Young earth ?

[Guest ninhao]

 

shiloh357, on 11 Jan 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

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.  

 

 

I don’t care for your allowance of my faith. It’s obvious you think you have some kind of authority to grant or deny a person’s position in Christ by your veiled insults.

You are questioning the integrity of Bible scholars correct ?

 

 

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.

 

 

I disagree.  Unbelievers deny God  and this is why they resist the Gospel message and argue against the creation model.  Evolution and any other side bar is simply an argument they use to give credence to their already held status. By making OEC a pinnacle issue you’re giving credibility to their argument and allowing them to stand upon their beliefs in rejection of YEC. Your side bar is potentially a hindrance to the unbeliever recognising their sin condition.

 

  

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.  

 

 

The Bible makes no claims as to the Earth age. Tell me what you think of the Pangaea model. Not the timing but the possibility the Earth was basically 1 continent at some time in the past.

Do you accept this theory ?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I’m suggesting there is no definitive Earth age information in the Bible and, as Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham suggest, there is scope for a much older Earth than 10.000 years. I haven’t presented any age argument from the Bible and if you want to hold YEC that’s fine but don’t claim it’s insisted upon in the Bible because it isn’t.  

 

 

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. 

 

 

Ok this is interesting. So you are saying you may be wrong about the Earth being older than 10,000 years ?

 

 

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.

 

 

Sermons don’t often contain the pastors exegesis of scripture you know that. Mr Spurgeon’s exegesis would be why he preached upon OEC and you have no idea what that his exegesis was.

 

 

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.

 

 

You didn’t use “ignorantly” but that is the crux of your claim. You suggest a brilliant Bible scholar who was a pillar of Christianity simply folded to science without giving due diligence to exegesis. You’re doing what you usually do unfortunately and insult the Brethren in order to remove credibility from their position and bolster your argument.

 

 

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.

 

 

Please present your source for this information.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Again you seem to like belittling Mr Spurgeon for some reason.  Are you suggesting his lack of formal education hindered his intelligence or Bible knowledge? I know you like to spruik about your own education and now it seems you look down upon Mr Spurgeon because he didn’t do seminary ?  Interesting. I’d like to see if you have anything good to say about this man.

Mr Spurgeon was quite an enigma and it seems to escape your educated mind that God equipped him for ministry.

 

 

 

But you are simply making things up when you claim he was knowledgeable.  You should checked your facts.

 

 

 

Oh dear are you really this vain? Mr Spurgeon was a highly knowledgeable and intelligent man.

 

 

How am I using the Bible incorrectly to support an YEC view?

 

 

The bible makes no Earth age claims and yet you insist it does in the same way the Church insisted upon gocentricity using scripture. Present scripture where anyone states the age of the Earth or says that it’s vital to know. It’s nothing but a side bar.

 

 

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.

 

 

Yeah when you make an accusation you really need to provide evidence. Your accusation was the he didn’t exegete OEC from the Bible and you haven’t shown that at all. What you have done is speculate and run with it.

 

 

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.

 

 

How long must a preacher speak upon a subject for it to be deemed preaching in your mind ? Seriously do you expect to control every nuance so that your argument can be substantiated?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Simply because you haven’t seen their exegesis doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. How do you know they didn’t do the things you suggest ?

 

 

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.

 

 

Yeah you do need to give them the benefit of the doubt when making accusations. I’ll ask again how many times you have been rebuked by moderators here for attacking the Brethren ? 

 

 This is relevant considering your current attack upon Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

no regrets = most certainly do because it is true - wincam

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

[WillfromTexas]

Galatians 5

Amplified Bible (AMP)

 

 

¹⁴ For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is ^[e]complied with in the one precept, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

¹⁵ But if you bite and devour one another [in partisan strife], be careful that you [and your whole fellowship] are not consumed by one another.

¹⁶ But I say, walk and live [habitually] in the [Holy] Spirit [responsive to and controlled and guided by the Spirit]; then you will certainly not gratify the cravings and desires of the flesh (of human nature without God).

¹⁷ For the desires of the flesh are opposed to the [Holy] Spirit, and the [desires of the] Spirit are opposed to the flesh (godless human nature); for these are antagonistic to each other [continually withstanding and in conflict with each other], so that you are not free but are prevented from doing what you desire to do.

¹⁸ But if you are guided (led) by the [Holy] Spirit, you are not subject to the Law.

¹⁹ Now the doings (practices) of the flesh are clear (obvious): they are immorality, impurity, indecency,

²⁰ Idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger (ill temper), selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party spirit (factions, sects with peculiar opinions, heresies),

²¹ Envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

²² But the fruit of the [Holy] Spirit [the work which His presence within accomplishes] is love, joy (gladness), peace, patience (an even temper, forbearance), kindness, goodness (benevolence), faithfulness,

²³ Gentleness (meekness, humility), self-control (self-restraint, continence). Against such things there is no law [^[f]that can bring a charge].

²⁴ And those who belong to Christ Jesus (the Messiah) have crucified the flesh (the godless human nature) with its passions and appetites and desires.

²⁵ If we live by the [Holy] Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. [if by the Holy Spirit ^[g]we have our life in God, let us go forward ^[h]walking in line, our conduct controlled by the Spirit.]

²⁶ Let us not become vainglorious and self-conceited, competitive and challenging and provoking and irritating to one another, envying and being jealous of one another.

[a-seeker]

 

I’m dealing with your unsubstantiated claims.

 

1. Your position could potentially cause people to doubt the parts of the Bible that would lead them to heaven, so you are being a little short sighted.   The whole point behind challenging the Bible's authority in Genesis is to avoid accountability before a holy God.

 

2, Spurgeon's capitulation to Old Earthsim isn't the result of knowing the biblical languages or evangelicalism.  It is the result of compromise.  Everyone drops the ball somewhere.   The same holds for Spurgeon.   If you want to put your faith in a man's intellect, that's up to you;  as a Christian, I put my faith in the Word of God.

 

You haven’t shown as yet any evidence to support these claims.  As a Christian, I place my faith in Jesus my Lord Redeemer btw

 

 

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.

 

 

The Bible describes God’s relationship with humans and His plans for us. It doesn’t make any claims of the method or that it was instigated 6-10,000 years ago. Your claim that it insists upon 6-10,000 years is false.

 

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. 

 

 

We have seen that Mr Spurgeon used Genesis 1:2 in his sermon including Creation. How do you know he didn’t form his argument from this ?

 

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.

 

 

You are claiming he ignorantly capitulated to science because you suggest he didn’t give due diligence to Bible exegesis.

 

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.

 

 

I suggest sermons don’t always include exegesis and that Mr Spurgeon indeed will have given due diligence in this to form his view evidenced by his record.

 

My support for  him rests upon the knowledge that he was a great Bible scholar and knew all the Bible languages which indicates he didn’t ignorantly capitulate to science. You’re underselling Mr Spurgeon’s due diligence with no evidence.

 

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.

 

 

Galileo was gagged by the Church and it used the Bible incorrectly as evidence. The same as you’re now doing.

 

How am I using the Bible incorrectly to support an YEC view?

 

 

You haven’t provided any evidence that Mr Spurgeon or Mr Graham simply capitulated to science.

 

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.

 

 

He did preach it though didn’t he.

 

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.

 

 

 

Are you claiming they haven’t made an exegetical argument ?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

This is the unproven accusation you have made so at this point I must assume they haven’t because you say so ?

 

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 suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise instead of tearing them down simply to support your claims.

 

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

[Spock]

Hey Shiloh,

You told shar she is batting zero with you. I'm just curious, what am I batting? ( I hope I'm at least batting my weight.)

Lookingforanswers,

Thanks for posting that website by Christians who also believe in OE and supported their belief through the scriptures (something we are accused by some of not doing).

Lastly, to all,

You need to know this about me, the bible says we are Ambassadors for Christ. I take that calling very seriously. There are two big concerns always before me:

1. They will know me (Jesus) by your love for one another. Therefore, I believe strongly that being gracious and respectful is better than doing whatever to win an argument.

2. Go into the world and make disciples for me. I am very passionate about being used by God to win the lost and the seekers. Therefore, I believe I cannot discard the science that is out there that affects my testimony and witness for Jesus and the bible. If the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of OE, I will consider that to help me judge controversial topics like this.

Therefore, if someone really now wants to convince me that the earth is about 6000 years old, you can't do it with the Hebrew word yom. You will have to convince me through good solid science, because I'm already satisfied that the bible infers an old earth. (I know Shiloh will refute this and say no it doesn't, but my research I trust, and that's what matters to me.)

Spock out

[Guest shiloh357]

Hey Shiloh,

You told shar she is batting zero with you. I'm just curious, what am I batting? ( I hope I'm at least batting my weight.)

 

No, I idnd't say that.  I said she was batting zero in her use of the Hebrew.   I suggest that you learn how frame my responses correctly and not misrepresent what I said.  I have no problem answering questions about what I actually said, but quote me correctly and in the context of what I meant. 

 

Think you can manage that??

[Guest shiloh357]

I don’t care for your allowance of my faith. It’s obvious you think you have some kind of authority to grant or deny a person’s position in Christ by your veiled insults.

You are questioning the integrity of Bible scholars correct ?

I said what I said because I got the impression that you thought I was diminishing your faith in Jesus as your Savior and I wanted to make clear that such wasn’t my motive.  I am not questioning anyone’s faith in Jesus on this thread.

I disagree.  Unbelievers deny God  and this is why they resist the Gospel message and argue against the creation model.  Evolution and any other side bar is simply an argument they use to give credence to their already held status. By making OEC a pinnacle issue you’re giving credibility to their argument and allowing them to stand upon their beliefs in rejection of YEC. Your side bar is potentially a hindrance to the unbeliever recognising their sin condition.

I haven’t made it a pinnacle issue.   I simply recognize the potential that exists for unbelievers to use cetain things like OEC as a crutch for their unbelief, just like they do with theistic evolution.   Now that they have some professing Christians on their side with regard to Evolution,  it potentially serves an an enabler for them to remain as unbelievers.  

I understand that ultimately it is the hardness of their own hearts that prevents them from receiving the gospel, but sometimes, we as Christans inadvertently enable unbelief.   And it is not just in this issue, either.  When it comes to different types of unbelievers sometimes we as Christians hold to positions that make it easier for unbelivers to remain unchanged because they find well-meaning Christians

The Bible makes no claims as to the Earth age.

I never said it did.   The point I was making is that Old earthism didn’t originate from a thoughtful study of the Scriptures.  It originated in an era when faith in God was being shipwrecked by intellectuals who decided they would edit out the parts of the Bible that they felt were not compatible with “reason.”

I’m suggesting there is no definitive Earth age information in the Bible and, as Mr Spurgeon and Mr Graham suggest, there is scope for a much older Earth than 10.000 years. I haven’t presented any age argument from the Bible and if you want to hold YEC that’s fine but don’t claim it’s insisted upon in the Bible because it isn’t.

But that speaks to my point.   I believe the evidence from the Bible supports a young earth and am told that the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth, but then OEC is defended biblically as if the Bible actually does support an old earth.   Old earthers can’t have it both ways.   They cannot offer rebuttal to my position on the grounds that there is nothing in the Bible about the age of the earth, but then argue that the biblical evidence supports an old earth.

Ok this is interesting. So you are saying you may be wrong about the Earth being older than 10,000 years ?

No, I am correcting the way you framed what I said.  You tend to have this habit of exaggerating my comments so that you have something to knock down.   You color my statements to be more than what I intended.  

My point is that I am arguing for a young earth.  I am not claming that the Bible insists on 6,000-10,000 years.   There is a difference.   I have never made a claim about what the Bible insists in this area.  You overstated my position.  Something you are very prone to do.

Sermons don’t often contain the pastors exegesis of scripture you know that. Mr Spurgeon’s exegesis would be why he preached upon OEC and you have no idea what that his exegesis was

Actually, they do often contain exegetical comments.  Pastors often preach and inform their congregations of cultural nuances, historical contexts of certain passages as well as taking the time to mention a Greek or Hebrew word from time to time in order to help out the message they are preaching.   

You didn’t use “ignorantly” but that is the crux of your claim. You suggest a brilliant Bible scholar who was a pillar of Christianity simply folded to science without giving due diligence to exegesis. You’re doing what you usually do unfortunately and insult the Brethren in order to remove credibility from their position and bolster your argument.

 

No, you assigned the word, “ignorantly” to me so that you could paint my response  in a way that made it easier to attack me.    He was not a scholar in the conventional sense of the term.  He had no formal education, no university degree.  He was well read in some areas, but he was not educated in the biblical language to any appreciable degree.  

 

I am not taking anything away from Spurgeon.  I am not saying anything about him that is any different than what you will find on Christian websites that contain his biography.   The problem here is that you didn’t know anything about Spurgeon and made some assumptions about his level of education that simply were not true.  You made some claims that anyone can go online to any website that contains his bio and see are not true.   Again, you over-sold.

 

 

Again you seem to like belittling Mr Spurgeon for some reason.  Are you suggesting his lack of formal education hindered his intelligence or Bible knowledge? I know you like to spruik about your own education and now it seems you look down upon Mr Spurgeon because he didn’t do seminary ?  Interesting. I’d like to see if you have anything good to say about this man.

Mr Spurgeon was quite an enigma and it seems to escape your educated mind that God equipped him for ministry.

You have been insistent upon the fact that Spurgeon was highly educcated and knew all of the biblical languages and so forth.  Those wer claims YOU made about him.   I am not belittling him at all.  I am pointing to the lack of factuality of your claims about Spurgeon.  

He was not seminary trained.  He didn’t have an education in the biblical languages.   He is not a source for knowing Heberw, Aramaic or Greek.   Even in his sermons we see that he is homilettical and inspirational, but he is not what they call a “critical” scholar.  He didn’t spend time in the area of textual criticism in the preparation of his sermons. 

Your entire argument in this section seems to be that if I don’t accept your claim that Spurgeon was an elite scholar and an expert in biblical languages that I am somehow belittling him and that is simply not the case.   Spurgeon is not above scrutiny and I don’t agree with him on some core theological precepts as he is calvinist and I am not.   I can find much in what he says that I don’t think is right.   That isn’t belittling.  It is simply being honest.  Spurgeon is just a man and is just as fallible I am. 

Oh dear are you really this vain? Mr Spurgeon was a highly knowledgeable and intelligent man.

Yes he was…  But he was not educuated in the way you kept trying to claim.  I think you need to admit that you were wrong when you claimed he was educated in all of the biblical languages.   You over stated the level of his education.  I am not denying he was intelligent.  I am denying your claims regarding his level of education and I have already provided a bio  of him that proves my assertion.

The bible makes no Earth age claims and yet you insist it does in the same way the Church insisted upon gocentricity using scripture.

Again, never that made that claim.  You are overstating and exaggerating what I said.

Yeah when you make an accusation you really need to provide evidence. Your accusation was the he didn’t exegete OEC from the Bible and you haven’t shown that at all. What you have done is speculate and run with it.

  

Again, there is no evidence from the quote you provided that any exegesis from Heberw or Aramaic was involved in his statement about Gen. 1:2.  He simply said it happened millions of years ago.   He was reflecting his studies in natural history, not theology when he said that.   I have nothing else to go on other than the quote you provided.  It doesn’t reflect any kind of exegesis out of Heberw or Aramaic at all.

 

How long must a preacher speak upon a subject for it to be deemed preaching in your mind ? Seriously do you expect to control every nuance so that your argument can be substantiated?

In normal parlance when we talk about what a man “preaches”  we are talking about core content of the theology he professes from he pulpit.    Kenneth Copeland “preaches” the Health and Wealth “gospel.”  That is the core content of his theology.   Billy Graham preaches the plan of salvation.  That is the core content of his theology in the messages he preaches.

But if a preacher happens to mention in passing while preaching out of the book of Exodus that he holds to the earlier date for the Eodus from Egypt, it can’t be said that he “preaches” the earlier date.   He may believe it, but it is not part of the core content of his theology.  It is a peripheral view that he personally believes, but not what he “preaches.”  

I think it is easy to see the difference in what a person “preaches” and something they hold to as a personal point of view.

Simply because you haven’t seen their exegesis doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. How do you know they didn’t do the things you suggest ?

If the Bible doesn’t say aything about the age of the earth as you claim, how could the exegete the OEC view in the first place?   How can they exegete from the Scripture what you claim the Scripture doesn’t speak to?    Again, you can’t have this both ways.  

What I see here is a dboublestandard being presented that YEC is wrong, in part,  because the Bible doesn’t say  anything about the age of the earth, but OEC is biblically correct because there is biblical evidence for an old earth.   

Yeah you do need to give them the benefit of the doubt when making accusations.

I don’t have to give them the benefit of the doubt because as  I said, there is no doubt that they were not making exegetical statements about the Scriptures.

[Shar]

I see Spock has posted the website I was going to reference regarding a Hebrew understanding of an old Earth as part of my promised response to Shiloh for the Biblical and scientific support to an OE .  It is on the thread that Shiloh started regarding "A Hebrew Scholar affirms YEC".  Shiloh should enjoy reading this because the Hebrew physicist from MIT, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, approaches the age of the Earth from a true Torah perspective and references a number of Hebrew words and phrases to support the OE position.  This is very interesting reading and shows how science and the Bible can agree.  You will see how the Earth can be created in the 6 day 24-hour period and still have an earth that is billions of years old.  For Shiloh, he evens shows how the Hebrew word "Olam", with the few changes I previously referenced, can be used for the word for "day" and be a longer period of time.  Dr. Schroder is brillant.  I was amazed how science actually validates the creation account, when viewed from a Jewish, Torah perspective.

[enoob57]

I see Spock has posted the website I was going to reference regarding a Hebrew understanding of an old Earth as part of my promised response to Shiloh for the Biblical and scientific support to an OE .  It is on the thread that Shiloh started regarding "A Hebrew Scholar affirms YEC".  Shiloh should enjoy reading this because the Hebrew physicist from MIT, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, approaches the age of the Earth from a true Torah perspective and references a number of Hebrew words and phrases to support the OE position.  This is very interesting reading and shows how science and the Bible can agree.  You will see how the Earth can be created in the 6 day 24-hour period and still have an earth that is billions of years old.  For Shiloh, he evens shows how the Hebrew word "Olam", with the few changes I previously referenced, can be used for the word for "day" and be a longer period of time.  Dr. Schroder is brillant.  I was amazed how science actually validates the creation account, when viewed from a Jewish, Torah perspective.

Yes I agree seeing how it was from that same perspective that they crucified the Lord...

[Spock]

I see Spock has posted the website I was going to reference regarding a Hebrew understanding of an old Earth as part of my promised response to Shiloh for the Biblical and scientific support to an OE .  It is on the thread that Shiloh started regarding "A Hebrew Scholar affirms YEC".  Shiloh should enjoy reading this because the Hebrew physicist from MIT, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, approaches the age of the Earth from a true Torah perspective and references a number of Hebrew words and phrases to support the OE position.  This is very interesting reading and shows how science and the Bible can agree.  You will see how the Earth can be created in the 6 day 24-hour period and still have an earth that is billions of years old.  For Shiloh, he evens shows how the Hebrew word "Olam", with the few changes I previously referenced, can be used for the word for "day" and be a longer period of time.  Dr. Schroder is brillant.  I was amazed how science actually validates the creation account, when viewed from a Jewish, Torah perspective.

Yes I agree seeing how it was from that same perspective that they crucified the Lord...

What? Care to elaborate on this comment?