a-seeker

Hello Leonard, I agree with your post. I am a Protestant; but I would add to this that I am a "Unprotesting Protestant". Are you a RC? If so, there really should be a discussion in which Prots and RC's can talk and discuss without mudslinging. I have so many questions....

Amen, Amen, and Amen, And NO, not an RC. I disagree with many doctrines of the RC; but then I disagree with many doctrines within Protestantism. The historical data given at the start of this thread is highly questionable. Sounds like blatant propaganda; but I will have to do some resource. I agree with Leonard above, even if he and I will disagree on other things (presuming he is an RC; if not, apologies for the assumption). There should, however, be a discussion in which Protestants and RCs can explain things to each other (excluding anyone who might see it as an arena for mudslinging). How informative that would be!!! Perhaps OneLight (it seems you have some authority in this?) could do something about that?? clb

Let’s deal with each of my claims. But let me preface my comments that I am in no way questioning your faith in Jesus as your Savior and Lord. 1. It is true, the whole reason that unbelievers question the Bible’s authority in Genesis is to avoid accountability for their sin. The entire secular evolution/science paradigm is focused like a laser in removing God from the equation altogether. I am not saying that you or other OEC believers operate from that motivation. What I am saying is that the OEC is rooted in a scientific paradigm that is itself rooted in challenging the Bible’s, and by extension, God’s authority over their lives. 2. Old earthism originated in age of reason when theologians and philosophers were trying remove any supernatural elements from the Bible, including the notion that the earth was created in six days. They were opposed to anything that had a supernatural tone. The crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles and resurrection of Jesus were all put on the chopping block during the late 1700s. The assumption of an old earth carried a lot of weight in Spurgeon’s day and it carries even more weight today than ever before. But the point is that you can’t get it from the Bible. 3. The problem I have here is that you can’t, on the one hand, argue that YECers like me cannot claim the age of the earth as 6,000 –10,000 years from the Bible on the grounds that the Bible doesn’t tells us what the age of the earth is, and then turn around and tell me that the Bible contains verses that show an old earth. You can’t have it both ways. But I didn’t claim that the Bible insists upon a an earth age of 6,000-10,000 years. I said that I presented the biblical evidence that I believe shows a young earth. 6,000-10,000 is just a rough estimate, not a fact nailed down by Scripture. Yes, but he didn’t exegete an old earth from that verse. He simply said that it wasn’t clear how long ago, but that it was certainly millions of years. That s not an exegetical argument. That is the an argument from an assumption. He wasn’t making a theological case for an old earth, at all in the quote you provided. I didn’t use the word “ignorantly.” You are adding a deragatory tone to my comment to paint my comment as being more antagonistic than I intended for it to be. He did capitulate, like it or not and I am standing by that claim. He did what many preachers often feel they need to do, unfortunately. Well, your support is a bit misplaced because Charles Spurgeon never earned a university degree. He did not know all of the biblical languages. He never studied Hebrew or Aramaic and was only briefly tutored in Greek. He knew some Latin and was well studied in Puritan theology, natural history (where he would have gotten his old earth views) and Victorian literature. He was not known for his education, but for his prolific preaching style. Unfortunately for us, he was born just on the cusp of a world where recording technology has being developed and so none of his sermons were ever recorded audibly. http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/sermons/chsbio.html But you are simply making things up when you claim he was knowledgeable. You should checked your facts. How am I using the Bible incorrectly to support an YEC view? I didn’t have to. You provided the evidence from your quote which you misrepreented. I have also shown that you have misrepresented Spurgeon’s educational background and knowledge and I have also shown evidence that he was a studier of natural history (earth science) and it is likely that he got his views of an old earth from his studies of natural science. No, he mentioned it in passing. He didn’t preach it as a biblical truth. He simply mentioned it and moved on. It was not a major point in sermon. That doesn’t qualify as “preaching” OEC. Yes. Not because I say so, but because neither one of them made an exegetical claim in the quotes you provided. Niether Spurgeon appealed to Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, neither appealed to any form literary analysis, neither of them appealed to historical/cultural context, neither of them appeal to one area of hermeneutic or the exegetical process as justification for an OEC view. I don’t have to give the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt that there is no exegetical argument presneted by either of them, unless you can drum up another quote from either man. Wow! What a lively discussion. I hope I am not intruding. I had one very, very minor point to make, and then some questions. First point: I would avoid using the Galileo fiasco as an example of the Church vs. Science. In the first place, Galileo was Christian; in the second, Galileo was "gagged" primarily because he pissed off the Pope, and partly because he was putting forward a "theory" as a "fact". Yes, he was in the end right, but not all his proofs were valid (i.e. he said that the tides were created by spinning of the earth). Most historians today would denounce the classic view of the Galileo trial as Galileo/science vs. the Church. But that is minor (still, the real situation is fascinating and I recommend investigating it--quite worthy of a movie) As to my questions, 1) I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be inspired; but I also believe in an OE theory. Is this a contradiction? Can a person believe the Bible to be God's Word and still believe in an OE? 2) If it is not a contradiction, then why the dilemma? Why not allow the Bible and the discoveries of science cooperate? This was in fact the position of Augustine and therefore has some credence. 3) If it is a contradiction, again why? Suppose two people come to the same Bible, agreeing that it is inspired. The question is, what does "inspired" mean? One says, "it means that stories like the Genesis account have to be literal, so that "Day" means 24 hrs." But the other says, "hmm...I am going to let the Bible define its own definition of inspiration." My main point is, often we OE/Christians are accused of depreciating the authority of Scripture: I understand the accusation, but it could easily be turned around--we could easily say that the YE have imposed their own "definition" of inspiration on the text, thereby rendering It subject to them? sorry if the last point is unclear. My main contention is that OEarthers are not necessarily heretics. clb

If I can be honest here, I believe when religious people totally disregard science because they THINK the Bible says something (when it doesn't) then all of Christianity suffers as a witness for Christ. I'm sure your intentions are noble, to defend God and his written word, but he doesn't need our defense to be made up. It does not go against any verse in the Bible to believe as scientists say- Earth is billions of years old. There are even many devout believers who are scientists who have written books on this subject agreeing with the science- our solar system is old. Now from Gods perspective, 4.5 billion years is like a second, I'm sure. Now man made in Gods image is another issue. Yes, that has been pretty recently, but those are two different issues to discuss. Trust me brother, don't fret if our planet is old. It all makes sense. I am a Christian and maybe even a conservative Christian (depending on who is on my left and who on my right). But I am in total agreement with you. It does not rattle my faith one bit to think that the earth is very, very old. The more I study Genesis (not just read and memorize, but study: i.e. look into the Hebrew, look into the culture etc. etc.) the more I am convinced that its author (and yes, AUTHOR) cared nothing, not one bit, about entering a debate that would not arise for another 3,000 years. He had other fish to fry. Put another way, if we could conjure up like Samuel the author of Moses, and present to him our debate, would he say, "Ah yes, apologies for any obscurities, let me pencil in this footnote: "Oh, by the way, I meant 6 literal 24/hr days." Or rather, would he hold his weary head and lament, "Goodness! is THAT what you guys are arguing about? You've missed the entire point!!" I suspect the latter. The question for me is this: do most 6-day creationists deny the Old Earth theory espoused by scientists simply because a detailed exegesis (study) of Genesis has led them to believe that it was 6 days? If so, then this is purely an exegetical debate. Or do at least some (certainly not all) do it for a much more subtle, and perhaps even unconscious reason--namely, the scary thought that, if this isn't literal, well then, is that? And what about that?! Eventually this train of thought will reach the heart of the gospel, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection--and at this we recoil in horror. No, we say, it is safer (i.e. easier on my nerves) to stop that train of thinking from ever taking off, by simply asserting that the Genesis account is literal. This is a method of reasoning which I cannot employ: and I don't need to. There is no logical step to be made from the symbolic account of Genesis to the literal/historical account of the resurrection. Nor does taking the 6 days symbolically (or thematically) require me to take the act of creation itself symbolically (i.e. God did not actually create the world). Hi Conner. I hope you get your status changed from unbeliever to believer before the rapture takes place. I would hate for you to miss it. Lol In all seriousness, find a mod (below on the home page is the list) and PM one of them. I'm sure they know what to do. I enjoyed reading your post for many reasons, agreeing with me was only one of them. (Check in the mail) Welcome aboard, matey! Thank you, yeah, my status juxtaposed with my comments is probably throwing people off. I don't remember any prompt asking me for my religious position. I sent an email but was told it might take some time. (Check in the mail??) not sure what that is. Do we have mail boxes here? clb

If I can be honest here, I believe when religious people totally disregard science because they THINK the Bible says something (when it doesn't) then all of Christianity suffers as a witness for Christ. I'm sure your intentions are noble, to defend God and his written word, but he doesn't need our defense to be made up. It does not go against any verse in the Bible to believe as scientists say- Earth is billions of years old. There are even many devout believers who are scientists who have written books on this subject agreeing with the science- our solar system is old. Now from Gods perspective, 4.5 billion years is like a second, I'm sure. Now man made in Gods image is another issue. Yes, that has been pretty recently, but those are two different issues to discuss. Trust me brother, don't fret if our planet is old. It all makes sense. I am a Christian and maybe even a conservative Christian (depending on who is on my left and who on my right). But I am in total agreement with you. It does not rattle my faith one bit to think that the earth is very, very old. The more I study Genesis (not just read and memorize, but study: i.e. look into the Hebrew, look into the culture etc. etc.) the more I am convinced that its author (and yes, AUTHOR) cared nothing, not one bit, about entering a debate that would not arise for another 3,000 years. He had other fish to fry. Put another way, if we could conjure up like Samuel the author of Moses, and present to him our debate, would he say, "Ah yes, apologies for any obscurities, let me pencil in this footnote: "Oh, by the way, I meant 6 literal 24/hr days." Or rather, would he hold his weary head and lament, "Goodness! is THAT what you guys are arguing about? You've missed the entire point!!" I suspect the latter. The question for me is this: do most 6-day creationists deny the Old Earth theory espoused by scientists simply because a detailed exegesis (study) of Genesis has led them to believe that it was 6 days? If so, then this is purely an exegetical debate. Or do at least some (certainly not all) do it for a much more subtle, and perhaps even unconscious reason--namely, the scary thought that, if this isn't literal, well then, is that? And what about that?! Eventually this train of thought will reach the heart of the gospel, Jesus Christ's death and resurrection--and at this we recoil in horror. No, we say, it is safer (i.e. easier on my nerves) to stop that train of thinking from ever taking off, by simply asserting that the Genesis account is literal. This is a method of reasoning which I cannot employ: and I don't need to. There is no logical step to be made from the symbolic account of Genesis to the literal/historical account of the resurrection. Nor does taking the 6 days symbolically (or thematically) require me to take the act of creation itself symbolically (i.e. God did not actually create the world).

Hey Justin, I am new to this forum (and to all forums!) and joined it only because the weather has kept me in for the last couple days and I am getting cabin-fever: whether I continue to participate depends on my laziness (a major vice of mine). You asked for a better understanding of a religion which you do not necessarily adhere to, and it seems (this is NOT a criticism) that many of the replies given above devoted more energy to promoting Christianity rather than explaining it. I can sympathize with this approach; but it is not my own, for I am a very bad evangelist. Whether your question will lead to your conversion, I leave that to the Holy Spirit. I will try the less important task (though not unimportant) of explaining Christianity....or rather the Bible? For you say you have begun your "reading" and will tell of "what verses" are particularly interesting. I take it you are or have read the beginning of Genesis. To give an explanation of the Bible is not the same as giving a definition of Christianity. But it is certainly important. A couple of points: Genesis was written years and years ago and will have behind it all sorts of cultural influences that are completely foreign to our own. The gist of the creation narrative is that YHWH created the world and all that exists in it with a purpose in mind. This would've been polemical for ancient readers who believed in "the gods" and held myths about gods giving birth to and warring with other gods, and fashioning man mainly for reasons of service (the gods need to eat, afterall!). AS you read the 6 days of creation you will no doubt notice that days 1-3 correspond to days 4-6. It is intentional. God creates places, and then fills them with life. All of this is a process of bringing order out of chaos, for the earth was without form (no place to live) and void (nothing living in it). God corrects this problem through these 6 days. Why 7 days? I don't wish to step on toes (of the 100's there are 10 belonging to 6 day creationists and 10 belonging to symbolists) and so I will dodge the question of whether God created in 7 days or the author described it so for other reasons. One can ask, "why did He literally create it in 7 days?" Or, "why present it as a 7 day operation?". I attempt an answer.... In the ancient world temples were constructed for the residency of gods and typically involved a 7 day dedication. On the 7th day an idol (representing and in some sense imbibed with its god) was brought into the temple. At this point it was thought that the god had "rested" or "taken up sovereignty" over the land. In the Bible it says that God rested on the Sabbath day. The image here is not of a God "tuckered out", but of the creator ruling the world--the proper image would be of "descending upon a throne". It is also no accident that God makes man "in his own image". The term "image" here appears elsewhere in the Bible (we are talking about the Hebrew of course) but it almost always has a negative connotation and is associated with idols. This too is no accident. The idea is that Man (and woman! But I am old fashioned in my English) is God's representative over the world. In other words the Bible takes basic themes from its day but completely modifies it in the interest of a new (but really the only and original) God. All of this would've been radical in those days (1400 B.C.? that is, when it was written, not when the narrative actually took place): to assign all of creation to ONE God?? To have man as such (not merely Kings) God's representative on earth!! Anyhow, there is so, sooo much more even in this chapter. But that is probably too much. I don't know if any of this will be helpful in your reading. God bless, clb