Jump to content


Photo

Old Earth Theology Is Incompatible With The Bible


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2007 - 02:36 PM

; so no, evolution isn't the opposite of Creation.  It is either God created it somehow or He created it with evolution... (Question of how you think He created it still stands.  Ex. He used electromagnentism to shape every molecule of man, for example.)

View Post


The road you paint for truth about God is a wide road where truth is up to the individual, not what is written. Not a narrow road in which we are supposed to follow.

And God does not demand a scientific explaination to find truth. Those who rely on science heavly require it. Nor is it required for faith. Science cannot even prove or disprove God. So how can science prove or disprove creation? The standard (evolution) in which you try and judged the truth in God's word by, was not around when God created. And was written by a man who had just turned his back on his faith in God. Why do you think the process for evolution is the exact opposite process of what is written about creation in God's word? The man (Darwin) who wrote it did not want his theory to support the faith in which he turned his back on.

This is why his book on evolution mentions God. He was still struggling giving up God to write what he did about evolution. For what separates man from the kingdom, is not a part of the kingdom, and therefore not a part of God.

#42 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 22 May 2007 - 03:23 PM

Fred: Now to your questions. The answer to all of them is of course NO. Regarding the Sabbath and things like believing in false idols (for which evolution would qualify), these were ceremonial requirements placed on the Jews, so they were to be held to a higher standard. But given the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws no longer apply (they never applied to gentile nations).

I think some of the laws in the questions you posed were extracted from the Old Testament.

View Post


Indeed they were. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are no longer necessary with the New Covenant of salvation by grace alone.

You reap what you sow; I don't know about legistating these into laws. I'm not entirely sure that it is this government's responsibility.


I agreed with you at one time, but the Bible says otherwise. It’s in plain black & white. We can’t be ashamed of what God told us was the best way for us to lead happy, productive lives. By allowing H*m*s*xuality we are condemning millions of people to a short life wrought with misery and despair. The Bible says the government should initiate a deterrent against H*m*s*xuality, and where it has been implmented throughout history it is has been very effective in saving countless lives.

Being understood by the things that are made still makes a strong case for the absence of deceit in God's creation regarding the appearance of the earth.
Invisible meaning unseen mechanisms, I would agree with this conclusion.


I think you were responding to Issac? I agree with the jist of what you say in that God has not deceived us by making the world look old in contradiction to the Bible. The world only looks “millions” of years old if you make a lot of assumptions. I believe the preponderance of evidence contradicts an old earth, and some evidences even put the earth at 10K or younger (helium in zircons, magnetic field decay, recorded history, lack of stone age graves, etc).

See Helium Zirocns Powerful Evidence for Young World

Fred

#43 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 May 2007 - 04:17 PM

I agreed with you at one time, but the Bible says otherwise. It’s in plain black & white. We can’t be ashamed of what God told us was the best way for us to lead happy, productive lives. By allowing H*m*s*xuality we are condemning millions of people to a short life wrought with misery and despair. The Bible says the government should initiate a deterrent against H*m*s*xuality, and where it has been implmented throughout history it is has been very effective in saving countless lives.

This is the point I can probably go no further on. I'm afraid to say I might just let them "reap what they sow" and stop at that.

I think you were responding to Issac? I agree with the jist of what you say in that God has not deceived us by making the world look old in contradiction to the Bible. The world only looks “millions” of years old if you make a lot of assumptions. I believe the preponderance of evidence contradicts an old earth, and some evidences even put the earth at 10K or younger (helium in zircons, magnetic field decay, recorded history, lack of stone age graves, etc).

See Helium Zircons Powerful Evidence for Young World

Glad there is agreement about no contradiction, even if it is still coming from two different perspectives. I'll check out the zircon thing.





ikester: The road you paint for truth about God is a wide road where truth is up to the individual, not what is written. Not a narrow road in which we are supposed to follow.

As humans, disagreements about the meaning of the inspired word of God are inevitable, as instanced by the numerous denominations. How narrow is your road? Could we agree to that the road is as narrow as something such as the Nicene Creed?


ikester: And God does not demand a scientific explaination to find truth. Those who rely on science heavly require it. Nor is it required for faith. Science cannot even prove or disprove God. So how can science prove or disprove creation? The standard (evolution) in which you try and judged the truth in God's word by, was not around when God created.
And was written by a man who had just turned his back on his faith in God. Why do you think the process for evolution is the exact opposite process of what is written about creation in God's word? The man (Darwin) who wrote it did not want his theory to support the faith in which he turned his back on.
This is why his book on evolution mentions God. He was still struggling giving up God to write what he did about evolution. For what separates man from the kingdom, is not a part of the kingdom, and therefore not a part of God.


You're 100% right, He doesn't demand it.
Science can lend support or not lend support to certain ideas about creation.
True, it was not around when God first created the universe. Not alot was.

I'm not prepared to judge the validity of an idea based on the faith of the man who proposed it. He might have had the wrong ideas about faith, but I think the question is if he had the wrong ideas about speciation.

#44 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 22 May 2007 - 06:11 PM

We are a combination of what we know and what we believe. Recently, men have separated science from God. What do you think would be said today to Samuel Morse after he sent the first telegraph message: "What hath God wrought?"

Now is a time of speaking against God and against religion. Richard Dawkins made his point quite clear after being asked if God breathed life into man's nostrils. His answer is no. By artificially separating God and science, everyone can quote Dawkins. "We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods. I'm simply adding one more." The world can do as it pleases without recognizing God's authority over them. Our Father in Heaven, as Jesus spoke of Him, is talked about as a myth. While there are those on the internet that draw a line of separation between science and God, those who are against God use science to speak against Him. Do you see the connection? Go to any atheist web site.



God bless,
Al

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 May 2007 - 09:26 PM

You're 100% right, He doesn't demand it.
Science can lend support or not lend support to certain ideas about creation.
True, it was not around when God first created the universe. Not alot was.

I'm not prepared to judge the validity of an idea based on the faith of the man who proposed it. He might have had the wrong ideas about faith, but I think the question is if he had the wrong ideas about speciation.


So does it bother you that people lose their faith everyday to the evolution theory, and that Darwin himself also lost his faith to write it?

#46 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 May 2007 - 11:18 AM

So does it bother you that people lose their faith everyday to the evolution theory, and that Darwin himself also lost his faith to write it?

I would wager it bothers me about as much as it bothers you to see someone lose their faith because they can't reconcile what they see with the Word.



We are a combination of what we know and what we believe. Recently, men have separated science from God. What do you think would be said today to Samuel Morse after he sent the first telegraph message: "What hath God wrought?"

Not sure what you mean by a separation of God and science; I'm going to borrow something frok ikester7569 on the limits of science. "Science cannot even prove or disprove God." -ikester7579
I don't know what would be said now; I doubt it would be a big deal.

Now is a time of speaking against God and against religion. Richard Dawkins made his point quite clear after being asked if God breathed life into man's nostrils. His answer is no. By artificially separating God and science, everyone can quote Dawkins. "We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods. I'm simply adding one more." The world can do as it pleases without recognizing God's authority over them. Our Father in Heaven, as Jesus spoke of Him, is talked about as a myth. While there are those on the internet that draw a line of separation between science and God, those who are against God use science to speak against Him. Do you see the connection? Go to any atheist web site.

While they can do what they please for this time on earth, eternity is a different story.
Just because atheists use science in an attempt to 'disprove' God doesn't lead me to believe science is inherently bad.

#47 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 23 May 2007 - 11:48 AM

Eternity is entirely about what we do here, now, and during our entire life here. When people believe that the entire universe, much less the earth, was brought about by purely natural means - where does God fit in? For some, He doesn't and he can't. He's not needed.

What would you tell a person that told you: "I learned that everything was made by purely natural means, where does your God fit in?" Or "We're all just animals."?

The way countless people view themselves and how they interact with others is profoundly affected depending on which worldview they believe in.

I don't hate people. Of course, I get angry sometimes. I am not a stereotype. My God tells me to love people, including my enemies.

Science is not a problem, but it can be one when parts of it are used to promote an atheist or anti-religion agenda. On a personal note, devout Christians tend to avoid doing cetain things, and that's bad for the economy.



God bless,
Al

#48 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 May 2007 - 03:17 PM

Eternity is entirely about what we do here, now, and during our entire life here. When people believe that the entire universe, much less the earth, was brought about by purely natural means - where does God fit in? For some, He doesn't and he can't. He's not needed.

I certainly agree with this point; God created the universe and by doing this, everything in it. Pretty supernatural in my opinion.

What would you tell a person that told you: "I learned that everything was made by purely natural means, where does your God fit in?" Or "We're all just animals."?

I would say : God fits in as the direct creator of everything including all natural processes. We are more than mere animals, we have souls, consciousness, and God's love.

The way countless people view themselves and how they interact with others is profoundly affected depending on which worldview they believe in.

Most certainly!

I don't hate people. Of course, I get angry sometimes. I am not a stereotype. My God tells me to love people, including my enemies.

Splendid, I think we can agree on this then.

Science is not a problem, but it can be one when parts of it are used to promote an atheist or anti-religion agenda.

So it is the use of science, not science itself, that can be negative?

#49 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 May 2007 - 04:37 PM

I would wager it bothers me about as much as it bothers you to see someone lose their faith because they can't reconcile what they see with the Word.


You would lose that wager as well. The main goal as a Christian is always to bring souls into the kingdom. Not to bring doubt to the word by an unprovable theory that is implied as a true fact. If evolutionists were not implying their theory to be an absolute, the problem you speak of would not exist.

And because neither can be proven to an actual absolute. It becomes a battle of faiths. Faith deals with what the heart accepts as truth. Problem is, the heart is where Christ is when we are saved. So the battle turns into: Who will have control over your heart felt faith.

Wonder why evolution and creation are always at each others throat? Here is your reason.

Christ does not share the heart with what is the exact opposite of what He is. Why? The heart is not designed to accept two masters.

mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

lk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Being opposites, to accept one tears down the foundation of faith of the other. Which ever you decide to accept as more truth, makes the other less truth and more lies. Opposites always work that way.

What cannot be proven as a absolute "always" requires some faith to believe it. Anything that requires faith, that is not a direct support of God's word, will become a conflict with God's word. And will undermine your faith in God.

Faith is sown into the heart by the planting of seeds of faith.

mt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

We are supposed to give our hearts to Christ only, and all that supports what is written.

mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

The heart is listed first because the heart has to be first to accept Christ before the rest can. Heart, soul, and mind is the trinity required for complete and total faith in God. When these three are in agreement, it is the most powerful faith that anyone can have.

Why is believing the word important as a part of having strong faith?

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The heart, soul, and mind (trinity) is required in agreement to have strong faith. And to reconize that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (trinity) shall bear record for or against us in Heaven. And need to be respected for that fact.

#50 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 23 May 2007 - 04:48 PM

Some people, especially young people, consider themselves under the authority of men, not God. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments." The six days of constant unGodly messages from the media compete strongly with one day in Church.

The Bible tells me what to do, but to some who want to make money, that could be a problem. I can't go to strip clubs, and have to stay from Godless radio and television programs. Desperate Housewives, Stern and Imus to name a few examples. This unGodly, dysfunctional junk is regarded as acceptable by some even though it portrays the worst in people. I was fortunate to grow up in a community where the best of people was emulated.

"All have sinned." I'm not perfect. But when Sam Harris writes about the "alien hiss of religion" in an article on secularhumanism.org he deceives readers into thinking that this was always so. Many great men of science openly acknowledged God.

If science tells you that you are just an animal and this life is all there is, your choices are pretty clear. God who? I can do what I want. Look up the quote: "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." No, I'm not even suggesting that you can't be the nicest person ever, but without Jesus Christ and actually acknowledging Him as God and personal saviour, what will happen to these people when they die? "Maybe God used evolution..." Really? I take God at His word.

If I created a planet for the first man, it would be fully formed and ready to live on. And then there is the witness of the Holy Spirit of God. Do not be deceived. Your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. Some of this generation, and certainly most in the media, no longer endure sound doctrine. Science is giving them the excuse they need.




God bless,
Al

#51 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 May 2007 - 07:49 PM

You would lose that wager as well. The main goal as a Christian is always to bring souls into the kingdom. Not to bring doubt to the word by an unprovable theory that is implied as a true fact. If evolutionists were not implying their theory to be an absolute, the problem you speak of would not exist.

View Post

I think there was a misunderstanding and it is my fault. My point was that the botheration should go both ways.

And because neither can be proven to an actual absolute. It becomes a battle of faiths. Faith deals with what the heart accepts as truth. Problem is, the heart is where Christ is when we are saved. So the battle turns into: Who will have control over your heart felt faith.

View Post

I wouldn't say that I take science as a faith, but I can't speak for everyone.
I sincerely hope that no theistic evolutionist or old earth creationist loses control of their faith, or a young earth creationist for that matter.

Wonder why evolution and creation are always at each others throat? Here is your reason.

Christ does not share the heart with what is the exact opposite of what He is. Why? The heart is not designed to accept two masters.

mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

lk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Being opposites, to accept one tears down the foundation of faith of the other. Which ever you decide to accept as more truth, makes the other less truth and more lies. Opposites always work that way.

What cannot be proven as a absolute "always" requires some faith to believe it. Anything that requires faith, that is not a direct support of God's word, will become a conflict with God's word. And will undermine your faith in God.

Faith is sown into the heart by the planting of seeds of faith.

mt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

We are supposed to give our hearts to Christ only, and all that supports what is written.

mt 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

The heart is listed first because the heart has to be first to accept Christ before the rest can. Heart, soul, and mind is the trinity required for complete and total faith in God. When these three are in agreement, it is the most powerful faith that anyone can have.

Why is believing the word important as a part of having strong faith?

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The heart, soul, and mind (trinity) is required in agreement to have strong faith. And to reconize that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost (trinity) shall bear record for or against us in Heaven. And need to be respected for that fact.

View Post


We can only serve one master, and the choice is God. I can't see that I'm serving Charles Darwin when I do my biology homework any more than I'm serving Charles Dickens when I do my literature homework.
Believing the word is of vital importance to having strong faith, for sure.

The main difference that keeps coming back is what it means to accept a scientific theory and how it affects our relationship with God. Some people will try to use it to tear down your faith in God, but that is on the person who does it. I think that they would use anything within their reach to do so.




Some people, especially young people, consider themselves under the authority of men, not God. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments." The six days of constant unGodly messages from the media compete strongly with one day in Church.

Indeed.

The Bible tells me what to do, but to some who want to make money, that could be a problem. I can't go to strip clubs, and have to stay from Godless radio and television programs. Desperate Housewives, Stern and Imus to name a few examples. This unGodly, dysfunctional junk is regarded as acceptable by some even though it portrays the worst in people. I was fortunate to grow up in a community where the best of people was emulated.

Sure, there are many pits and places to stumble.

"All have sinned." I'm not perfect. But when Sam Harris writes about the "alien hiss of religion" in an article on secularhumanism.org he deceives readers into thinking that this was always so. Many great men of science openly acknowledged God.

Indeed.


If science tells you that you are just an animal and this life is all there is, your choices are pretty clear. God who? I can do what I want. Look up the quote: "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." No, I'm not even suggesting that you can't be the nicest person ever, but without Jesus Christ and actually acknowledging Him as God and personal saviour, what will happen to these people when they die? "Maybe God used evolution..." Really? I take God at His word.

I already talked about how God has set us apart from animals.
They're going to an eternity of suffering.
What does God say as to the mechanism of His creation, specifically? I think the important thing is that He created it.

If I created a planet for the first man, it would be fully formed and ready to live on. And then there is the witness of the Holy Spirit of God. Do not be deceived. Your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. Some of this generation, and certainly most in the media, no longer endure sound doctrine. Science is giving them the excuse they need.

I'd say everything was set by the time He created man. What is time to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal God?
There have always be non-believers. I don't think that just because some use science today to attack belief should be cause to see science as bad.

#52 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 23 May 2007 - 09:26 PM

Science is a tool to be used for good or evil. What is in the heart of the person using it, God judges. You may notice that there are those coming here that use this tool to convince or cast doubt. Whatever you may believe about evolution, don't you realize that it is being used by some, right here, to further their goal of deceiving the faithful? Even the Catholic Church can ascribe to an old Earth but none that I know of promote the old earth as something connected to God. They are atheists or agnostics.

They war against the Spirit of God for they serve men and love the things of this world.




God bless,
Al

#53 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 15 January 2008 - 12:17 AM

In my opinion, the only legal answer is that; Seven days.

The old earth or young earth argument is more or less in human terms. Time is not a stable unit of measure as we presumed, as it is said that one day can be a thousand years and vice versa.

#54 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 16 January 2008 - 11:09 AM

In my opinion, the only legal answer is that; Seven days.

The old earth or young earth argument is more or less in human terms. Time is not a stable unit of measure as we presumed, as it is said that one day can be a thousand years and vice versa.

View Post


Then why is this "1 day equals 1000" principle only applied to the first few chapters of Genesis? Why not the rest of the Bible? Did Joshua march 7 days around the walls of Jericho, or did he march 7 thousand years? How does this justify Old Earthers beleiving in a local flood? It's all about compromise with the world. I would ask you try to answer the arguments laid forth in my opening post.

The 2 Peter 3:8-9 verse is all about God's patience, nothing more:

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Fred

#55 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 July 2011 - 08:45 AM

Fred,

I would just like to add a few thoughts:

Regarding 2 Pet. 3:3-6. Old earthers will always interpret this as a "local" flood. I then like to ask them if the coming destruction by "fire" that Peter speaks of in v. 7 is "local" or "global"? This consternates them a bit.

Regarding Mark 10:6. Old earthers argue that Jesus is here talking about the "beginning of creation" and point out that Adam was not created until day 6 (which is not the beginning). But we must point out to them their inconsistency. They do not want to translate Genesis literally and historically EXCEPT when it suits them. And I always ask them if I am to read what they post as allegorical or literal language? And of course they respond that what they are posting is to be taken literally. I then ask them why they do not grant God the same courtesy?

One question I have never had a local flooder answer is how is it possible to have a local flood that can cover mountains? (Water seeks its own level.) What contains the water in one "local" place to raise it above a mountain?

And if I want to be logically vicious--which I enjoy occasionally--I ask if the creation of new heavens and the new earth spoken of in Revelation 21 is going to take God billions of years?

Bob asked you on his show if you had read astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle's book, "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." I was the one who sent a copy to Bob. He read it and is thrilled with it. Dr. Lisle was a student of the late Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen of the Bahsen vs. Stein debate (titled "The Great Debate"). Basically, Dr. Bahnsen believed that using evidence to debate with an atheist evolutionist does not work. Why? Because he will always interpret any evidence through his worldview. He defines a worldview as a set of presuppositions through which we interpret. He likened a worldview to a set of reading glasses--wrong glasses, wrong conclusion. Dr. Bahnsen taught that when you show hiim his worldview is not on solid ground, you give him an uncomfortable kidney stone that will not pass without Jesus' help.

Bob used this in arguing for the existence of God on ToL (see "The Transcendental Proof for God"). I can post it for you here on this thread if you don't have it. I use it all the time. In "The Great Debate" Dr. Bahnsen sliced and diced atheist Dr. Stein by arguing that an atheist had no rational reason, within his worldview, to believe in and use laws of logic, reliability of senses and memory, absolute morality, and uniformity of nature (that the physical laws are law-lie and will operate in the future as they have in the past). Bahnsen pointed out that when an atheist materialist uses laws of logic, he is really borrowing from the Christian. Laws of logic are not part of the physical universe, and are immaterial. So when an atheist uses logic, he is likened to the man who does not believe in air, but breathes air to make his argument. To argue against God, the materialist atheist must use God's logic to argue against Him. When an atheist does this, he is affirming theism true and atheism false.

Uniformity of nature he defines as the constancy of the physical laws. Because God upholds the universe by the "word of His power" (Hebrews), the Christian has a rational reason to believe that the future will be like the past and that gravity will work tommorow as it has today. Why would this be so in the worldview of an evolutionist who believes in a random chance universe? So to do science, an atheist must step out of his worldview and into the theist worldview.

A theistic evolutionist argues that he believes in God, so he has a rational foundation to believe in uniformity of nature. But God will not save his day. In Genesis 8:22, God promises uniformity of nature. But the theistic evolutionist does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, so he can't be arbitrarily inconsistent and say he believes that Gen. 8:22 should be literal while rejecting the rest of Genesis. For a worldview to be true, it must be rational, consistent, and nonarbitrary.

TeeJay

#56 hugenot

hugenot

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:29 PM

The word for day in Hebrew used in Genesis 1 is yom. It can mean one of three things : a 12-hour period, a 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

It is almost always interpreted to mean a 24-hour period in this case, though. Morning and evening even without the sun imply a day I s'pose.


One day is one day. That is playing on wprds. Except in prophecy where one day equals one year. Wherever we go on earth one day is 24 hours!
Ez 4:6 'And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.'
http://www.bible-tub...es-prophecy.php

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:13 AM



I always thought that "day" is not a universal constant, It depends on the orbit of the planet and it´s a referencial measure.It always seemed to me that the day in Genesis was a God´s day and as the Bible says that one day for God is as one thousand years I thought that the day in Genesis might be any amount of time.
View Post


The word for day in Hebrew used in Genesis 1 is yom. It can mean one of three things : a 12-hour period, a 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.


And, as usual, the word “Yom” (day) within the context of Genesis One is “One Twenty-four hour period”; therefore ANY other attempt at translation is a mistranslation.




It is almost always interpreted to mean a 24-hour period in this case, though. Morning and evening even without the sun imply a day I s'pose.


There is absolutely NO implying at all… Day (Morning) + Night (Evening) = “One Twenty-four hour period”. The ONLY supposition is that of the person attempting to equivocate on meaning.

#58 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:42 AM

In my opinion, the only legal answer is that; Seven days.

The old earth or young earth argument is more or less in human terms. Time is not a stable unit of measure as we presumed, as it is said that one day can be a thousand years and vice versa.


And 6 thousand year creation still wouldn't help your OE position but I see what you did there, if the clock counts against you, destroy it but you can't.
When God said to the Israelite to rest on the seventh day because he created in six days did he mean for them to work 6000 years and rest 1000 years?

#59 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

If I assume there is a god and that that god communicated with primitive, illiterate, bronze and iron age humans and that the bible is an accurate rendering of that communications (all big assumptions) why would that god tell them complex ideas they would have no hope of understanding? I mean if you were an anthropologist studying tribal cultures and you went to live with some villagers in mud huts, would you tell them e equals MC squared? Wouldn't they just not comprehend what you were saying, ignore you and move on?

It seems to me it would be an impossible way to try to communicate and if a god did do that he/she/it would be very foolish. I don't get why people insist genesis is a science book or that passages about marriage are refutations of biological principles. I mean that passage "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" If we take this as a scientific description then we can say the bible is therefore wrong because there aren't just male and female, there are also hermaphrodites. And human beings also have symbiotic relationships with many bacteria that help digest our food etc which are asexual. So if jesus is saying that life has been male and female since the beginning of time, the existence of asexual bacteria which humans need to survive therefore proves the bible.

Does it? Or am I reading into it?

#60 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:34 AM

illiterate, bronze and iron age humans


Atheists love to point out that the Bible was written in the bronze age, but what exactly does being "literate" or living during a certain age have to do with God communicating with humans?

You may be right that most of them were, but what is your point in including this in your post, unless you are trying to claim that was written was only written to them and not to all coming generations until the end-times.

why would that god tell them complex ideas they would have no hope of understanding?


The Bible was written BY them, but not necessarily FOR them. In fact, I can show you scriptural evidence that shows the fact that not even the prophets understood fully what they were writing about, but rather understood that it was written to a future generation. Just let me know if you are interested.

I don't get why people insist genesis is a science book


Who is insisting that? I have already addressed this in another post. Do you have any evidence that the Bible is being used as a "science book"?

If we take this as a scientific description then we can say the bible is therefore wrong because there aren't just male and female, there are also hermaphrodites. And human beings also have symbiotic relationships with many bacteria that help digest our food etc which are asexual. So if jesus is saying that life has been male and female since the beginning of time, the existence of asexual bacteria which humans need to survive therefore proves the bible.

Does it? Or am I reading into it?


You are reading into it. Firstly, Jesus is talking about Adam and Eve, i.e. humans. Secondly, he is talking about what God did "in the beginning".
If you take the entire Biblical account into consideration then you would realize that what we see now is not as it was "in the beginning".

Someone who sees a soft-drink can with a dent in it can use his common-sense to understand what the original design was. Someone who sees a disease, deformity or other deviation should also be able to discern what is "normal" and what isn't, but despite that we are constantly told by atheists that if God was so perfect then why are things this way, or that way.

Creation is in a state of deterioration and decay and what the "original design" was is impossible to know exactly. But we can use common sense.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users