Young earth ?

[Guest]

The dilemma is in your mind. It’s another one of the unnecessary side bars you frequently invent to push your perceived vital doctrines. 

 

That is where you and I will eternally disagree.  I see a huge dilemma when it comes to how a person can doubt one part of the Bible, but somehow find the ability to treat the rest of the Bible as perfectly trustworthy.   People tend to doubt the veracity of the Bible in a very selective way, as if somehow God couldn't preserve His word in Genesis 1, but that such a lack of ability on God's part does affect the parts of the Bible they do choose to believe.  The trustworthiness of the Bible tends to conveniently follow along the lines of what some people choose to accept or reject.

 

Why do you keep repeating this same falsehood?  There was a famous quote that if you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it, is this what you are going for?

 

Nobody is doubting one part of the bible, we are doubting your view of that one part of the bible.  You seem to be a smart person, cannot you really not see the difference?  

 

OEC does not doubt the authority of God or the bible, we do not doubt that God can preserve his word, we just disagree with YOU, the human.  

 

To say that we are doubting God is to imply that you are God, because we are doubting you.   Why is it that for the YEC people it always has to come down to this...agree with you or doubt God.  I really hate to break this to you, but you are not God, you are just a human like the rest of us. 

 

 

Does God

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Lie

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

Huh

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

~

 

Amen

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

On Telling

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

A Lie Long Enough

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

And As For God

 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

 

 

Why

 

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2

 

Believe

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

His Words

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11

 

And Why Not Mock His Servant

 

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. Isaiah 66:5

 

After All God Could Not Be Watching, Huh?

 

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars. 2 Chronicles 16:9

 

~

 

Believe

 

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:10-11

 

Love, Joe

[LookingForAnswers]

 

I have never held that YEC vs OEC should be a test of orthodoxy, nor am I saying that OECers' are not Christians.   I am simply pointing to the inconsistency of refusing to take Genesis 1 as literal while selectively taking other parts of the Bible as literal when it comes to something that is important to you.

 

 

 

The bible is filled with allegory, symbolism and multiple other literary techniques.  Each of us takes parts of the bible as literal and others as not so, you included.  Are you being inconsistent for taking Genesis 1 literal but not the passages used for justifying a geocentric theory?  I would say no, but if you are going to accuse others of inconsistency you need to turn the light upon yourself also.   

[Guest shiloh357]

The bible is filled with allegory, symbolism and multiple other literary techniques. 

 

 

Yes, and none of them occur in Genesis 1

 

Each of us takes parts of the bible as literal and others as not so, you included. 

 

 

I always take the Bible literally.   To take the Bible literally means that when figurative devices are used, I look behind the device to understand the literal meaning or truth the figurative device was meant to convey by the author.  

 

Are you being inconsistent for taking Genesis 1 literal but not the passages used for justifying a geocentric theory?  I would say no, but if you are going to accuse others of inconsistency you need to turn the light upon yourself also.   

 

I take those passages literally and because of that I can tell that they are not making any kind of geocentric claims.  It is those who hold those verses up as justification for a geocentric theory that are mishandling text.

 

I think there may be some confusion about what it means to take a passage of Scripture "literally."

 

[Guest ninhao]

 

shiloh357, on 09 Jan 2014 - 7:23 PM, said:

That is where you and I will eternaly disagree.  I see a huge delimma when it comes to how a person can doubt one part of the Bible, but somehow find the ability to treat the rest of the Bible as perfectly trustworthy.   People tend to doubt the veracity of the Bible in a very selective way, as if somehow God couldn't preserve His word in Genesis 1, but that such a lack of ability on God's part does affect the parts of the Bible they do choose to believe.  The trustworthiness of the Bible tends to conveniently follow along the lines of what some people choose to accept or reject.

 

 

 

The Earth age argument has nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible. What OEC does challenge is your sensibility. The Bible is fully trustworthy and its purpose is to reveal the nature of God and His relationship with humans. This whining about YEC is no more than parochial dogmatic old school doctrinal Christianity. Wow did I 4 adjectives in one sentence

 

You have many times in the past grabbed at something to side bar to the Gospel message simply because it’s what you do. This is no different.

 

 

 

Your quote below proves it for me.  Thanks

 

 

 

Only in your mind

 

The quote shows Mr Spurgeon used Genesis 1: 2 in support of a pre adamic world of life did you read it ?

 

 

 

I appreciated her honesty and said so back then on several occasions.   It was one of the rare times I found myself agreeing with an atheist about something in the Bible.   She correctly recognizes the problem of selectively applying the Bible's authority to what we want to believe.   I was not dealing old earthers. I was dealing with theistic evolutionists who were denying the inerrancy and authority of the Bible in Genesis, but fully accepted the Bible's claims in the NT as authoritative and true.

 

 

 

Yes back then you were debating TE and Viole supported your argument that Genesis was incompatible with TE. That’s the only reason you appreciated her comments. You accepted OEC was possible at that time and now have changed to completely deny it simply because it doesn’t suit your argument against Darwin evolution. You’re actually capitulating to  YEC to suit an ulterior motive and I’m realising now how ironic this is considering your slanderous claim against Mr Spurgeon.

 

It does seem you’re parroting Answers in Genesis with this claim of capitulation is this where you accepted the premise?

 

 

 

Most OEC'ers believe that the days of Genesis 1 were long epochs of time.   Only in the last couple of days have I run into the notion that the earth lay formless and void for milions and milions years and THEN God created in six days.  That is a very strange position and only in this thread have I ever read that.  I have never read that coming from mainstream OECer's.

 

 

 

The discussion between you and I is concerning OEC not 6 day creation I fail to see why you now wish to push this aside being simply another display of your dishonest debate tactics.

 

 

 

Mr Spurgeon Sermon 30

 

 "But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

http://www.spurgeong...1-3/vols1-3.htm

 

 

I wiill make a couple of points ,here.   First of all, I never said he didn't make the claim.   I said that your previous refusal or inability to supply his statements was leading me to believe that he didn't make those comments.

 

Second of all, The quote above doesn't show that Spurgeon developed his view from Scripture as you claimed.   He simply works from an assumption and even then he admits that he doesn't really know.   He assumes it might have been millions of years.  That is what the science of his day was claiming.  You originally claimed that he got it from his study of Scripture, but your quote doesn't support that claim.   It just shows that Spurgeon, like other preachers, capitulated to the demands of science.

 

 

 

Mr Spurgeon quotes Gen 1:2 and that’s a scripture OEC uses to indicate a pre- adamic Earth. You know this yet continue to slander him. To make the claim Mr Spurgeon capitulated is nonsense considering his knowledge of all Bible languages and his superior intellect. I suggest he uses his whereas you simply follow the dogmatic doctrine akin to how the Christian geocentrists did.  You’ll change your mind I’m confident.

 

My claim is valid and now it’s your turn to ante up unless of course you’re the type of poker player who dodges his turn.

As I said above it’s becoming clear to me now that the very argument you’re using against Mr Spurgeon is a type what you have done. You’ve capitulated to YEC  and this can be seen in the parroting from AIG.

 

  

 

 

Billy Graham

 

 "I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

 

 

Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997.  p. 72-74

 

Actually Graham isn't suppporting the OEC theory at all.  He mentions evolution vs. the traditional creationist model.   He doesn't think it matters if God used evolution or not.  I disagree with him, but the point is that he is not really taking a position one way or the other.  The article clearly indicates that Dr. Graham sees evolution as no big deal.

 

So you still have not demonstrated conclusively that Dr. Graham is an OEC.  He might be, but the quote above doesn't come close to proving it.

 

 

 

Yes Mr Graham doesn’t think evolution matters and logically OEC will also be allowable to him.  Do you claim Mr Graham has capitulated to science by presenting this this view ?

 

Now ante up and substantiate your spurious claim against Mr Spurgeon.  I’m guessing you will run yet again. Mr Spurgeon and MR Graham evangelised unbelievers in larger numbers than any others in the modern era yet you claim these unbelievers may doubt their sin condition because of OEC.  Your claim is obviously false because both these men preached OEC. ( in case you wish to avoid this )

 

 

 

Nope, you failed to prove your claims.   You proved mine, though.  And for that, I offer my heart-felt thanks.  I knew that you would not meet the threshold of proof you claimed existed.  Spurgeon did not get his OEC views from the Bible, but from the science of his day, as your quote proves.  So I need not need to retract anything I said.

 

 

 

You’ve proved nothing aside from why you now are vehemently anti OEC. Ironic.

Of course you run yet again after making spurious claims and you’ve proved me correct in this. I’m surprised you can even write the word retract

 

 

 

I would note that up to this point, your entire appeal to OEC has not been based on Scripture but on the words of men.  According to you, OEC is true because of Spurgeon said so.    I am appealing to the Word of God and standing on the Bibe's claims.  I don't believe it because this or that person says it is so.  That is the glaring differences between us.

 

 

 

My argument is against your silly claim that OEC may hinder the recognition by unbelievers of their sin condition. If you simply stay with your presentation of YEC without the side bar additions to the Gospel we wouldn’t have a problem but as per usual you need present unfounded requirements.

 

 

 

I never claimed that it has.  I simply presented the view that the potential exists and why it exists.   I don't have to support claims I never made.

 

 

 

“ Oh is that Shiloh going to the loo again when it’s his ante ? “

 

Yeah just another loose claim with no basis. I suggest the potential that you drive people from the Gospel message by adding side bars.  

[LookingForAnswers]

 

The bible is filled with allegory, symbolism and multiple other literary techniques. 

 

 

Yes, and none of them occur in Genesis 1

 

Each of us takes parts of the bible as literal and others as not so, you included. 

 

 

I always take the Bible literally.   To take the Bible literally means that when figurative devices are used, I look behind the device to understand the literal meaning or truth the figurative device was meant to convey by the author.  

 

Are you being inconsistent for taking Genesis 1 literal but not the passages used for justifying a geocentric theory?  I would say no, but if you are going to accuse others of inconsistency you need to turn the light upon yourself also.   

 

I take those passages literally and because of that I can tell that they are not making any kind of geocentric claims.  It is those who hold those verses up as justification for a geocentric theory that are mishandling text.

 

I think there may be some confusion about what it means to take a passage of Scripture "literally."

 

 

 

I think there are some differences of opinion about what it means to take a passage of Scripture "literally", but I actually agree with yours.  I have always called it "taking it at face value" but we are talking about the same thing, just calling it something different. 

Going by this meaning of a taking passage of Scripture "literally", I would they say that I take Genesis 1 literally.   The author literally meant long extended periods of time.  The words chosen by the author can be used to convey that meaning.  Good to know we both take the bible literally

Edited January 9, 2014 by LookingForAnswers

[Guest shiloh357]

I think there are some differences of opinion about what it means to take a passage of Scripture "literally", but I actually agree with yours.  I have always called it "taking it at face value" but we are talking about the same thing, just calling it something different. 

 

"Face value" is not literal interpretation.   Face value is a very wooden approach to the text.   For example...  when Jesus said, "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off."   The face value approach doesn't take into account the metaphorical nature of that comment.   A face value approach would understand Jesus to be advocating self-mutilation.   The literal interpretation is that we need to "cut off" anything in our lives (habits, thoughts, associations) that is hindering our walk with God.

 

 

Going by this meaning of a taking passage of Scripture "literally", I would they say that I take Genesis 1 literally.   The author literally meant long extended periods of time.  The words chosen by the author can be used to convey that meaning.  Good to know we both take the bible literally

 

That is not correct.   The word "yom" is NEVER used to mean long periods of time in terms of millions of years in an historical narrative anywhere in the Bible.    The word yom in connection with ordinal numbers in Genesis  are always literal 24 hour days in historical narratives in the Bible.  There may be other genres like prophecy where it is used to refer to longer periods of times, but Genesis 1 is an historical narrative, not a prophecy.  There is not ONE figurative device used in the text of Genesis 1.   So treating "yom" as a long period of time isn't interpetation, at all.  It amounts to reading into the text what you want it to mean. 

 

If God wanted us to understand a each creative unit in Genesis 1 to refer to a long epoch of time comprised of millions of years, he would have likely used the word "olam" instead of "yom."   The word "olam" refers to long periods of time.  It literally means the most distant time.  Yom is NEVER used to convey anything but a literal day in an historical narrative genres.  

[LookingForAnswers]

if I was a betting man I would have lost 5 bucks, I got a PM telling me you would argue with me about what the expression 'face value" means and I said "no way, it is just an expression used by people and has varied meanings"...silly me.  You do love to argue!   On this topic I surrender, you will repeat yourself till you are the last man standing.  Very effective debating technique, bludgeon the opponent into submission. 

[Guest shiloh357]

if I was a betting man I would have lost 5 bucks, I got a PM telling me you would argue with me about what the expression 'face value" means and I said "no way, it is just an expression used by people and has varied meanings"...silly me.  You do love to argue!   On this topic I surrender, you will repeat yourself till you are the last man standing.  Very effective debating technique, bludgeon the opponent into submission. 

I have repeated myself because you have been making the same basic argument.   And yes, I did feel the need to explain the difference between face value and literalism as many people often get those two confused.   It doesn't really have varied meanings.  It was necessary to show how you weren't really approaching the text "literally."

 

You do love to argue!  

 

You have been a long and willing participant on this thread.  You wanted to argue, as well.   You have never been at a loss for words in any debate on any thread you have participated in, fact you have been rather emotional and bitter.   So accusing me of liking to argue is a bit hypocritical.

 

Besides you didn't really address the issue of yom vs. olam.

[Guest man]

if I was a betting man I would have lost 5 bucks, I got a PM telling me you would argue with me about what the expression 'face value" means and I said "no way, it is just an expression used by people and has varied meanings"...silly me.  You do love to argue!   On this topic I surrender, you will repeat yourself till you are the last man standing.  Very effective debating technique, bludgeon the opponent into submission. 

 

[LookingForAnswers]

as I said, this horse is dead!   But I would appreciate you returning to the thread on "how old does the bible say the earth is" and respond to a comment about the earth being covered with water.