Young earth creationist questions

[PrincetonGuy]

In 1517, I'm sure it could have been said that there was only one scholar who believed that justification with God came through faith and faith alone.

Justification by faith alone was expressly taught BEFORE Luther by Origen, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexander, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Maybe you could explain how raqiya` speaks to flat or spherical in Scripture? Could you show me one verse it is found in that implies the specific flatness you falsely impose on it?

Perhaps you can show how it's root, raqa` , does this? A verse where we could support your derision to what the Word of God states and for those you mock for believing the earth was flat?


What is found in the text is separation of the waters above and the waters below.

So we see a good example of what is found in the text is completely ignored, and what is not in the text is presented.

And "dome?"

KJV-firmament; NIV-vault; NASB, YLT, and ESV...expanse.

So tell me, did these guys also view domes as...flat?

ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃ Gen. 1:7

Gen. 1:7. 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.

The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya&#8219 as “dome.” The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)

The evidence that the Church, up until the Middle Ages, understood the earth to be flat with a dome over it, and so wrote of it in the New Testament, is massive and incontrovertible. The language is NOT figurative, but literal.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Did these flat earthers also see literal windows in the sky? Is that what Moses would have been thinking when he wrote of these windows?

Please do not characterize the Ancient Hebrew people and our brother and sisters in Christ up till the Middle Ages as “flat earthers,” a characterization that is demeaning and insulting. Yes, they incorrectly believed that the earth was flat, and their writing reflect that point of view, but they were servants of the same God that we serve, and they deserve the respect associated with that service.

The ancient writers and redactors whom it pleased God to use to give us the first eleven chapters of Genesis apparently understood there to be windows in the dome through which the rain fell—and that is certainly how the passage of Scripture was understood until the Middle Ages by both the Jews and the Christians.

 

[Hupomone10]

In 1517, I'm sure it could have been said that there was only one scholar who believed that justification with God came through faith and faith alone.

Justification by faith alone was expressly taught BEFORE Luther by Origen, Hilary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexander, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, and Thomas Aquinas.

I know you're having to multitask between answering several on here, but am I to understand that you believe these men lived in 1517?

 

[Brandonspapa]

Sorry, I know the party line and dogma and false dichotomies already, as I was once a dogged and determined YEC myself. Also real science never claims to be infallible or knows everything. Yes YEC pundits and their scientists and their claims, do need to account and be held accountable when their claims fail when tested as theoretical models, just the same as any other scientific claims that fall short in the real world, or they aren't practicing proper science! Real science is self correcting when practiced properly, and that some positions once held dear in science get overturned by new and further discoveries, is how proper science works! As for my faith, once again I have not given up one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith. If you want to remain in the young earth creationist camp, that's fine with me, and I really do wish you well.

Party line, dogma and false dichotomies? What a joke!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I know you're having to multitask between answering several on here, but am I to understand that you believe these men lived in 1517?

No, they all lived and died centuries before 1517.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princeton, when Gen 1-11 with an empiricism philosophical worldview, and the person is a Christian, the world's collide and empiricism wins out.

What I'm not saying is science is faulty. I am saying empiricism, which modern science is built on, turns Scripture into value judgments and Gen 1-11 is in turn ruled myth by empiricist Christians, which in turn puts into question inerrancy of Scripture. Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1 Tim, Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, John, Jude & Revelations must then be called into question as they speak of these events as real events. But even before this, Truth is called into question. Is the fear of the Lord truly the beginning of knowledge, or is the fear of empiricism?

Truth is NOT being called into question. It is a severely inaccurate interpretation of Scripture that is being called into question.

 

[Hupomone10]

No, they all lived and died centuries before 1517.

...and many scholars and scientists who believed in a young earth lived and died centuries before us. And now we are full circle to what my obvious point was. Being in the minority does not make you wrong, even when it comes to theology or science.

I assume one might respond "but they didn't have the knowledge and evidence we have today in science." My response would be, "neither do we have the knowledge today that we will have 100 years from now should the Lord tarry."

Scientists of today are looking at a small slice of knowledge and making adamant statements about origins as though they had "arrived." They are perhaps like a guy looking through a door keyhole (remember the old doors with the keyhole?) and thinking he can see the whole room.

Given our limited perspective and limited knowledge at this time compared to what will come, maybe we should simply accept the Bible and take scientists with a grain of salt. Remember, back in 1973 or so, these scientists were wanting to cede the arctic circle with soot to prevent the coming global cooling.

Blessings,
H.

 

[mikedsjr]

Truth is NOT being called into question. It is a severely inaccurate interpretation of Scripture that is being called into question.

We are on two different sides of what the truth is, so yes "what is Truth?" Is being called into question. So also the issue of who believes a big lie.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

...and many scholars and scientists who believed in a young earth lived and died centuries before us. And now we are full circle to what my obvious point was. Being in the minority does not make you wrong, even when it comes to theology or science.

When the minority consists of 22-25 men who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science but who are not employed in the scientific community and have little or no access to a laboratory or laboratory equipment, that minority is not very believable. When the majority consists of 3,000,000 plus scientists who not only disagree but have proven the minority to be radically mistaken, the minority is not believable at all. Moreover, when the minority are employed by fundamentalist religious organizations that routinely, deliberately, and maliciously misrepresent the truth, the minority is seen to be deliberately and maliciously dishonest.

Please understand, however, that my above comments refer only to the 22-25 men who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science but, for religious reasons, deny the truth that God has made know to us from science. I am NOT implying or even suggesting that the Christians who have been misled by such “scientists” are themselves dishonest.

As for the very large and growing majority of Bible scholars who teach that the first eleven chapters of Genesis (as a unit) is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends, their teaching is based upon facts rather than upon handed-down traditions that have no basis of fact. Moreover, as one would expect if the research of both groups is solid, we find that both groups are in agreement that first eleven chapters of Genesis (as a unit) is NOT an accurate account of historic events, but a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

We are on two different sides of what the truth is, so yes "what is Truth?" Is being called into question. So also the issue of who believes a big lie.

I choose to believe the Bible, today’s biblical scholarship, and the 3,000,000 plus scientists whose research unintentionally, but no less certainly, confirms the accuracy of today’s biblical scholarship regarding the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

 

[56Bluesman]

Party line, dogma and false dichotomies? What a joke!

Wow, Thank You for the Grace in Christ Brother. Anyways I honestly do wish you well from the bottom of my Christ First-Christian First, Old Earth Creationist second, heart. I still have many YEC brothers and sisters in the Lord whom I love dearly. We do have honest discussions about this very subject, and we get along fine, allowing each other honest disagreement. Sadly I wasn't joking about there being a metaphorical party line, as well as false dichotimies being made by some of the leadership within YEC circles. It can be just as nasty and graceless as what the militant atheists engage in daily against the Body Of Christ. And to reply to comments from others, I became a Christian through God's great Grace and calling through the power of the Holy Spirit leading to repentance unto salvation to faith in Christ well before I got involved in learning about science from a YEC perspective. My leaving the young earth position was not taken lightly, nor has my faith ever been based on any scientific position be it from a YEC, or OEC perspective. No I am not a theistic evolutionist! I do however acknowledge microevolution. Even some YECs do as well! I have however read their arguments and apologetics in a spirit of honest inquiry. And yes there are devoted Christians in that camp as well. I apologize for ruffling anyone's feathers. I've now said all I have to say in this interesting thread, it's been fun, and I wish God's great Grace and Peace in Christ unto you all.

 

[Hupomone10]

As for the very large and growing majority of Bible scholars who teach that the first eleven chapters of Genesis (as a unit) is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends, their teaching is based upon facts rather than upon handed-down traditions that have no basis of fact. Moreover, as one would expect if the research of both groups is solid, we find that both groups are in agreement that first eleven chapters of Genesis (as a unit) is NOT an accurate account of historic events, but a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends.

(bolding mine)
Hebrews 4:2
...but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

This, of course, also would apply to Genesis 1 - 11.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

... I am NOT implying or even suggesting that the Christians who have been misled by such “scientists” are themselves dishonest.

Thank you for that. No doubt similar to the way I see Christians today misled by the educational establishment and scientists into believing in evolution instead of creation and a Creator.

but, for religious reasons, deny the truth that God has made know to us from science.

Please share a couple of those truths you hold as absolute truths revealed by God to scientists so we can discuss them, and why you believe they are revealed truths and not simply conclusions reached by minds of men. This will get us away from accusations and name-calling and back to real evidence of a sort.

Thanks and blessings,
H.

 

[Brandonspapa]

Wow, Thank You for the Grace in Christ Brother. Anyways I honestly do wish you well from the bottom of my Christ First-Christian First, Old Earth Creationist second, heart. I still have many YEC brothers and sisters in the Lord whom I love dearly. We do have honest discussions about this very subject, and we get along fine, allowing each other honest disagreement. Sadly I wasn't joking about there being a metaphorical party line, as well as false dichotimies being made by some of the leadership within YEC circles. It can be just as nasty and graceless as what the militant atheists engage in daily against the Body Of Christ. And to reply to comments from others, I became a Christian through God's great Grace and calling through the power of the Holy Spirit leading to repentance unto salvation to faith in Christ well before I got involved in learning about science from a YEC perspective. My leaving the young earth position was not taken lightly, nor has my faith ever been based on any scientific position be it from a YEC, or OEC perspective. No I am not a theistic evolutionist! I do however acknowledge microevolution. Even some YECs do as well! I have however read their arguments and apologetics in a spirit of honest inquiry. And yes there are devoted Christians in that camp as well. I apologize for ruffling anyone's feathers. I've now said all I have to say in this interesting thread, it's been fun, and I wish God's great Grace and Peace in Christ unto you all.

That's a bunch of hooey. You start off with the comments that you did in the prior post and expect a different response? It is laughable. You don't like it when someone responds to you with the same attitude that you give? Read your own words and from whence they come and then don't cry "bad Christian" to me. Your barking up the wrong tree. I may be new, but I am mature in Christ and experienced with Christian debate and I don't take what people who debate like you lightly.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Maybe you could explain how raqiya` speaks to flat or spherical in Scripture? Could you show me one verse it is found in that implies the specific flatness you falsely impose on it?

Perhaps you can show how it's root, raqa` , does this? A verse where we could support your derision to what the Word of God states and for those you mock for believing the earth was flat?


What is found in the text is separation of the waters above and the waters below.

So we see a good example of what is found in the text is completely ignored, and what is not in the text is presented.

And "dome?"

KJV-firmament; NIV-vault; NASB, YLT, and ESV...expanse.

So tell me, did these guys also view domes as...flat?

ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃ Gen. 1:7

Gen. 1:7. 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.

The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya&#8219 as “dome.”

This does not answer my question, so I will rephrase: please show how this word, in Scripture...teaches a flat earth.

It's usage speaks only of a dividing of the waters and the so called teaching of a flat earth has to be imposed, falsely, into the text.

The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature.

Lets be clear about what is appealed to support the doctrine you are teaching: extra-biblical literature.

There are many false doctrines we can expose from Scripture that are supported by extra-biblical literature, but that is not what you were asked.


But I can understand if the way it was phrased above may have not been clear enough. So to clarify, in view is the vilification of Scripture as erroneously teaching a flat earth (your words...


The Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, expressly teaches that the earth is flat, rather than spherical.


...not mine), and that because of this believers erroneously viewed the earth as flat.

Let's see if we can impose that same argument here:


Ezekiel 1:22-24

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal,[a] spread out above their heads.

23 Under the dome their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another; and each of the creatures had two wings covering its body.

24 When they moved, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army; when they stopped, they let down their wings.


Did they also view the living creatures as flat...or would we have to impose that into the text?

Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)

And if we wanted to pick this apart we would criticize these early believers with mistakenly viewing something as solid as...solid.

But at the heart of it, despite the fact that this firmament can be passed through, it still supported the waters above.

But where is it that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat? Where do we see that in the usage of this word?

The evidence that the Church, up until the Middle Ages, understood the earth to be flat with a dome over it, and so wrote of it in the New Testament, is massive and incontrovertible.

What is not without controversy is the doctrine you are teaching, and how it negatively impacts those you should be teaching a reliance in the Word of God in.

There are false doctrines which are ancient which are still taught as the correct interpretation. We have no end of topics which could be addressed, in regards to what early believers considered to be sound doctrine.

Here's one: one day Messiah will come.

And this doctrine can actually use the Scripture to say, "Look...that's what Scripture teaches."

That the Scripture teaches the earth is flat...is not one. Thus, the premise of the argument is false. Thus the conclusion is false.

The language is NOT figurative, but literal.

It is literal in its teaching, but we do not overlook the use of figurative language. The windows of heaven are not literally holes in the sky which are opened and closed to let water, snow, or ice to pass through. The fact that the firmament is said to separate the waters from the waters is literal. The understanding of something "solid" which brought about this separation can be seen, from a scientific view, inaccurate, but again, the intent is to indicate the separation, and that is what should be in focus.

And that is what we can draw out of the text itself.

The particular views of believers going beyond that is irrelevant, just as, for example, someone's understanding of New Jerusalem would be irrelevant to the teaching concerning the city itself.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M
Did these flat earthers also see literal windows in the sky? Is that what Moses would have been thinking when he wrote of these windows?

Please do not characterize the Ancient Hebrew people and our brother and sisters in Christ up till the Middle Ages as “flat earthers,”

Let me see if I have this correct: I am being rebuked because it is thought that I am calling believers in the Word of God flat earthers. lol

a characterization that is demeaning and insulting.

I agree, but what is worse is to impose a flat earth teaching into the Bible through appeal to extra-biblical literature and then use that as a premise to teach Evolution, a doctrine of Secular Humanism...on a Christian Forum.

You go on to the very thing I am charged with:

Yes, they incorrectly believed that the earth was flat, and their writing reflect that point of view,

Who did?

You are posing believers in a light of being ignorant, and then base that on...

...the error of Scripture.

Amazing.

Then, who do you praise?

Centuries before Christ, Greek scholars taught that the earth was a sphere, but first century Christians still believed in the ancient Hebrew cosmology of the Old Testament—and the New Testament reflects that point of view in Matt. 4:8 and Revelation 7:1. Unfortunately, Christians, with reinforcement from the New Testament, continued to believe that the earth was flat until the Middle Ages when they began to realize that in matters of science, science must be allowed to prevail.

In view is an agenda to make those who trust in the Word of God look ignorant and to place Science and Scientists as the ones having the correct doctrine.

Faith in Christ is a side issue. Have to make sure people know they can trust Scientists...right? I mean, look at the error of Scripture scientifically...how can it be trusted?

Christians believers prior to Christ have been ignorant up through the Middle Ages, but are now starting to learn that Scripture cannot be trusted, it is Science and scientists who have the correct doctrine.

but they were servants of the same God that we serve,

Only if they trusted in the God of the Bible.

We do not ascribe belief to those who reject the revelation of God...no matter what Age they are found in.

The appeal to the erroneous views of "believers," such as "they believed the earth was flat because the bible taught the earth was flat" is a false argument meant only to undergird the Doctrine/s of Evolution, cast those that embrace Scripture as the very Word of God as uneducated morons, both then and now.

I am not the one doing that, and am a little surprised it is suggested in this response.

and they deserve the respect associated with that service.

I agree, hence my defense of both Scripture as well as them.

The ancient writers and redactors whom it pleased God to use to give us the first eleven chapters of Genesis apparently understood there to be windows in the dome through which the rain fell

Show that in the Word of God.

I have already asked that.

What men say about the Word of God can readily be tested by examining what the word of God, not men, has to say.

—and that is certainly how the passage of Scripture was understood until the Middle Ages by both the Jews and the Christians.

And until Christ it was understood that Messiah would come, establish a temporal Kingdom, and that Kingdom would never cease.

Until the Middle Ages the majority viewed that Catholic Church was the only faith by which men could be saved.

Just as a suggestion, it might be a good idea to consider that the majority...is usually wrong.


God bless.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I agree, but what is worse is to impose a flat earth teaching into the Bible through appeal to extra-biblical literature and then use that as a premise to teach Evolution, a doctrine of Secular Humanism...on a Christian Forum.

The literal description of the earth in the Bible is that of a flat (rather than spherical) earth covered with a solid dome with windows that God opens at His will. Ancient secular literature describes the earth in the same manner, these two sources together showing us the cosmology of the ancient Hebrew people. Descriptions of the earth in the New Testament and secular literature prove that Christians adopted the ancient Hebrew cosmology of the Old Testament and continued to teach it up till the middle ages. Rather than quoting from secular literature, I have consistently quoted from the Old and New Testaments in Hebrew and Greek respectively, and in English for the benefit of readers who are not able to read Hebrew and Greek.

The fact that the literal description of the earth in the Bible is that of a flat (rather than spherical) earth covered with a solid dome with windows that God opens at His will proves that the Bible is NOT an accurate source of scientific information, and that the age of the earth cannot be determined from the Bible. However, the age of the earth can be, and has repeatedly been, determined from the science of radiometric dating. Indeed, the earth has been accurately and certainly determined to be 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old. For an excellent, substantiating article from a Christian perspective, please see the following:

Radiometric Dating


I have never, in this thread or elsewhere, used biblical facts or arguments from the Bible to teach or advocate for the theory of evolution. Moreover, charactering the theory of evolution as being a doctrine secular humanism is a maliciously false characterization. Indeed, the theory of evolution is accepted as true by tens of millions of Christians, and is taught in Christian universities around the world as a valid, scientific theory.

It is my belief that on a Christian forum, all participants should make a consecrated effort to consistently post the truth in a respectful manner.

 

[Blue Wren]

I am not wanting a controversy, please. I am only wanting to know, is "young earth creationism" taught to school children, where you live? If it is, is it taught, as science or in religion classes? When I say, this is foreign to me, I'm not making an expression. No, I am being literal. Teaching "creationism" in science classes, it has been illegal at all schools in my country (Sweden) since I was small. I do not think, it had been taught regularly, ever. Independent schools, such as Christians, Catholic, ect, they also receive, funding from the government. They cannot teach this either. I do not know, if it is permissible, to teach it as religion, just not science. Home schooling, it has been banned except in special circumstances. I had thought, teaching this to children, had been prohibited, at state schools in the US, too, no? Are there any universities, that are not religious, that teach it?

 

[56Bluesman]

I am not wanting a controversy, please. I am only wanting to know, is "young earth creationism" taught to school children, where you live? If it is, is it taught, as science or in religion classes? When I say, this is foreign to me, I'm not making an expression. No, I am being literal. Teaching "creationism" in science classes, it has been illegal at all schools in my country (Sweden) since I was small. I do not think, it had been taught regularly, ever. Independent schools, such as Christians, Catholic, ect, they also receive, funding from the government. They cannot teach this either. I do not know, if it is permissible, to teach it as religion, just not science. Home schooling, it has been banned except in special circumstances. I had thought, teaching this to children, had been prohibited, at state schools in the US, too, no? Are there any universities, that are not religious, that teach it?[/quote

I'll try to be brief. It depends on which public school system, and in which state one is looking at, and I'm careful in saying this. By this I mean, that some public school districts have allowed, under their particular state laws, an academic discussion/teaching of creationism as well as Intelligent Design. This was still very much allowed back in the early 1970's when I was in High School, and even at the university level. Some public universities might still discuss and teach creationism and ID and religion in general from a purely academic perspective, depending on which University, their internal policies, cirriculum, etc, etc; but to teach religion as in establishing or promoting a particular religous view is not allowed in our public school systems. Or at least that's the current working understanding of recent renderings of Constitutional law of which our federal courts on up, to the Supreme Court have made decisions on. On the flip side, some public schools and universities have violated the protected rights of freedom of speech and of religion in cases involving students of various faiths, and that's another issue unto itself that I won't get into as of now. As for sectarian parochial and church schools, and home schools, religious universities included, the government is not allowed by the First Amendment of our Constitution to interfere with religous teaching. It's not to say that hostile secular interests haven't tried to interfere with a multitude of legal challenges, but that is a different matter entirely. Also when particular religious interests might assist their local, and state, as well as the federal government in projects of mutual concern, usually the religious entitities in question might face some restrictions as far as evangelizing and promoting their faith directly, while engaged in such projects outside of their churches, and the legality of such restrictions is still in question as well. I hope this helps.