Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

YEC Limits God?

93 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Limiting God

 

By Shiloh357

 

For millennia, the standard Christian understanding of the text of Genesis 1 was that God created the earth and the universe in six days.  Much of modern science owes its existence to scientists who were Christians.  They were, by modern standards, young earth creationists.   The argument in response to that reality is that when many of these scientists were alive there were no competing, or alternative views existed.  This claim is false ithat there were those who proposed evolution and thus an older earth well before Charles Darwin came on the scene.

 

The old earth view pre-dates modern science and has its origin in philosophy.  Many ignore the philosophical origins of the old earth view and that view is advanced as if it were scientific, proven fact.    Science has been desperately trying to prove that philosophical assumption for decades, to no avail.  All of the dating methods used so far work from the assumption of an old earth and begin with assumptions that skew how evidence is gathered and interpreted.  The dating methods used by scientists provide erroneous results, dating recently created rock formations to be millions of years older than they are known to be.

 

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.   God we are told, is not bound by time, so limiting creation to six days is limiting God who could have created the universe in billions of years.  Since God is outside of time, there is no reason, we are told, to limit God to a mere six days.   But is it really the case that we are limiting God?

 

The issue is not whether or not God is bound or limited by time.  God is eternal, and of course is outside of time and is not bound by linear time as we know it.   So that point is not in dispute.  It is not about whether or God is limited by time.  The issue is, what has God revealed to us in His word?    What does God say He did?   We can sit around all day dreaming up scenarios where God could have done this or that, but those are meaningless speculations and do not provide substantive or intelligent reasons to discard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  God could have done it any way He wanted in any amount of time, but the issue for us is not what God could have done, or in how long He could have done it.  The question for us centers around what God said He did.

 

God said He created the earth is six days.   In Exodus 20:11 God told the Israelites that their Sabbath observance was rooted in the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day.   How would those Israelite slaves have understood what God said?   Would these former slaves standing there still dressed in the rags they wore as slaves, understood six days to mean billions of years?  It is unlikely.  Another place where God makes the same claim of a six day creation is in Exodus 31:15-17:

 

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  (Exo 31:15-17)

 

You will note not only the repeated claim that the heavens and earth were made in six days, but note also the emphatic nature of the commandment.  They were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Heb. l’dorot), as a perpetual (l’olam) covenant and as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel forever (l’olam).  So if God wanted to communicate to these people that the creation of the earth and heavens were longer than six days, He had the perfect opportunity to make that clear.  God is perfectly able to communicate clearly with us and doesn’t play word games with us.

 

One argument is that God was simply speaking in terms that ancient people could conceive of, that they had no concept of long epoch periods of time.   But the Bible speaks to ancient people in terms of longer periods of time.  The word “olam” is used to refer to long indeterminate time periods where eternity and the dateless past and dateless future is concerned.  It doesn’t mean endless continuous time, but refers to long indeterminate, successive periods of time.   God speaks to ancient people in terms of other long periods of time (Gen. 1:14, II Pet. 3:8).  He could have used the Hebrew word “dor” which also means long periods of time. It is a word that refers to posterity and is often used to communicate perpetual ongoing generations in the Hebrew text (l'dorot).

 

But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation.  The assumptions made by the scientific community are the filter through which the Bible must be sifted and word of God is believed only inasmuch, as it can be modeled around the theories and assumptions of sinful men.   The evolutionary claims of science regarding the age of the earth have become the standard measure of truth to which the Bible must conform as an obedient slave.  Thus the limits being placed upon the Bible and by exension, on God, comes from those who reject a literal interpretation of God's word.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Who exactly did you have in mind when you posted these ideas?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Limiting God

 

By Shiloh357

 

For millennia, the standard Christian understanding of the text of Genesis 1 was that God created the earth and the universe in six days.  Much of modern science owes its existence to scientists who were Christians.  They were, by modern standards, young earth creationists.   The argument in response to that reality is that when many of these scientists were alive there were no competing, or alternative views existed.  This claim is false ithat there were those who proposed evolution and thus an older earth well before Charles Darwin came on the scene.

 

The old earth view pre-dates modern science and has its origin in philosophy.  Many ignore the philosophical origins of the old earth view and that view is advanced as if it were scientific, proven fact.    Science has been desperately trying to prove that philosophical assumption for decades, to no avail.  All of the dating methods used so far work from the assumption of an old earth and begin with assumptions that skew how evidence is gathered and interpreted.  The dating methods used by scientists provide erroneous results, dating recently created rock formations to be millions of years older than they are known to be.

 

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.   God we are told, is not bound by time, so limiting creation to six days is limiting God who could have created the universe in billions of years.  Since God is outside of time, there is no reason, we are told, to limit God to a mere six days.   But is it really the case that we are limiting God?

 

The issue is not whether or not God is bound or limited by time.  God is eternal, and of course is outside of time and is not bound by linear time as we know it.   So that point is not in dispute.  It is not about whether or God is limited by time.  The issue is, what has God revealed to us in His word?    What does God say He did?   We can sit around all day dreaming up scenarios where God could have done this or that, but those are meaningless speculations and do not provide substantive or intelligent reasons to discard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  God could have done it any way He wanted in any amount of time, but the issue for us is not what God could have done, or in how long He could have done it.  The question for us centers around what God said He did.

 

God said He created the earth is six days.   In Exodus 20:11 God told the Israelites that their Sabbath observance was rooted in the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day.   How would those Israelite slaves have understood what God said?   Would these former slaves standing there still dressed in the rags they wore as slaves, understood six days to mean billions of years?  It is unlikely.  Another place where God makes the same claim of a six day creation is in Exodus 31:15-17:

 

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  (Exo 31:15-17)

 

You will note not only the repeated claim that the heavens and earth were made in six days, but note also the emphatic nature of the commandment.  They were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Heb. l’dorot), as a perpetual (l’olam) covenant and as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel forever (l’olam).  So if God wanted to communicate to these people that the creation of the earth and heavens were longer than six days, He had the perfect opportunity to make that clear.  God is perfectly able to communicate clearly with us and doesn’t play word games with us.

 

One argument is that God was simply speaking in terms that ancient people could conceive of, that they had no concept of long epoch periods of time.   But the Bible speaks to ancient people in terms of longer periods of time.  The word “olam” is used to refer to long indeterminate time periods where eternity and the dateless past and dateless future is concerned.  It doesn’t mean endless continuous time, but refers to long indeterminate, successive periods of time.   God speaks to ancient people in terms of other long periods of time (Gen. 1:14, II Pet. 3:8).  He could have used the Hebrew word “dor” which also means long periods of time. It is a word that refers to posterity and is often used to communicate perpetual ongoing generations in the Hebrew text (l'dorot).

 

But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation.  The assumptions made by the scientific community are the filter through which the Bible must be sifted and word of God is believed only inasmuch, as it can be modeled around the theories and assumptions of sinful men.   The evolutionary claims of science regarding the age of the earth have become the standard measure of truth to which the Bible must conform as an obedient slave.  Thus the limits being placed upon the Bible and by exension, on God, comes from those who reject a literal interpretation of God's word.

 

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

clb

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Limiting God

 

By Shiloh357

 

For millennia, the standard Christian understanding of the text of Genesis 1 was that God created the earth and the universe in six days.  Much of modern science owes its existence to scientists who were Christians.  They were, by modern standards, young earth creationists.   The argument in response to that reality is that when many of these scientists were alive there were no competing, or alternative views existed.  This claim is false ithat there were those who proposed evolution and thus an older earth well before Charles Darwin came on the scene.

 

The old earth view pre-dates modern science and has its origin in philosophy.  Many ignore the philosophical origins of the old earth view and that view is advanced as if it were scientific, proven fact.    Science has been desperately trying to prove that philosophical assumption for decades, to no avail.  All of the dating methods used so far work from the assumption of an old earth and begin with assumptions that skew how evidence is gathered and interpreted.  The dating methods used by scientists provide erroneous results, dating recently created rock formations to be millions of years older than they are known to be.

 

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.   God we are told, is not bound by time, so limiting creation to six days is limiting God who could have created the universe in billions of years.  Since God is outside of time, there is no reason, we are told, to limit God to a mere six days.   But is it really the case that we are limiting God?

 

The issue is not whether or not God is bound or limited by time.  God is eternal, and of course is outside of time and is not bound by linear time as we know it.   So that point is not in dispute.  It is not about whether or God is limited by time.  The issue is, what has God revealed to us in His word?    What does God say He did?   We can sit around all day dreaming up scenarios where God could have done this or that, but those are meaningless speculations and do not provide substantive or intelligent reasons to discard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  God could have done it any way He wanted in any amount of time, but the issue for us is not what God could have done, or in how long He could have done it.  The question for us centers around what God said He did.

 

God said He created the earth is six days.   In Exodus 20:11 God told the Israelites that their Sabbath observance was rooted in the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day.   How would those Israelite slaves have understood what God said?   Would these former slaves standing there still dressed in the rags they wore as slaves, understood six days to mean billions of years?  It is unlikely.  Another place where God makes the same claim of a six day creation is in Exodus 31:15-17:

 

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  (Exo 31:15-17)

 

You will note not only the repeated claim that the heavens and earth were made in six days, but note also the emphatic nature of the commandment.  They were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Heb. l’dorot), as a perpetual (l’olam) covenant and as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel forever (l’olam).  So if God wanted to communicate to these people that the creation of the earth and heavens were longer than six days, He had the perfect opportunity to make that clear.  God is perfectly able to communicate clearly with us and doesn’t play word games with us.

 

One argument is that God was simply speaking in terms that ancient people could conceive of, that they had no concept of long epoch periods of time.   But the Bible speaks to ancient people in terms of longer periods of time.  The word “olam” is used to refer to long indeterminate time periods where eternity and the dateless past and dateless future is concerned.  It doesn’t mean endless continuous time, but refers to long indeterminate, successive periods of time.   God speaks to ancient people in terms of other long periods of time (Gen. 1:14, II Pet. 3:8).  He could have used the Hebrew word “dor” which also means long periods of time. It is a word that refers to posterity and is often used to communicate perpetual ongoing generations in the Hebrew text (l'dorot).

 

But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation.  The assumptions made by the scientific community are the filter through which the Bible must be sifted and word of God is believed only inasmuch, as it can be modeled around the theories and assumptions of sinful men.   The evolutionary claims of science regarding the age of the earth have become the standard measure of truth to which the Bible must conform as an obedient slave.  Thus the limits being placed upon the Bible and by exension, on God, comes from those who reject a literal interpretation of God's word.

 

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

clb

 

 

The Point, as I see it is....

 

"But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation."

 

It's Juxtaposing, Biblical Authority vs "science" or mans authority and highlighting the concept of filtering ones hermeneutics through science rather than the WORD.

 

It places the reader in that all to familiar position of................................ MAKING A CHOICE!!

 

 

It's a Poignant and very Illuminating Piece, IMHO. :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why subject a seeker to this?  Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?  YEC I think is for the firm Christian.  If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why subject a seeker to this?  Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?  YEC I think is for the firm Christian.  If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

Well said. Thanks for sharing this profound thought.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why subject a seeker to this?  Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?  

 

 If I had written an article about OEC  or Theistic Evolution and why I thought either one was biblically sound, I doubt you would be questioning the need to write such an article.  These are not nonessential details.  One's worldview is shaped by how you view the origin of man and humanity.  

 

YEC I think is for the firm Christian.

 

It is for everyone regardless of what stage they are at in their walk. 

 

 

If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

 

History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC.   No one rejects God on an intellectual basis, but on a spiritual one.  

 

I am not predicating acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC.  That is a common false accusation that gets thrown around here in the absence of intelligent rebuttals.   I am not saying that you have believe in the YEC model to be saved.   I have never said or even implied it.  Perhaps you could actually read what I have said instead misrepresenting my comments and framing them to mean something I never intended.   Or am I asking too much of you?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I actually just thought of that objection, I did not read it in any of your posts.  I do recall you emphasizing that evolution is not consistent with Christian doctrine.  My post was not a veiled assault on you.  I spoke from the experience with creationists where young earth doctrine eclipses the gospel.  I am sure that is not what anyone really wants down deep.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I actually just thought of that objection, I did not read it in any of your posts.  I do recall you emphasizing that evolution is not consistent with Christian doctrine.  My post was not a veiled assault on you.  I spoke from the experience with creationists where young earth doctrine eclipses the gospel.  I am sure that is not what anyone really wants down deep.

Evolution isn't consistent with the Bible's claims, particularly its claims about the origin of man.  Even evolutionists understand that.  I don't understand why some Christians cannot muster up the same kind of honesty about that.

 

Creation is the beginning of Christian doctrine, all major doctrines of Scripture are find their origin, either directly or indirectly in Genesis.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes I do not understand this either. I have had a lot of liberal Christian friends who back evolution and science while remaining a Christian.  They say the two are compatible.  I just can't fathom it.  Evolution and being created by God are two totally different ideal.  And when God chose to reveal to us how we began, by forming man out of dust and woman from a man's rib, how can you reconcile the two?  They don't really believe Genesis is meant to be literal.  Well, parts of Genesis.  The parts science doesn't agree with.  I've even had someone tell me once that Abraham didn't really exist and the flood didn't happen.

 

Well, those people call Jesus a liar because He spoke of the flood, of Adam and creation.  Jesus' own lineage goes all the way back to Adam!  So really, you can't have it both ways.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why subject a seeker to this?  Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?  YEC I think is for the firm Christian.  If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

 

"Why subject a seeker to this?"

 

Subject them?? You make it sound like torture.  Why?....  Because it's the TRUTH.  Do you suggest I subject them to lies first?

 

 

"Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?"

 

I do.....Jesus is in every verse of Genesis.

 

"If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people"

 

First of all.... we don't Save, GOD Does.  IMHO, my duty is to provide them with the Clear Teachings, Beauty, and TRUTH of the WORD.  It's the Person then the Holy Spirit and GOD'S Work from there.

 

Moreover, The Lord is not in the business of the "End Justifies The Means" scenario.  If that's unclear, see 1 Samuel 15 for a wake up call.

 

That's where I Stand

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why subject a seeker to this?  Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later?  YEC I think is for the firm Christian.  If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

 

I agree, G.W.  A newly minted believer needs to get the basics down first.  He/she can develop their views later on down the road.  Baby steps.....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know of no one who became a believer based on YEC arguments. There could be, however. I do know that some people, specifically science people who are put off. If they accept the gospel that means for them YEC hook line and sinker. And at risk of being flayed, I would say that it is possible to be a believer and accept some of the concepts in evolution. That being said, I do believe in Adam and Eve of course.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Adam and Eve believe in you also :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know of no one who became a believer based on YEC arguments. There could be, however.

 

No one has EVER become a believer based on YEC arguments.  Not a single one.  So that really isn't saying anything at all. 

 

I do know that some people, specifically science people who are put off. If they accept the gospel that means for them YEC hook line and sinker.

 

No one rejects God on that basis.  They reject God on the basis of the of God's claims over their life and His assessment of their sin.  The whole evolution/creation debate is an attempt to avoid accountability before a holy God.  If I can successfully prove that God is wrong about where I came from, I have the right to challenge what God says about my sin.    That is why evolution is such a good enabler atheism. 

 

And at risk of being flayed, I would say that it is possible to be a believer and accept some of the concepts in evolution.

 

Sure you can, but why simply accept concepts?  Why do we settle for believing what makes us comfortable at the expense of the truth?   What good are concepts that are not true?  Why would anyone want to put their ultimate faith in something that isn't really true?   That makes no sense.    Why put faith in concepts created by fallible men even if it means rejecting the truth provided by an allknwoing, infallible God, particularly when it is THAT God that you are one day going to have to stand and give an account for your life and  have to sputter up an explanation for why you doubted His word?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there.

I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know of no one who became a believer based on YEC arguments. There could be, however. I do know that some people, specifically science people who are put off. If they accept the gospel that means for them YEC hook line and sinker. And at risk of being flayed, I would say that it is possible to be a believer and accept some of the concepts in evolution. That being said, I do believe in Adam and Eve of course.

 

:thumbsup:

 

What

 

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Isaiah 6:1-4

 

A

 

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 6:5

 

God~!

 

Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:6-8

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there.

I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

 

Well they've never seen macro-evolution take place.  They don't have the fossils to back it up.  They have both ends of the spectrum and say, "Wow, this horse/dog looking thing later lost its legs and became a whale who lives in the water."  There's nothing in between...but that's the theory they teach as fact to school kids.  They have these extinct apes and monkey bones and say, "These are the ancestors of humans" and draw up diagrams of how it happened, again, without the evidence to back it up.  They find fragments of a skull or a few leg bones (even a tooth!  That's right, they found a single tooth and drew up this incredible diagram of the *primate* they said proved ape-to-human evolution and it turns out later it belonged to an extinct pig). 

 

Even watching the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate...they have no idea how matter suddenly formed.  They have no idea how life spontaneously formed.  They have no clue about any of this...just theories.  And how many times has the age of the earth changed since I was a kid?  They keep finding more complex skeletons in strata they believe to be older than they thought it should be, so they only keep assuming the earth to be older because they need LOTS AND LOTS of time for macro-evolution to take place.  There is no evidence for it whatsoever, yet it is taught as fact and shoved down the throats of our kids and college students as fact and told if you don't believe in this, you are an idiot.  Their science requires more faith and the acceptance of something completely impossible to occur...things forming out of nothingness...and have the gull to call us stupid. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I didn't really run into rampant atheism when I was an undergrad at a public university. Yes the theory was taught but never once did I hear an instructor mock or even question God. Of course I studied mainly chemistry which is not as... philosophical :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

It's not out of the norm to post a piece presenting your POV in the forum. Many of us have done this from time to time. It's perfectly legit to open a discussion this way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there.

There's a big difference, though, between tiny adaptations to do something that would change a population of a Species to be categorized as a different Species (under the same Genus) and that of the many adaptations it would take for a population of a particular Family to eventually change into a population of something that would have to be categorized as an entirely different Family from the parent population.

 

I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

I agree that this is a huge stumbling block. But I do wonder how many of them would actually come to the faith would this stumbling block be removed?

 

That said, I wish there was more teaching on the theology of Genesis 1 rather than the scientific interpretation of Genesis 1. Sigh.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Shiloh...

     I appreciate your OP & I think it was beautifully written,,,,not just because it is what I believe but because it is what God says .I was once a science major and a very rebellious young lady ,the more God tugged at my heart the harder I tried to refute His Word.....if I could just find one part of His Word that was something concocted by mere men then I would not have to bow down to this Sovereign God....I wanted so badly to be my own God,,,

     I found carbon dating to be inaccurate,radiometric dating a farce,the theory of evolution a joke....one thing after another just crumbled but His Word withstood every test I could come up with.................historically,scientifically,geologically...you name it!

      I am so happy & grateful that my loving Father was so patient with me & gave me enough rope to hang myself ,& He never stopped loving me for one moment ....thanks Shiloh for being so confident & bold,that is what we should be because we are the children of the Most High & His Timeless Truth is never changing.....Praise & Glory to God!!!!

                                                                                                                                       With love,in Christ-Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there.

I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

 

"You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there."

 

Conceded to what??...does evolution take credit for the Air we breathe also?  Just because the phrase has evolution in it doesn't make it darwinian evolution LOL. Another Ad Hoc Observation passed off as a Prediction.  Note the PRE-fix in PRE-diction..... it means "Before".  This is just like all the rest, Clumsy POST-dictions added to "evolutions" coffers then they take credit for some omniscient capability of the predictive powers of evolution.  R Ya Kidding Me  :huh:

 

The mechanism:

 

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = "Micro" evolution....This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!!

 

And, So......?  Hasn't this been going on for 6,000 years or so ;)

 

Did "evolution PRE-dict this?? :24: :24:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there.

 

 

Everyone understand that animals adapt to new environments and conditions.  That is not really "evolution" proper.  The changes that take place within a given species are engineered by wise and loving Creator.

 

That is not a mechanism for evolution proper.  There are observed adaptive changes within species, but there are NO changes from one species to a completely new species, again like the claim that some lizards evolved into birds.  That is completely absurd, it is not emprically proven, nor can it be intuitively observed.

 

I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

 

That suggestion implies there is way to disconnect the Gospel from the rest of the Bible.   The Gospel includes Genesis because Genesis explains the need for the Gospel in the first place.   A scientist who is an evolutionist who doesn't believe that mankind started with only two human ancestors is going to have a hard time swallowing the fall of Adam in the Garden.   The Bible's definition of sin begins in the Garden of Eden.  Paul links salvation to Adam's sin in the Garden, which points back to Genesis 1.  The Bible is a interlocking system of progressive revelation.  It builds on itself begining at Genesis 1.   You can't simply unplug the Gospel from Genesis.   It doesn't work that way.

 

That doesn't mean that you have to be YEC to be saved, but what it does mean is that Genesis 1 is forever connected theologically to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Limiting God

 

By Shiloh357

 

For millennia, the standard Christian understanding of the text of Genesis 1 was that God created the earth and the universe in six days.  Much of modern science owes its existence to scientists who were Christians.  They were, by modern standards, young earth creationists.   The argument in response to that reality is that when many of these scientists were alive there were no competing, or alternative views existed.  This claim is false ithat there were those who proposed evolution and thus an older earth well before Charles Darwin came on the scene.

 

The old earth view pre-dates modern science and has its origin in philosophy.  Many ignore the philosophical origins of the old earth view and that view is advanced as if it were scientific, proven fact.    Science has been desperately trying to prove that philosophical assumption for decades, to no avail.  All of the dating methods used so far work from the assumption of an old earth and begin with assumptions that skew how evidence is gathered and interpreted.  The dating methods used by scientists provide erroneous results, dating recently created rock formations to be millions of years older than they are known to be.

 

One of the most astonishing claims by those believers who hold to an old earth model is that we, who hold to the young earth model, are limiting God.   God we are told, is not bound by time, so limiting creation to six days is limiting God who could have created the universe in billions of years.  Since God is outside of time, there is no reason, we are told, to limit God to a mere six days.   But is it really the case that we are limiting God?

 

The issue is not whether or not God is bound or limited by time.  God is eternal, and of course is outside of time and is not bound by linear time as we know it.   So that point is not in dispute.  It is not about whether or God is limited by time.  The issue is, what has God revealed to us in His word?    What does God say He did?   We can sit around all day dreaming up scenarios where God could have done this or that, but those are meaningless speculations and do not provide substantive or intelligent reasons to discard a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  God could have done it any way He wanted in any amount of time, but the issue for us is not what God could have done, or in how long He could have done it.  The question for us centers around what God said He did.

 

God said He created the earth is six days.   In Exodus 20:11 God told the Israelites that their Sabbath observance was rooted in the fact that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day.   How would those Israelite slaves have understood what God said?   Would these former slaves standing there still dressed in the rags they wore as slaves, understood six days to mean billions of years?  It is unlikely.  Another place where God makes the same claim of a six day creation is in Exodus 31:15-17:

 

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  (Exo 31:15-17)

 

You will note not only the repeated claim that the heavens and earth were made in six days, but note also the emphatic nature of the commandment.  They were to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Heb. l’dorot), as a perpetual (l’olam) covenant and as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel forever (l’olam).  So if God wanted to communicate to these people that the creation of the earth and heavens were longer than six days, He had the perfect opportunity to make that clear.  God is perfectly able to communicate clearly with us and doesn’t play word games with us.

 

One argument is that God was simply speaking in terms that ancient people could conceive of, that they had no concept of long epoch periods of time.   But the Bible speaks to ancient people in terms of longer periods of time.  The word “olam” is used to refer to long indeterminate time periods where eternity and the dateless past and dateless future is concerned.  It doesn’t mean endless continuous time, but refers to long indeterminate, successive periods of time.   God speaks to ancient people in terms of other long periods of time (Gen. 1:14, II Pet. 3:8).  He could have used the Hebrew word “dor” which also means long periods of time. It is a word that refers to posterity and is often used to communicate perpetual ongoing generations in the Hebrew text (l'dorot).

 

But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation.  The assumptions made by the scientific community are the filter through which the Bible must be sifted and word of God is believed only inasmuch, as it can be modeled around the theories and assumptions of sinful men.   The evolutionary claims of science regarding the age of the earth have become the standard measure of truth to which the Bible must conform as an obedient slave.  Thus the limits being placed upon the Bible and by exension, on God, comes from those who reject a literal interpretation of God's word.

 

What disussion were you hoping to generate by this?  This is a forum, remember?  Was there a question hanging somewhere in there?

 

clb

 

 

The Point, as I see it is....

 

"But unfortunately for us today, for many Christians, the evolutionary dating assumptions have become the father of biblical interpretation."

 

It's Juxtaposing, Biblical Authority vs "science" or mans authority and highlighting the concept of filtering ones hermeneutics through science rather than the WORD.

 

It places the reader in that all to familiar position of................................ MAKING A CHOICE!!

 

 

It's a Poignant and very Illuminating Piece, IMHO. :thumbsup:

 

I suppose I must be resolved to never tire of saying this:  NO!!! It is juxtaposing man's interpretation of Biblical authority with man's interpretation of nature.  It is the exegesis of one of God's books compared with the exegesis of the other of God's books.  Two books.....both by God....in discussion with each other.  Augustine.

 

clb

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0