Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45591 | ||
Hmmm. Quote: "PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply." I have been studying the origins debate in depth for over 4 years. So I qualify according to your standards. Quote: "No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding." I agree. No reason to doubt or bend any truth for all truth originates from God, whether it be scientific or scriptural, unless you believe God is a deceiver? It is the literalist who is required to produce evidence of a young earth which not only flies in the face of honest science but actually requires more evolution than the most die-hard atheistic scientist would propose. I've read dozens of books on all kinds of origins theories and perspectives, including some very persuasive ones from the young earth perspective. To date, the young earth perspective is the least valid scientifically and scripturally. You may agree with Ken Hamm and the others at AIG but you do so not because the science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis. I don't fault you for it. I have many friends and a dear pastor who also shares your perspective. You have to deal with the fallout as each tenative "evidence" falls. Paluxy River fossils are but one example. Dr. Carl Baugh? Nice of him to disappear after his credentials were questioned. Ken Hamm is very critical of Hugh Ross. You'll note the recverse isn't true. Dr. Ross has never said an unkind word about Mr. Hamm. Dr. Ross has presented the view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. |
||||||
2 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | da_sheep | 45751 | ||
Part 2 You asked me if I believed God was a deceiver. No I do not. But you are assuming two things. (1) that the world really is old. (2) that I believe God made the world old to deceive. Our perspectives are different. I believe that God does not deceive. At the same time, I believe that science assumes somthing must have occured slowly when it could have occured quickly. (coal and fossil fuels can be formed quickly, that the layers of the Earth were deposited rapidly (due to the Flood), that fossils were laid during that time, and that the Grand Canyon was carved quickly). You may laugh at this view, as scientists have for many decades. But, in fact, a few weeks ago, I saw a show on PBS that said that the latest scientific view is that the Grand Canyon was carved quickly! Yes, it is becoming commonly accepted that the land forms in the USA and world wide were shaped by flood waters. The old evolutionists don't like this but slowly they are accepting it. The new evolutionists accept this view. Unfortunately, they now say that the flood was caused by rapid to almost instantaneous melting of glacia. Once again, showing that they are still clinging to their own beliefs. (rather than accepting Noah's Flood). Anyways, I side tracked there. So my belief is this. God does not deceive. God created the world some 6000 years ago. God speaks to us in the Bible. If you begin with God's word, then you will say that the world is 6000 years old and therefore our evolutionary world view is tainted. But if you begin with evolution and then try to incorportate God's word, then you end up re-writing what God is saying to fit what you believe. Also, evolution requires death. Fossils require death. But what does the Bible say about death? "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12 - Death came to the world because of sin. The fifth and sixth day could not have death. So how can you say that the fossils (death) were deposited during that time? "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." Romans 8:19-22 (NKJV) And in Genesis, "God saw that it was good." not in a bondage to decay. - was creation actually good in the beginning? - when did this "bondage of corruption" come about? When Adam and Eve sinned. - What did Jesus die for? To deliver us from what? What would Adam and Eve's disobedience mean if death already existed - that their sin did not really bring death because it was already there? Yet believing that coal could be formed quickly, that the layers and fossils we see today were deposited during the Flood, and that landforms are shaped by the retreating flood waters, that radioactive dating is not accurate, all do not go against what is said in the Bible. You see, if you try to begin with evolution ... you will end up with Biblical problems. If you begin with the Bible, you will end up challenged by the ways of this world, for the minds of men are corrupt. Heed what is written above. I do not intend to reply much. For such can carry on endlessly. ----------- Side stuff. To me, AIG is something on the side. The Bible comes first. As for AIG http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs/3603.asp Cheers |
||||||
3 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45833 | ||
I don't want to sound like I don't care about this interesting debate, because I do, but I feel like I am on a never ending conveyor belt whenever I discuss the age issue with any literalist young earther. I am trying to spend less time on this issue and more on scriptural studies. First off. Where did I ever say anything about evolution in the larger sense of its meaning? I believe in "Creatio Ex Nihilo", in other words the supernatural creation of life by God. I don't believe in Ussher's chronology as any reason to require belief in a young earth. It isn't a requirement to believe it in order to become saved. Adam and Eve were created as exceptions to the subsequent natural rule. God's own report says that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Where does God tell us that the universe was created with the appearance of age? On the contrary, God said "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" and that He "made to grow" a garden in Eden, events which take long periods of time. Do you really think Adam had to speak like one of those radio announcers when he named all the animals? He would have had to speak at a phenomenal rate, naming animals within milli-seconds of each other. You may counter argue that Adam was able to perform these tasks at superhuman speed, since he was without sin at this point. However, Scripture makes no connection between intelligence and sinfulness. Additionally, Jesus was without sin and did not perform tasks at a superhuman rate. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..." says Romans. This text is commonly interpreted to mean that there was no animal death before the fall of man, since this would place death before sin instead of after sin. Therefore, only a small period of time could have passed between the creation of the first life forms and the fall of man. Otherwise, the world would have been severely overpopulated with animals. However, this verse says nothing about animal death; it only says that death came to men--human beings. Romans 5:12 cannot be used to support the position of no animal death before sin since it does not even mention animals. When Paul writes that "sin entered the world" he is most likely using "the world" in the same way as it is used in John 3:16, where world obviously refers to mankind, not "planet earth." "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son..." does not mean that God gave His Son for planet earth out of His love for it, but that He gave His Son for the world of mankind out of His love for them. Also, animal death is not related to sin, as man's death is. Only man can experience "death through sin," since animals never sinned. You may feel strongly that to believe in a universe which is more than 6,000 is an unsound Christian doctrine, that is your perogative. I could spend all day replying to your inquiries but I do not feel a need to rationalize my perspective on science and the Bible any further. I hope you find peace and security in your own heart and that God guides you to understanding that His plan is big enough for all of us, the young earth and the old earth believer. |
||||||