know and who you tout as being credible witnesses of truth is meaningless.

As I said, read your Bible. If you want to show me how the account on Genesis is a collection of myths and fables, pick your passage and do so.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
but I have not been able to find even one creationist who is a devout scientist.

So because Princeton Guy has not found a scientist that is a devout Creationist...that settles it. A Creation Scientist also falls into the category of myth and fable.

I deal with sciences myself on a daily basis, in regards to refrigerants. You know, the technology that put men on the moon? But my expertise with these sciences has no relevance to Evolutionary Science, right?

Let me ask you, just how many sciences, other than the specific evolutionary science you say you work in, are you expert in? Are you qualified to say that Geology proves that Evolution is fact? Are you qualified to deny new studies that show that sedimentary layering can occur rapidly, rather than the general consensus that taught that millions of years were necessary?

Are you omniscient, that you can teach as fact that there are no Scientists who are Creationists? That the work of scientists said to be creationists are pseudoscientists?


Indeed, there is not alive today even one scientist who is familiar with the data regarding the age of the earth and who has had the education necessary to evaluate the data and who yet believes that the earth is less than one millions year old.

Have you had the "necessary education" to be able to say this and present it as a factual statement?

Could I ask, did that education have a premise of Evolution as the only acceptable premise by which you were to base all of your studies?

A similar parallel would be Catholic Priests. How many Priests did they produce that did not have their education based in Catholic Doctrine?

As Science advances, changes to Evolution have had to be made.


Indeed every single one of the about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists is a peculiar kind Christian fundamentalist rather than a genuine scientist.

Well of course their science is not science...because they believe Scripture means what it says.

It takes real science, and real scholarship to impose into the text what is not there.


Consequently, they are unable to secure employment in the scientific community and thus have no access to laboratories and laboratory equipment, and very little access to current scientific research.

So who is funding research into the supernatural? One group you may be aware of is P.E.A.R. I have read articles in which scientists admit that such research is not held in high esteem, and funding is difficult. So what happened to P.E.A.R., PG? Have they abandoned their research?

You say, as though you are someone to speak authoritatively and finally, that you...have not been able to find real scientists who are Creationists. My guess would be that you haven't found any real Catholics that deny Papal Authority or thieves that find cops.

While I will not engage in link pong, I would recommend R.C. Sproul as a true Biblical Scholar, who has historically rejected a six day Creation, but has...changed his mind.

You want to match your scholarship in either Biblical matters or Scientific to say you should be considered more of an authority than he?


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.

And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.

No one is denying Scripture by “drawing conclusions based on current conditions”

That is incorrect: that has been the MO of Evolution since day one. If men evolved from a previous form then of course the Creation account is false.

You deny Scripture's account of events and try to dress it up in...scholarship.

The problem with that is that the Word of God was given to men to be understood, not a book of riddles only unlocked by those with a decoder ring or a paper hanging on the wall.


or by drawing conclusions based upon the high quality of the today’s biblical scholarship.

Not sure I would call today's "scholarship" high quality, but a hodgepodge assortment of people trying to justify their religious beliefs by conforming Scripture to their belief systems.

And when they can't make it conform...they list it as myth, fable, and allegory.

While Scripture certainly uses literary techniques such as metaphor, symbol, hyperbole, et cetera, we can usually see where that technique is employed and still maintain what it is meant to represent.

So what high quality scholarship are you referring to? The scholarship of Charismatics? Catholics? Baptists? Wesley?

Again, it is to the Bible itself we go to find authority...not men.


What is being denied are not the Scriptures; what is being denied are old, outdated interpretations of Genesis 1-11 that have been incontrovertibly proven by biblical scholars to be severely incorrect.

You mean like the interpretation of Christ of the Genesis Account? Doubtful He would suggest God made man male and female over millions of years.

How exactly do you see liberal theology as incontrovertibly proving that a traditional acceptance of the Word of God is incorrect?

General consensus in an increasingly hostile environment...against God Himself?


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.


The length of time it took for a particular layering to occur is measured by a multitude of factors that give us VERY accurate and incontrovertible information.


So you say, and I suggest to you that your incontrovertible information is beginning to crumble.

And we can thank Science for that...not Evolutionary Scientists.

As a biologist, how qualified are you to verify what has been taught as fact since Evolution began to be a popular belief system?

Are you a scholar of biology? Do you have the education you demand of those scientists you say have unrelated degrees? If not, then what you would call the claim to be an authoritative voice?


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored.

Scientists do not work from a “baseline,” they work from, in the case of the age of the earth, billions of pieces of data.

Where are these billions of pieces of data that verify your belief system, that incontrovertibly prove that the earth is billions of years old?

And why is it that your data once dated it as hundreds of thousands of years, then millions, then billions?

Will you deny that Science has caused Evolutionary fact to be discredited?


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form.


None of this is true.

On the contrary...every word is true.

Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.

The fact is that Scripture states man, in his original creation, to live considerably longer than man lives today. As we see that lessening of life we correlate that to the curse of sin. Evolution takes the opposite approach, and instead of seeing man in a state of digression from his original condition...you see man as being made better.

That is not a Scriptural view.


Evolution has NEVER run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man.

That is nonsense and I am surprised you would offer such a response.

It appears you are not picking up on the implicit teachings of either of your faiths.


The cranial capacity of a skull gives us the size of the whole brain rather than the individual parts of it—such as the part responsible for cognitive thinking.

Are you saying that Evolution has taught that an increase in brain capacity is irrelevant to man's evolution?

You can go here to learn more about the belief system you have adopted.


The very recent increase in man’s lifespan in modern, industrialized countries is NOT taught by evolutionists to be due to evolution, but due to the furtherance of medical knowledge.

False argument: I never said that brain size correlated to lifespan, but that lifespan is, whether you offer that argument or not, a familiar one in debates such as these.

The point of lifespan is to show that man is not improving, but decreasing. When we look at the Creation Account, as well as throughout Scripture, this is simply a basic principle every Bible Student should pick up on, which stands in direct contradiction to the Belief System of Evolution.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.

Such arguments are offered and debated on Christian message boards, but they certainly are not offered by evolutionists.

That is simply not true: are you now going to deny that even evolutionists are...evolutionists?

It seems that only what Princeton Guy deems as truth, deems as credible, deems as authoritative...is.

Who are you to say these people aren't evolutionists? It seems that you base truth on your particular knowledge base and anything outside of that is rejected.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible.

Hundreds of millions of us have studied the Bible, and we KNOW that it does NOT teach that the earth is young.

You know nothing of the sort.

In fact, much of what you know (and this is specific to the debate about Evolution, not a general declarative statement meant to offend) is contrary to what Scripture teaches explicitly as well as implicitly.

Read your Bible, my friend, and stop reading about the Bible.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.

Christians should discuss things that they have studied, and study things that they know nothing about.

I agree. You will find in the Hebrews thread an address of what you know about the Book of Hebrews.

;)


Continued...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.

I am a conservative, evangelical Christian

According to who?

I see nothing "conservative" in those that deny Scripture. Those who allegorize the very statements of the Word of God.

That is liberal theology, in my view.


whom God has blessed with an excellent education in the biological sciences, biblical exegesis, and translation theory.

As I said, we can test your exegesis in the thread about Hebrews.

As far as theory goes, you can keep it. There is no theory presented in Scripture, only among secular "Biblical Scholars" and those that buy into their theories.

Exegesis has no place for theory, nor, do I believe, does Christianity.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."


The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translations give us only an approximation to the genuine thing.

Again, a liberal theory.

The Transmission process can be seen to be reliable, and so too can the Bible.

Now either you see the manuscript evidence that produced those translations as more than an approximation...or you don't. While I agree there are certain things which may be lost in the translation, these issues are relatively few, and have no impact whatsoever on how one views the Genesis Account.


But that genuine thing, read out of the context of its time, culture, and literature can be, and almost always is, terribly misunderstood.

I agree, hence the address of your statements in regards to Hebrews.

;)


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.

Right?


No, of course not!

That is the general consensus, which this post reiterates and confirms. Not sure why you deny it.


A fundamental argument of young earth creationists is that there are scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe in and teach young earth creationism.

Again, because of your zeal to justify your belief system...you completely missed the premise of my post, which is, again...read your Bible.

You seem to think that scholarship maintains an authority over the Word of God, and that is the problem with many liberal theologians who think they can understand the Word of God on an intellectual basis alone, never once considering if their education might not have introduced error through indoctrination.

I do not defend Young Earth Creationism by running to the sites you have derisively dismissed, but simply defend what is written in a very simple account of Creation. Evolution cannot be seen in that account, except it be imposed through dismissal and designation as literary style not meant to convey specific information, but is simply allegorical.


They know, of course, that there are only 22-25 of them,

It wouldn't matter if there were none of them. That is not going to change what is written.

Again, you confirm what I have said by basing truth on current conditions. Because you feel there are only so many who claim to be scientists who embrace a Young Earth view...it must be true.

Because the majority embrace a liberal view which does not take the time to clarify literary style, but instead writes everything that opposes their view off as bereft of literal meaning...it must be true.

Who among scientists and what they believe is simply irrelevant to the Scripture itself. If you want to show why a day is not a 24 hour period in Genesis...do so. If you want to show how God did not, as Scripture states, create mankind in a completed form...do so. If you want to show how Scripture is simply giving an allegory in regards to the Flood...do so.

But do so...in Scripture, with Scripture, and try to leave the general consensus and liberal theory out of it. You say you are expert in exegesis, great. Show me how your belief system denies what is written.


and that none of them did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution—but their Ph.D. in a field of science is VERY important!

To who?

Did you miss the fact that I stated clearly that there is error on both sides?

I do not glorify the efforts of men, but seek only to examine what God has given us.


If that is true, how about the 3,000,000 plus scientists around the world who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe that the earth is billions of years old?

How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?

How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?

How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?

How many false teachers have a piece of paper hanging on their wall? How many Biblical Scholars deny there is a God at all?

Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.


How about the hundreds of thousands of these men and women who did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution and who believe that the earth is billions of years old?

You mean...evolutionary scientists?

No bias there.

And again, after denying this argument...you reiterate it.

How about the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are educated under other beliefs? Will you deny their scholarship? They too see their truth as truth, and their studies as justification.

But is there an influence of indoctrinated premise? I think so. We can say this of every educational institution, whether you want to admit it or not.

What institution did you attend? I see you are in the Baptist section, yet advocate a Wesleyan theology. Which one did you get your education from? Was that education valid? Was it the Baptist Faith you embraced what you are teaching on this forum from? If not, what does that say about your...education? What does that say about the education you present here as justification for authority?


More important, however, is the fate of the hundreds of thousands of people who, every year, reject as nonsense the gospel because it is far too often commingled with young earth creationism—

What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?

I am not sure you can appreciate just how ridiculous this sounds.

I have not seen in your post a concern for the welfare of souls, but the desire to defend Evolution. And to deny the only position that can reasonably be drawn from Scripture, which holds overtones of how Scripture itself is viewed.

And I would suggest that Evolution does not dissuade men from he Gospel truth, because the Gospel truth is something ministered to the natural man by the Comforter...not men. You want to tell me that Evolution will help God to convince men that He is real, that they are sinners, and that they need a Savior? You want to tell me how God used godless men (and I clarify I do not say men who did not believe there is a God) to create the Theory of Evolution so He could correct thousands of years of error in believers, who took for granted that what God gave to Moses was an accurate account of events?

This is a ridiculous argument used in a number of issues, foremost in the debate about millennialism and the timing of the Rapture. It is a weak argument, and is irrelevant to the Gospel and how God ministers to the hearts of men.

And the opposite can be seen to be true, in that we see that Atheists use this belief to justify their rebellion against God. In my humble opinion, Theistic Evolution is a product of Christians that believe men more than they believe the Word of God, which can be seen in numerous issues as well.


a doctrine that the Bible does not teach

On the contrary, it is the only tenable view. The Genesis Account is confirmed by Christ Himself, Who did not present either the creation of man nor the Flood in a way which would be consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution has presented itself as fact since it's beginning, and then gone out to find the evidence to justify the "fact" it presents.

Those that do not see the indoctrination process and the stranglehold Evolution has had in Science are not well prepared to battle against a religious, rather than a Christian worldview. We see, again, a parallel in which Catholicism once had that stranglehold on knowledge and education. In the world system, the new boss, is the same as the old boss.

Again, I myself take a Young Earth Creationist view, and will be more than happy to look at your exegesis of Scripture that proves that God did not create the world in 6 days, and that He did not, as it is written, create man in the form he is found in today, rather than a product of evolution. We will see in Scripture that man is in a state of digression, rather than improvement. You deny that as a principle of the Theory of Evolution, but it is a basic principle derived from the belief system itself, and cannot be denied, and...

...that, my friend, is not taught in Scripture.


and a doctrine that the hearers of the gospel know is not true.

Be glad to discuss the Gospel of Jesus Christ with you as well. Because I have a problem with your conclusions in that area as well.


God bless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
If Adam isn't literal then Jesus can't be literal also, because Paul compares the two on how one man sin entered the world and one man gave everlasting life. Jesus can't give us everlasting life if Adam wasn't a literal person

The truth of the gospel is NOT dependent upon an archaic interpretation of Genesis 1-11, but rather the truth of the gospel is dependent upon the reality of the blood-atoning death of Christ Jesus upon a cross to save us from our sins. Our salvation from our sins is NOT dependent upon Paul’s method of teaching, but rather our salvation from our sins is dependent upon the reality of God’s gift of salvation and our receiving that gift by faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Yet you cannot divorce the two, and trying to, when you are such an adamant advocate of Theistic Evolution seems rather absurd.

Religion is religion; science is science. I am an advocate for teaching an academically defensible interpretation of the Scriptures that glorifies the Creator while manifesting to man his need for salvation from his sins through his personal faith in Christ Jesus. I am NOT an advocate of Theistic Evolution!

While I will not engage in link pong, I would recommend R.C. Sproul as a true Biblical Scholar, who has historically rejected a six day Creation, but has...changed his mind.

You want to match your scholarship in either Biblical matters or Scientific to say you should be considered more of an authority than he?

Absolutely! There is no question about it!

Will you deny that Science has caused Evolutionary fact to be discredited?

Absolutely!

On the contrary...every word is true.

Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.

The theory of evolution is NOT about anything evolving to an improved state.

The fact is that Scripture states man, in his original creation, to live considerably longer than man lives today. As we see that lessening of life we correlate that to the curse of sin.

The life spans given of men in the Hextateuch are symbolical and theological rather than historical.

Evolution takes the opposite approach, and instead of seeing man in a state of digression from his original condition...you see man as being made better.

Not true!

I see nothing "conservative" in those that deny Scripture. Those who allegorize the very statements of the Word of God.

That is liberal theology, in my view.

Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture does not constitute denying Scripture! Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture from a Bible-believing conservative point of view does not constitute liberalism!

Moreover, let us not confuse sagas, myths, and legends with allegories. Even many of the most radical fundamentalist Christians “find” the very same allegories in a literal interpretation of Genesis as do many contemporary scholars of Genesis. This was even true of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 4:24-25).

As I said, we can test your exegesis in the thread about Hebrews.

My exegesis of Hebrews is supported by the very finest New Testament scholarship in all of the mainline Christian denominations, and even by the most capable Baptist scholars. Less capable men like Sproul—who lacks an in-depth knowledge of that epistle— disagrees (as he does regarding mainstream Baptist soteriology).

How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that anyone is saved by being baptized, but rather that we are justified by faith alone and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism. Moreover, this belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!

How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?

This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!

How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?

This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree! The three million scientists referred to in my post are offset by 22-25 “scientists” who cannot even get a job in the scientific community!

Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.

Believers in young earth creationism appeal to 22-25 “scientists” who cannot even get a job in the scientific community, and to horribly outdated teachings by men who were too afraid to question an archaic interpretation of Genesis in an age when doing so brought the wrath of men upon those who dared to study the Bible as literature.

What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?

Absolutely and incontrovertibly! Those of us who are currently involved in the ministry of Christian apologetics find that the primary reason today for not believing the Bible is the belief that the Bible teaches young earth creationism—a doctrine that those being ministered to know to be untrue. I cannot begin to express what a heart-wrenching experience it is to actually see those being ministered to refusing to believe the gospel because they believe that the Bible teaches young earth creationism.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Yet you cannot divorce the two, and trying to, when you are such an adamant advocate of Theistic Evolution seems rather absurd.
Religion is religion; science is science. I am an advocate for teaching an academically defensible interpretation of the Scriptures that glorifies the Creator while manifesting to man his need for salvation from his sins through his personal faith in Christ Jesus.

This translates, to me..."I am an advocate for conforming the Word of God to something the World will accept, and making it compatible with the doctrines of God rejecting men."

The Gospel is not ministered to men so they can agree with it, but so that it can bring conviction by the truth it conveys to the unregenerate.


I am NOT an advocate of Theistic Evolution!

Then you are denying Evolution? This is a little confusing seeing that your first point was to point out your title as an Evolutionary Scientist, as well as tout all evolutionary scientists as "proof" of your doctrine being true.

Again, the belief that majority and general consensus determines truth is contradicted by the Biblical pattern in which often it is one man standing against the majority and those in power.

You deny this in your first post but repeatedly appeal to it again in this one.

You are an advocate of Theistic Evolution and that is apparent.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
While I will not engage in link pong, I would recommend R.C. Sproul as a true Biblical Scholar, who has historically rejected a six day Creation, but has...changed his mind.

You want to match your scholarship in either Biblical matters or Scientific to say you should be considered more of an authority than he?


Absolutely! There is no question about it!


Amazing.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Will you deny that Science has caused Evolutionary fact to be discredited?
Absolutely!


You would be wrong.

Are you, perhaps...still looking for the missing link?

Do you still adhere to an earth dated at hundreds of thousands of years rather than billions of years? If you do, one of those "real" scientists you speak about may consider you a young earther.

Do you still teach that sedimentary layering can only be explained through millions of years of process?

Do you still think all non-avian dinosaurs died out at the K-T Event?

Do you still think increased brain capacity is responsible for man's emergence as the dominant species?

The fact is, unlike a Biblical Worldview based on teachings which have not changed for thousands of years, Evolution is constantly changing as Science dispels what has been and is taught as...

...incontrovertible.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
On the contrary...every word is true.

Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.

The theory of evolution is NOT about anything evolving to an improved state.


Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.



Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
The fact is that Scripture states man, in his original creation, to live considerably longer than man lives today. As we see that lessening of life we correlate that to the curse of sin.

The life spans given of men in the Hextateuch are symbolical and theological rather than historical.

First, I will leave Old Testament division in the hands of those it was given to, rather than modern scholarship.

Secondly, to say the lifespans are symbolic is an open invitation to interpret as one sees fit, rather than exegete.

Third, to say their lifespans are theological is absurd.

Fourth, a denial of historical value is in fact a denial of Scripture, because it is given as historical literature and is not separated from the rest of Genesis, which is the focus. Joshua carries us into another Age, and should be examined in that context.



Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Evolution takes the opposite approach, and instead of seeing man in a state of digression from his original condition...you see man as being made better.

Not true!

On the contrary, Evolution is a Doctrine of Secular Humanism which those incapable of complete faith in the Word of God have conformed to. They give, as you do, a number of reasons why their truth is the correct truth, their belief system is the correct belief system, and it is a departure from what has been accepted as truth throughout Biblical History.

The first step in denying the Sovereignty of God is denying His Word, and despite the belief that Scholarship is required in order to understand the Word of God the simple truth is...

...God gave man His Word for the specific purpose that man would know Him, His will, and our purpose in life.

We will either conform to the Word or we will conform to the World.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I see nothing "conservative" in those that deny Scripture. Those who allegorize the very statements of the Word of God.

That is liberal theology, in my view.


Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture does not constitute denying Scripture!

What is academic in saying "I can choose which parts mean what they say and which parts don't"?

How is denying that Creation took place as it is written...not denying Scripture?

You want to tell me how an evolutionary view can be made to correlate to...


Matthew 19:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?



...?

Seems to indicate that from the beginning, as Genesis depicts, in view are men and women marrying and bearing children...not apes.


Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture from a Bible-believing conservative point of view does not constitute liberalism!

No, it's the embrace of evolutionary teachings and trying to conform the Word of God to godless doctrine that is liberal.

There is nothing conservative about Theistic Evolution.

Hank Hanegraaff needs to come to an understanding of that. We cannot settle for a partial sound doctrine, but doctrine which cannot be called into question, and even the unregenerate can read Genesis 1-2 and see that it does not conform to an evolutionary view.

I do not doubt Hank's sincerity as a believer, but I do question his doctrine, which stumbles over itself and cannot be reconciled in harmonious fashion in all points.


Moreover, let us not confuse sagas, myths, and legends with allegories. Even many of the most radical fundamentalist Christians “find” the very same allegories in a literal interpretation of Genesis as do many contemporary scholars of Genesis.

I agree, let's not: an allegory usually contains fictional characters and symbolic, hidden truth.

So if one calls the Genesis Account allegory, then they deny veracity of the characters referenced, which denies the Adam and Eve of the Account, and makes them fictional.

What other parts of the Bible do you feel is fictional?

And again, understand I am not going to appeal to any scholar or theologian, but simply seek to examine the Scripture, which was the primary point of my first post.

The problem with the increase in knowledge and the availability and access to knowledge is this: doesn't matter how radical one's theology is, they can usually find someone to quote who believes the same nonsense. And when a majority subscribes to that nonsense, some will view this as affirmation of truth, even as you constantly appeal to the majority.

And we see precedence in Church History, where a more literal view of eschatological matters gave way to a more allegorical approach, and the "Church" as a whole began subscribing to an a-millennial view. This set the stage for modern "scholarship," and has produced a subscription to a liberal and subjective view of the Word of God.


This was even true of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 4:24-25).


Sorry, no, it is not true of the Apostle Paul.


Galatians 4:24-25

King James Version (KJV)

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.



Paul does not write these characters off as a fictional account intended to convey hidden truth. He simply recounts, and verifies the veracity of that which is written in Genesis.

All of the participants described are literal men, women, and places. That an "allegory" is said to be in view is primarily a reference to the distinction made between the spiritual and the temporal, which is a constant theme when we contrast Old and New Testament Truth.

It is not an allegory as we use allegory in a modern context. So I have to disagree with your use of Paul's statement as justification of allegorizing, or, making the Genesis Account fictional in any sense, a myth, a fable, or whatever term you want to pluck out of modern "Biblical Scholarship."

Do you view the actual content of the "allegory" in view (in Galatians) as myth, fable, allegory, symbolic, what have you? Or did a literal man produce offspring with two literal woman? Is this account of Abraham, Sarai, and Hagar historical?

So your justification of a modern view, which you say replaces an outdated view, fails to justify your approach to Scripture. You will either have to make it all allegorical, or, place yourself in the position of determining what is and what isn't. Where is that dividing line in the Genesis Account where God changes His decision of literary style and begins finally to talk about literal events?

And if you think that Modern Scholarship is going to rewrite the History of the Bible and finally teach Genesis properly, then I would suggest your first a primary antagonist is going to be the Author Himself.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As I said, we can test your exegesis in the thread about Hebrews.
My exegesis of Hebrews is supported by the very finest New Testament scholarship in all of the mainline Christian denominations,

So is your view of Evolution. Again, I am not impressed. Let's look at the account itself. Show me how evolution is compatible with the Word of God.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
and even by the most capable Baptist scholars.

According to who? Our idea of "capable" is likely going to differ, lol.


Less capable men like Sproul—who lacks an in-depth knowledge of that epistle— disagrees

While I disagree with certain aspects of Sproul's views, such as his a-millennial view, that does not mean he is incapable, or less capable of a Scholar than any given Baptist Scholar. We would have to examine each view individually to see where the differences lie. The point in using Sproul as an example is that he is a very capable Scholar (that cannot be denied), yet has changed his mind in regards to Creation. He has let go of an allegorical approach to Creation, which is astounding, because he is a notable Theologian held in respect even by Baptist Scholars, and has courageously and publicly acknowledged his retraction of the view he once held.

Which I will suggest was a result of his education. Again, the indoctrinated aspects of education cannot be ignored, and when it comes to sincere study, we do well to keep this sometime corruptive aspect well in view, that it not guide our efforts. If we are approaching Scripture to justify what we already believe, it is going to be more difficult to properly examine any given text.

As far as Sproul's knowledge of Hebrews...you are a Sproul expert? You have heard him teach from Hebrews? For your information...you and Sproul would likely be found to be in more agreement than disagreement.


(as he does regarding mainstream Baptist soteriology).

He agrees enough to invite John MacArthur to his conferences to speak, lol. And there is nothing that Sproul teaches which would be viewed as contrary to a Baptist view, if you could actually clarify a distinct Baptist view in regards to soteriology.

But let's not derail the focus: Sproul taught your view for a number of years, and while you place yourself as a superior to Sproul, the fact is that he has changed his view, which is a departure from the very view you advocate. So perhaps now you might claim superiority, but before you and he would have been in agreement.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that anyone is saved by being baptized,

I guess you don't spend much time talking to Catholics, nor study of what they teach. You cannot even deny this point, because you affirm it in saying...

and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.

If salvation takes place at baptism, then salvation is received through baptism. That is Baptismal Regeneration, unless you want to say regeneration is not an aspect of salvation.

Catholics, like you, try to teach two opposing views, or in other words, ride the fence. It is lip service only, and not a Biblical treatment of a proper understanding of salvation.

Water Baptism does not confer salvation, salvation is bestowed by Christ to those believing, and their salvation takes place before they are baptized in water.

but rather that we are justified by faith alone

Catholics are in adamant opposition to Sola Fide, that is just a historical fact, so I am not sure what it is you are trying to create here. This is not true of Catholic Doctrine, and it is not true of adherents of Catholic Doctrine.

Catholic Doctrine is a works-based soteriology and to even suggest that they believe we are justified by faith alone, much less saved by faith alone...is ridiculous. I might recommend R.C.'s teachings about this, lol. If you can defer to a lesser Theologian, that is.


and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.

And there it is.

Salvation is a spiritual work of God, Christ is the Baptizer, and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the only Baptism which has salvific value.

Physical baptism is truly commanded, but so is teaching and making disciples.


Moreover, this belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!

You defend Catholic Doctrine and then say it is offset by 4 billion people who disagree?

We could find many (4 billion is an unrealistic percentage for any group) who despise the Catholic Church and think that all members are evil, and their "religion" is harmful.

Of course what they believe is offset by many who think the god of the Muslim is the God of the Christian.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?

This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!

You think 4 billion people believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

Really?


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?

This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!

Again, just an unrealistic figure. You honestly believe half the world are born again believers? You will have to include all denominational groups to even come close to 4 billion, and then conclude they are all born again believers. Because if they are unregenerate...they are not Christians.


The three million scientists referred to in my post are offset by 22-25 “scientists” who cannot even get a job in the scientific community!

That is irrelevant, really, because I am not appealing to any scientist, but the Word of God. I have made that clear several times now.

I will say I am not sure why those who cannot get a job among those who hold a secular humanist philosophy would seem to be something that justifies the views of Secular Humanists. This would be akin to saying "Paul couldn't get a job among the Pharisees, lol.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.

Believers in young earth creationism appeal to 22-25 “scientists” who cannot even get a job in the scientific community,

I am a Young Earth Creationist and I don't. You want to talk about your fellows and their beliefs as justification of proof, great. But if you want to discuss the focus of the OP then we are going to have to direct attention to Scripture.

What men believe and what Scripture teaches are not always the same thing, and appealing to majority embrace has never been the biblical pattern for truth. Those proclaiming truth have always been the minority, and often...solitary figures in History. Christians have always been a minority, despite periods where "Christian" groups had great power. If majority is a determiner of truth, then all of us should convert to Catholic Doctrine right now. We should ignore a minority that stood in opposition to Catholic Doctrine and, like the Catholic Church, view them as heretics who have no right to question the authority of those that hold power over the masses. And right now, Secular Humanism stands in the spotlight in regards to education, even as the Catholic Church did at one time.



and to horribly outdated teachings by men who were too afraid to question an archaic interpretation of Genesis in an age when doing so brought the wrath of men upon those who dared to study the Bible as literature.

Well, I will stick with an "outdated" view which confirms the Genesis Account, rather than spiritualizing it into digestible and acceptable doctrine that unbelievers will embrace.

You can kid yourself that this leads to submission to God, but at no time has it been acceptable to modify the Word of God to make it more acceptable to people.


Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?

Absolutely and incontrovertibly!

Again, utter nonsense.

The debate is largely between those who embrace evolution and those who do not. The modern philosophy and teaching of Theistic Evolution does not present an academically defensible Scripture or Gospel, because Evolution does not correlate to the Genesis Account. That is why you are forced to spiritualize whatever text that doesn't conform to your underlying beliefs which have their roots in the doctrines of godless men.

Those who have embraced Theistic Evolution stand apart from those who simply acknowledge an old earth, and the Gap Restoration Theory is the reasoning and reconciliation of the difference in views. That does not validate Evolution in itself, and some notable men in the Church who have had successful ministries could be found.

But those I am aware of did not endorse Evolution, which stands in direct contradiction to what is written in the Genesis Account.


Those of us who are currently involved in the ministry of Christian apologetics find that the primary reason today for not believing the Bible is the belief that the Bible teaches young earth creationism—

...which stands in direct contradiction to the teachings of Evolution.

I would suggest to you another reason: sin. Separation from God from birth.

If rejection of the Genesis Account is not enough, they will find another reason for rejecting God and His Word.

Since when is salvation based on the Word of God being acceptable to the unregenerate? Do you not understand that it is the rejection of Christ which is the primary reason for not believing the Bible? Those hostile to the Word of God do not stop at rejection of the Genesis Account, but also reject the testimony of God Himself in the Bible. God is a monster in their eyes, and with such rationalization they reject the God of the Bible.

The good news about the Good News is that it is God that brings belief about in the unregenerate. He it is that opens their eyes to the condition they stand in. Men do not rationalize or intellectualize themselves into salvation, but are led by God into understanding. And it is rejection of that ministry, not the ministry of men, which determines their fate.

To think that salvation hinges on the efforts of modern "Biblical Scholarship" is absurd. To place one's views of the Genesis Account as the number one reason for rejection of Christ and the Word of God is equally absurd.


a doctrine that those being ministered to know to be untrue.

So you ascribe understanding of spiritual things to the unregenerate? you feel we have to make sure the World doesn't think we believe Scripture means what it says in Genesis so they can be saved?

On the contrary, those rejecting the Word of God based on the Genesis Account reject the Word of God from the very beginning: God created...

It rejection of the Sovereignty of God that is the heart of the rejection as a whole. When one is ministered to by the Spirit of God there is going to be a focus on their condition, which God enlightens them to. People are saved despite their views about Creation, but, no man can understand the Spiritual things of God apart from the Holy Spirit. To think we can educate people into salvation is as ridiculous as thinking we can baptize them into salvation.


I cannot begin to express what a heart-wrenching experience it is to actually see those being ministered to refusing to believe the gospel because they believe that the Bible teaches young earth creationism.

Well, my suggestion would be don't let it bother you so much. Christ is the One building the Church, and He is the Baptizer. Long before men debated the age of the earth He was building His Church, and long before modern "Biblical Scholarship" He was using the Word of God to rebuke, correct, exhort, and instruct.

The debate between believers concerning the Age of the Earth is not the heart of the Gospel, nor are evangelical efforts centered on one's view of that age. Many well meaning and sincere believers embrace an old earth view, while at the same time rejecting Evolution.

Again, me, I am a young earth creationist, and I believe that to be the only tenable position for those that view the Word of God as an accurate account of events. If you feel Evolution is a valid doctrine, great. It is difficult to debate Biblical Doctrine with those that appeal to allegory and spiritualization of texts. This leaves the interpreter as the authority in regards to the content and intent of any given passage. What that means is that if one believes they can at any time give meaning to something in Scripture in direct opposition, or the nullifying of, then the Bible becomes their own personal book.

We wouldn't do that with any other literature, but with the Bible...some feel they have license.

But how you can harmonize Evolution to the Account in Genesis, well, that will have to be seen.


God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Brandonspapa

Newbie
Dec 27, 2014
97
3
Florida
✟7,741.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think that the Bible is credible enough for me. It says that GOD created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh. It also give the chronology of the Patriarchs, which when calculated puts the Earth at 10 million years old at the most. Now, if you want to take the "science" of man over the Word of GOD, go for it. There are many things about this Creation that we do not know and apparently GOD didn't feel was relevant to our existence. Why question what is not important? What is important is faith in Jesus Christ and trust in the Lord. All else is vanity, as Solomon said.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
I think that the Bible is credible enough for me. It says that GOD created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.

Gen. 6:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (NRSV)

Gen. 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
12. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. (NRSV)

Moreover, only a flat earth has four corners:

Isa. 11:12. He will raise a signal for the nations,
and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth. (NRSV)

Rev.7:1. After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on earth or sea or against any tree. (NRSV)

The literal four corners of the earth in the Bible gave rise to today’s popular expression.

Furthermore, Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world from “a very high mountain.” This would have been impossible on a spherical earth:

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; (NRSV)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Brandonspapa

Newbie
Dec 27, 2014
97
3
Florida
✟7,741.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Only to the limited mind would someone believe that the earth was flat. There is a North, South, East and West. Are they corners? There are more than 4 winds upon the Earth. They are talking about the 4 winds of the Earth that GOD has made significant. Why couldn't Jesus see all the kingdoms of the World. Satan is supernatural. He could cause a vision of all the kingdoms to appear to our Lord. I find your response nonsensical and not very well thought out.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Only to the limited mind would someone believe that the earth was flat. There is a North, South, East and West. Are they corners? There are more than 4 winds upon the Earth. They are talking about the 4 winds of the Earth that GOD has made significant. Why couldn't Jesus see all the kingdoms of the World. Satan is supernatural. He could cause a vision of all the kingdoms to appear to our Lord. I find your response nonsensical and not very well thought out.

Based upon a literal interpretation of the verses that I quoted above, the Church universally taught until the Middle Ages that the earth is flat rather than spherical, and some Christian fundamentalists still insist, upon a literal interpretation of those verses, that the earth is flat. My Flat Earth Firmament Drawings

According to ancient Hebrew cosmology based upon Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other books in the Old Testament, the universe is composed of three parts.

The heavens (Hebrew = שָׁמַיִם [shâmayim]) above,
The earth (Hebrew = אֶרֶץ [eh'-rets]) in the middle
The world of the dead (Hebrew שְׁאוֹל [sheh-ole'] below

For a diagram of this universe, and much more information from Christian scholars, please see here, A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
 
Upvote 0

Brandonspapa

Newbie
Dec 27, 2014
97
3
Florida
✟7,741.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We all know that up until the earth was discovered to be round that people thought it was flat. It is also common sense that the people alive in the Middle East during the time of Genesis were not aware that the earth consisted of more than the area in which they lived. The Bible was written so that all men and women, from creation to eternity, could understand it. It is man's limited mind that is the issue. You can argue til you are red in the face about the shape of the earth, about the ability for Satan to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth. But everyone except a kindergartner knows that the earth is round, and it is common sense that if Jesus could see Satan, that it was a supernatural occurrence where it would have been possible for any event to occur. I'm not going to debate with you any further about your ridiculous suppositions and ascertations. Good luck with that and may the Lord bless you.
 
Upvote 0

56Bluesman

Newbie
Jul 10, 2008
409
16
I live in beautiful Omaha Nebraska
✟8,252.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There are today about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists. They are all extreme fundamentalist Christians who have allowed their religious beliefs to blind them to such a severe extent that they dismiss the views of over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or some other doctoral degree in some field of science. Moreover, they hold to an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is viewed as severely incorrect by nearly all Old Testament scholars who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals. None of the 22-25 men have a background in evolutionary biology, and they either lie about the basic principles of the mechanics of evolution, or they make fools of themselves by exposing an ignorance for which there is no excuse in the 21st century.

Genesis 1-11 is one of the most studied and researched portions of the Bible. For more than a century, the predominant interpretation, based upon the internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, has been that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving us their present form. Theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had a major role in the process. Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process.

The evidence that the earth is extremely old is not only massive, it is conclusive. No one who is familiar with the evidence believes that the earth is young. Everyone who disagrees is unfamiliar with the evidence. None of the people posting to the contrary on this message board are scientists or scholars of the Old Testament who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals.

Furthermore, when young earth creationism is commingled with the gospel, every non-Christian who has even a basic knowledge of science knows for certain that they are being fed a lie, and they reject as false the gospel along with the young earth creationism. In the last several decades, this has had a devastating impact on the Christian faith with millions upon millions of people rejecting the gospel. Indeed, this past Saturday, I was witnessing to a group of atheists who rejected the gospel for that very reason!

Young earth creationism ignores both scientific and biblical research and substitutes a baloney sandwich.

Thank You for saying what needs to be said! I am a former YEC, who left the position once I learned that YEC science failed as a theoretical model across several areas of science to the point I could not ignore it, or lie to myself any longer. Right now I reside in the Old Earth camp. I agree with Ken Ham that there is indeed one creation and universe, yet Mr. Ham and other YEC's fail to account for why their science fails constantly when applied as a theoretical model in the real world and universe that our Creator brought forth, when the rubber meets the road of actual unbiased scientific research. I'm still very much a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I have not negotiated away one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,498
136
✟16,853.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank You for saying what needs to be said! I am a former YEC, who left the position once I learned that YEC science failed as a theoretical model across several areas of science to the point I could not ignore it, or lie to myself any longer. Right now I reside in the Old Earth camp. I agree with Ken Ham that there is indeed one creation and universe, yet Mr. Ham and other YEC's fail to account for why their science fails constantly when applied as a theoretical model in the real world and universe that our Creator brought forth, when the rubber meets the road of actual unbiased scientific research. I'm still very much a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I have not negotiated away one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith!

There is a distinction between an old earth view and an evolutionary view.

Which one are you?


God bless.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.