Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Fred Williams

Old Earth Theology Is Incompatible With The Bible

Recommended Posts

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.

13500[/snapback]

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.

13500[/snapback]

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.

13500[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

17067[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-tube.com/prophecies-prophecy.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

13396[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent considerable time recently, conversing online with theistic evolutionists, many of whom are scientists. While I found them sincere and highly intelligent and knowledgeable, I noticed that they do not hesitate to torture and "re-interpret" any Bible verse to accommodate evolution. The genealogy in Genesis 5 is a prime example - their view is that this may be a "condensation" of thousands of generations. Exodus 20 is another - in which Yahweh directly compares the six days of creation to six literal days of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings all, I'm new here, and I thought I'd share my essay-sized explanation as to showing the Bible teaches a Young Earth.

I would have made it even longer, but I'm restricted to Sta.sh's filesize limit for an individual 'file'.

The Bible Teaches a Young Earth

 

God bless

~ServantofJesus

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the discussion SoJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SoJ said:

Greetings all, I'm new here, and I thought I'd share my essay-sized explanation as to showing the Bible teaches a Young Earth.

I would have made it even longer, but I'm restricted to Sta.sh's filesize limit for an individual 'file'.

The Bible Teaches a Young Earth

 

God bless

~ServantofJesus

Welcome to the Forum SoJ..

Great read B.T.W. and thoroughly explained in my 'Opinion'..

Simply no 'Other Way' of understanding 'The WORD'..

When you say The fact that people are actually questioning this in the first place is the very same way the Serpent made Adam & Eve doubt what God said to them: "Did God really say that?". It's only too clear that the Serpent's words of doubt have lasted - and adapted - even to our 21st Century thinking. Never before in history has Genesis been under this much attack from every side, to which Romans 1:18-23 testifies as ever increasingly true.
As well as this, I find it sad that many who believe in an Old Earth prefer to "side" with secular evolutionists, naturalists and secularists to defend their worldview on the age of the Earth, rather than believing in a straightforward interpretation of what God's Word actually teaches.

This is st8forward  and 'The Reason' as to exactly why even many 'Christians' literally SEEK alternative explanations to what is written in the Biblical Narrative..

It IS merely to try and 'Fit' the Biblical Narrative into 'Their Own Philosophical Ideologies/Worldview' due to their 'Belief' in the Scientism of the day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms