Jump to content
IGNORED

A Soul’s Salvation Could Hinge On the Earth’s Age


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

shiloh357, on 21 Jan 2014 - 6:25 PM, said:snapback.png

 

alphaparticle, on 21 Jan 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:snapback.png

 

Thanks for clearing up this distinction.

 

I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation.

I am not oversating it all.   The Bible makes the direct connection.  I am simply reflecting how the Bible connects the fall and salvation and the fact is that the claims of Evolution fly directly in the face of what the Bible says.  You are simply not theologically equipped or you are simply unwilling to see the connection.

 

Constantly impugning  my motives or accusing me of ignorance doesn't really further the discussion. You've said this before.

 

Well your comments do stem from either a lack of theolgoical knowledge or an unwilingness to be to honest about what the Bible says.  Those are really the options we are faced with.   The Bible makes the connection that you either can't see or don't want to see.  

1. separation from God

2. why? again, it's a fact we observe, we are clearly separated from God and all of us have sin

3. insofar as Adam stands for, as a literal person or  not, the fall of humanity, yes I can. (and I am not committing myself to the notion there is no historical Adam here, by the way).

4. What? it's clear we are sinners separated from God, whatever else you want to argue. That this is so is one of the empirically verifiable aspects of Christianity.

 

1.   That tells us what sin IS.   It doesn't tell us about the origin of sin.  You cannot explain the origin of sin is, apart from the Bible's explanation.

2.  But you cannot explain WHY man is a sinner.   Simply saying we observe it doesn't answer the question of why.   Why is man sinner?  Why is man separated from God and when or where did that separation  occur?  

 

3. But why is Jesus the Last Adam??  What is the connection the NT makes with Adam that makes Jesus the last Adam?

4. But if you can't explain the origin of sin, you can't explain why man is separated from God, and if you can't even define sin apart from Genesis, then you can't explain why the death of Jesus on the cross makes sense.  

 

You claim that we don't need Genesis to understand sin and man's need for a Savior, but that doesn't agree with the Bible and how it makes constant references to Genesis, Adam and Eve and the fall of man and the resultant condition of man and the world in connection with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.   If the Biblical writers thought Genesis was important enough to make that connection and to make that part of preaching the Gospel, who are you to claim otherwise?

 

Alright sure. But there are religionists the other way aren't there? those who claim to believe the Bible in every matter but turn the gospel into heavy handed legalism, as an example. That people can abuse positions doesn't make the positions themselves intrinsically bad.

 

I am not talking about people who abuse positions.  I never mentioned that at all.  What I said is that I have discovered  support for evolution tends to be accompanied by other views that support other positions that violate the Bible as well.  Most "believers"  who support evolution tend to be very accepting of abortion, gay marriage, and other lifestyle choices that violate biblical standards of morality. 

 

Evolution doesn't really help matters when it comes to the sanctity of life because in Evolution human beings have no inherent purpose or reason to exist.  The are nothing but higher primates.  And if the Bible can't be trusted to tell us the true origin of sin, how can it be trusted to actually define sin?   From that vantage point, the Bible has no authority to tell us what is or is not immoral.  So it is not surprising that so many who embrace evolution also tend to embrace sinful lifestyle choices as if there is nothing wrong with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  1,294
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  31,762
  • Content Per Day:  5.26
  • Reputation:   9,760
  • Days Won:  115
  • Joined:  09/14/2007
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

But the question I have is that if you can't trust the Bible in how it all started, can you trust the Bible as to who Jesus is??

 

I agree that a person can be saved without ever even reading Genesis.....  or the Bible for that matter.....   but if they do read it and  can't agree with any of it, will they accept any of the rest of it....    If they are educated in our schools today and I tell them of the first six chapters of Genesis, will they listen to me as I tell them of the rest of the story.

 

 

I personally know people who have said no.   All those that I personally know are heavy evolutionists and it is largely because of that that they will not Accept the Bible as something to trust.  So unless you want to take the Calvinist approach that it just wasn't Gods will that those people be saved then I would have to say that from personal experienced that not trusting the first six chapters of Genesis can cause a person to reject Jesus as who he is, and that could cost a person their soul.

Did you understand all you read in scripture before salvation? I didn't. It took the Holy Spirit to teach me, be it through His word only or through another, but it took Him and we cannot receive Him until we accept Christ. There are also others who accept creation but reject Jesus as the Son of God. Having head knowledge does not save, only He saves.

 

I think you are confusing issues, here.  The point of the OP is not about what it takes to get saved.  It is about the fact that if you are educated to believe that the first half of Genesis isn't true, a precedent has been set to distrust the rest of the Bible.   One of our own members  was raised in church but now questions her faith due to what she learned in school from those who taught her not trust the Bible.  Her journey down that road began with university science professors that taught her that the Bible says can't be trusted.

 

Thanks Shiloh. You are correct. I was speaking to the title, which is confusing if the subject matter does not match. I agree that there are far too many people falling short of the truth by trusting science above scripture, or not accepting scripture by faith alone when something else questions scripture. I see a lot of this on the boards, yet I have been told that we are to allow these discussions to continue in hopes of those who do not believe see the faith through us. I imagine some do, but I also realize some don't and wold reject any inkling of faith if they saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,363
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   403
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  08/01/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

shiloh357, on 21 Jan 2014 - 6:25 PM, said:snapback.png

 

alphaparticle, on 21 Jan 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:snapback.png

 

Thanks for clearing up this distinction.

 

I think you overestimate the linkage conceptually between evolution, the fall, and the need for salvation.

I am not oversating it all.   The Bible makes the direct connection.  I am simply reflecting how the Bible connects the fall and salvation and the fact is that the claims of Evolution fly directly in the face of what the Bible says.  You are simply not theologically equipped or you are simply unwilling to see the connection.

 

Constantly impugning  my motives or accusing me of ignorance doesn't really further the discussion. You've said this before.

 

Well your comments do stem from either a lack of theolgoical knowledge or an unwilingness to be to honest about what the Bible says.  Those are really the options we are faced with.   The Bible makes the connection that you either can't see or don't want to see.  

Alright, suppose that is true. Why restate this more than once? or at all really. It doesn't seem like a discussion point exactly as it could only really provoke me.

 

 

 

1. separation from God

2. why? again, it's a fact we observe, we are clearly separated from God and all of us have sin

3. insofar as Adam stands for, as a literal person or  not, the fall of humanity, yes I can. (and I am not committing myself to the notion there is no historical Adam here, by the way).

4. What? it's clear we are sinners separated from God, whatever else you want to argue. That this is so is one of the empirically verifiable aspects of Christianity.

 

1.   That tells us what sin IS.   It doesn't tell us about the origin of sin.  You cannot explain the origin of sin is, apart from the Bible's explanation.

2.  But you cannot explain WHY man is a sinner.   Simply saying we observe it doesn't answer the question of why.   Why is man sinner?  Why is man separated from God and when or where did that separation  occur?  

 

3. But why is Jesus the Last Adam??  What is the connection the NT makes with Adam that makes Jesus the last Adam?

4. But if you can't explain the origin of sin, you can't explain why man is separated from God, and if you can't even define sin apart from Genesis, then you can't explain why the death of Jesus on the cross makes sense.  

 

You claim that we don't need Genesis to understand sin and man's need for a Savior, but that doesn't agree with the Bible and how it makes constant references to Genesis, Adam and Eve and the fall of man and the resultant condition of man and the world in connection with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.   If the Biblical writers thought Genesis was important enough to make that connection and to make that part of preaching the Gospel, who are you to claim otherwise?

Alright, suppose I wake up and find myself in a deep pit. I'm fuzzy on the details about how I got in there, but I do know I'm stuck in the pit and I need help out. Me knowing precisely how I got there doesn't change either my need for help or my knowledge of needing help. That's the rather essential bit here isn't it? That the pit exists, that we are stuck in it, and cannot get out by ourselves?

 

 

Alright sure. But there are religionists the other way aren't there? those who claim to believe the Bible in every matter but turn the gospel into heavy handed legalism, as an example. That people can abuse positions doesn't make the positions themselves intrinsically bad.

 

I am not talking about people who abuse positions.  I never mentioned that at all.  What I said is that I have discovered  support for evolution tends to be accompanied by other views that support other positions that violate the Bible as well.  Most "believers"  who support evolution tend to be very accepting of abortion, gay marriage, and other lifestyle choices that violate biblical standards of morality. 

 

Evolution doesn't really help matters when it comes to the sanctity of life because in Evolution human beings have no inherent purpose or reason to exist.  The are nothing but higher primates.  And if the Bible can't be trusted to tell us the true origin of sin, how can it be trusted to actually define sin?   From that vantage point, the Bible has no authority to tell us what is or is not immoral.  So it is not surprising that so many who embrace evolution also tend to embrace sinful lifestyle choices as if there is nothing wrong with them.

We've run up against this wall before and I think we have a semantic difference. I am not arguing for unguided evolution and have not in our discussions. I have regularly argued for divinely guided evolutionary processes. Furthermore, evolution being an explanation for our *physical bodies* doesn't negate our having a soul. That you think evolution in any form negates that is just not the case.

 

There's  nothing about evolution per se that necessitates that people deny that we are sinful, or ought  not to sin. Honestly I don't even see the connection in my own  mind at all. I don't find this compelling. If God exists (as I think He does), that God intended to create us (as I think He did), and gave us a soul (as I think He did), along with commandments as to how to live, they are just as binding on me with evolution as without evolution. All of these connections you are making are completely unnecessary.

 

Let me as you (and the others) this. Suppose someone came to you, said he was contemplating the gospel and becoming a Christian, but  just couldn't get his mind around YEC and couldn't accept it. Would you say "well that's too bad, you can't be a believer unless you embrace YEC"? Or would you suggest that if he believes that God exists, that he is sinful in need of a savior, and that he believes Jesus died and was resurrected for his sins he ought to act on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So What If Every Seventh Day

 

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

 

Is A Real Celebration Of The First Six Days

 

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 What Possible Difference Could A Day Make Anyway

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

~

 

A Soul’s Salvation Could Hinge On the Earth’s Age

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3792

 

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.
 

....While Cotner is wrong that the false concept of evolution is the unifying principle of biology, she is exactly right about one thing: if students can be taught that the Earth is billions of years old, then they will more readily adopt evolution. At Apologetics Press, we have known this fact for years. The age of the Earth is the “gateway” concept that makes evolution palatable. The mental process at work in a person who compromises the biblical idea of a young Earth is the same process that must be in place to accept the erroneous concept of human evolution. Cotner’s research verifies the fact that the Earth’s age is not a peripheral issue that can be left untaught. Instead, the Earth’s age could literally be the point at which the battle to win the hearts and minds of our young people to the truth about Creation is won or lost. In a very real sense, what a person believes about the Earth’s age has the potential to greatly impact his or her eternal destiny. Cotner and her fellow evolutionists know the importance of the battle over the Earth’s age. That is why they are urging their fellow evolutionists to recognize it, and use the alleged billions of years to “improve education about evolution.”

 

Cotner’s enthusiastic rally around the age of the Earth should be a wake up call to Christians as well. If evolutionists understand the importance of teaching about the Earth’s age, creationists should recognize the battlefront and be willing to stand for the truth. It may well be the case that if you can keep one young person from believing in an old Earth, that young person will be insulated against other erroneous concept’s such as human evolution, and equipped to defend the basic truths of Christianity—that there is a God, the Bible is His inspired Word, and Jesus Christ is His son.

 

~

 

Simply

 

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10

 

Jesus Is LORD

 

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 4:11

 

And The Battle For

 

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

 

The Minds Of The Young Continues

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:116

 

Richard Dawkins is known for his firm stance against debating biblical creationists. His pride is evident in the things he says about those who disagree with him. For Dawkins, evolution in a godless world is the only option. And while Dawkins astutely says that those Christians who believe they can reconcile evolutionary ideas with Scripture are “deluded,” he doesn’t want to be challenged about the assumptions that underlie evolutionary ideas. As an atheist who ultimately hates God, Dawkins can’t even allow the possibility that he might be wrong. Instead, he comes up will all sorts of poor excuses to protect his worldview as his atheism is challenged by biblical creationists.

 

In a 2012 interview with CNN, Dawkins stated plainly that belief in a young earth “shows deep, profound ignorance” and that “there’s only one theory around, there’s only one game in town as far as serious scientists are concerned.” By that, he means evolution. He sums up his point by arrogantly asking, “Who cares about creationists? They don’t know anything. "Dawkins also resorted to name-calling and outrageously blasphemous statements in his attempt to shock and intimidate people to accept his anti-God stance.

 

In more recent comments, Dawkins explained that he believes debating a creationist gives biblical creationism credibility, which his aggressive atheism can’t tolerate: The truth is, biblical creation does not derive its credibility from conducting debates. No, people are capable of examining evolutionary assumptions and looking at how the evidence supports the Bible’s clear teaching regarding origins.

 

Dawkins acts as someone who is part of an intellectual elite and treats the general public with disdain. The February 4 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, at its heart, is an opportunity for Ken to influence people for the gospel and to equip believers with solid creation apologetics—while at the same time exposing the assumptions the evolutionary ideas rest upon.

 

“They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists,”

 

Dawkins continued. “They may not win the argument—in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."

 

Unfortunately, at least in his interviews, Dawkins treats his opposition with a remarkable amount of disrespect and offers little more than blind assertions that evolution is true. Perhaps it’s better that he chooses not to debate biblical creationists as he has nothing concrete to offer, except his typical anti-creationist assertions seen in his books and articles. It’s like a child throwing a tantrum.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/22/atheist-tantrums-dawkins-debate

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Many people look up to Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of our time.  What was his position on creation science?  Here's a quote:

 

"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."1

 

He had it right...the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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

 

http://www.oldearth.org/billy_graham.htm#sthash.KMnQpqpW.dpuf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Many Respected Christian Leaders are Open to an Old-Earth Perspective


Does the method of creation matter? — no, says Billy Graham.  (1 k)  


• But when a Christian who thinks "believing the Bible requires belief in a young earth" examines the scientific evidence (as in AGE OF THE EARTH: SCIENCE) and concludes "the earth is old" and then "if the Bible is wrong about the earth's age, maybe it's also wrong about the rest," faith can be weakened or abandoned, as described in Personal Experiences of Former Young-Earth Creationists (17 k) which contains quotations from (and links to) their web-pages.


Why can young-earth rigidity be harmful to Christian faith? by Greg Neyman (6 k), who says you can be a Christian and believe in an old earth (13 k) and explains (6 k) how to become a Christian.  In his pages about relationships and arguments he has a good attitude toward young-earth creationists, and he is trying to improve relationships between devout, theologically conservative Christians who differ mainly in their conclusions about age of the earth.  (6 k and 3 k)


The Creation Date Controversy by Hugh Ross, who suggests that we "distinguish between the essential belief in creation, more specifically in Jesus Christ as the personal, transcendent Creator, and the nonessential belief in a particular view of when creation took place and over what time span. The issue of when God created must never again be used as a yardstick to measure a person's sincerity of faith or spiritual maturity."  (19 k)  {this page is on the website of Leadership University, which is a branch of Campus Crusade for Christ}


Biblical Theology for "young earth" Christians by Craig Rusbult, encourages respect (for other Christians) and faith (in God and the Bible) because "the full gospel of Jesus... is fully compatible with a young earth or old earth."  (27 k + 15k)

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agetheology2.htm#linking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Alright, suppose that is true. Why restate this more than once? or at all really. It doesn't seem like a discussion point exactly as it could only really provoke me.

 

My point is that if your view stems from a lack of theological knowledge, it would explain why you are unable to see why you are unable to see the theological problems in your cliams.   Instead of relying on what your imagination says is possible, look at what the Bible actually says, and work from that point.  

 

Alright, suppose I wake up and find myself in a deep pit. I'm fuzzy on the details about how I got in there, but I do know I'm stuck in the pit and I need help out. Me knowing precisely how I got there doesn't change either my need for help or my knowledge of needing help. That's the rather essential bit here isn't it? That the pit exists, that we are stuck in it, and cannot get out by ourselves?

But that is not the situation we are in.   We are not fuzzy about the details at all.  God has gone to great lengths to tell us exactly why we are sinners, how we got in that condition, what sin is and what the remedy for sin is.   So your analogy doesn't really apply here.    The only "fuzziness" you might have about sin is deliberately self-inflicted. 

 

We've run up against this wall before and I think we have a semantic difference. I am not arguing for unguided evolution and have not in our discussions. I have regularly argued for divinely guided evolutionary processes. Furthermore, evolution being an explanation for our *physical bodies* doesn't negate our having a soul. That you think evolution in any form negates that is just not the case.

 

I understand that, but you don't get to define evolution to fit what you are willing to accept.  Evolution cannot be arbitrarily assigned whatever values we want it to have anymore than we can do that with the Bible.   Evolution is a "theory" that rests upon the view that requires NO intelligent causality.   That is why it is so valuable to atheists and why any intellgent cauality or intelligent design to the unvierse is so hotly contested and rejected by mainstream evolution proponents.   Why do you think Evolution is viewed by so many as the #1 alternative to the Genesis narrative?   It removes the "unscientific" assumption that God or a "god" created the unvierse.   Evolution is unplanned and unguided and most of all it is impersonal.    You cannot have either the Bible or Evolution on your terms. 

 

There's  nothing about evolution per se that necessitates that people deny that we are sinful, or ought  not to sin. Honestly I don't even see the connection in my own  mind at all.

 

In Evolution man is not special.  Man is not created in the image of God from an evolutionary mindset because man is actually nothing but a higher primate that evolved from ape like ancestors that we share with modern chimps/apes.   If that is the case, then there was no fall of man.  The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were created separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.   Man was a special creation directlly from the dirt and we were created in God's image.  The Bible teaches that all of mankind stems from a single couple which flies in the face of the claims made by Evolutionists that man evolved from some unknown creature.  

 

"Sin" is a theological term, not a scientific term and you can't see sin under a microscope, but if man is really just an evolutionary creature, then sin has no meaning from that vantage point. 

 

I don't find this compelling. If God exists (as I think He does), that God intended to create us (as I think He did), and gave us a soul (as I think He did), along with commandments as to how to live, they are just as binding on me with evolution as without evolution.

 

Not to a mainstream evolutionist though.  Again, you are trying run with what you can imagine as possibe and not with how things really are.  You are operating from a customized version of the Evolutionary theory that you apparently think you can edit and tweek on the fly.     If man is just the product of evolution, then the entire biblical platform for the origin of sin collapses.  The entirety of biblical authority is meaningless and irrelevant because the story of Adam would never have happened.   The Bible's ability to define sin is also irrelevant  because it would simply have been written by men whose ideas of right and wrong would carry no more weight than anyone else's.

 

 

All of these connections you are making are completely unnecessary.

 

No, they are absolutely necessary because they are the Bible's connections not mine.  The Bible connects the Gospel to origins.  The problem is that you have never taken the Bible seriously on this matter.   The Bible is expendable when it comes to origins and you have developed a cut and paste theology where you can just reject whatever parts of the Bible don't fit the scientific framework you want to believe in. 

 

Let me as you (and the others) this. Suppose someone came to you, said he was contemplating the gospel and becoming a Christian, but  just couldn't get his mind around YEC and couldn't accept it. Would you say "well that's too bad, you can't be a believer unless you embrace YEC"? Or would you suggest that if he believes that God exists, that he is sinful in need of a savior, and that he believes Jesus died and was resurrected for his sins he ought to act on that?

 

I have led people  to the Lord who didn't believe that sex before marriage was a sin. I have led people to the Lord who held to all kinds of erroneous nonsense.   We don't have to change to come to the Lord.  We come to Him just as we are, but He doesn't leave us just as we were.  I never said that belief in YEC is necessary for salvation, no matter how bad you would LOVE to be able to pin that on me and apparently are trying to do so now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

I don't believe . . . I am not the only person up and awake at this insane hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

Many people look up to Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of our time.  What was his position on creation science?  Here's a quote:

 

"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."1

 

He had it right...the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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

 

http://www.oldearth.org/billy_graham.htm#sthash.KMnQpqpW.dpuf

 

 

But Creationism DOES put the focus on Jesus.   In Creationism we are attempt to fortify the biblical link that exists between the Gospel and Genesis.  The Bible in numerous places upholds the literal biblical narrative of a six day creation and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

 

Billy Graham is very diplomatic but sometimes, that can lead to error.  It does matter if we hold to the biblical narrative or not.  He is saying that it doesn't matter if it was evolution or not.   Is that the view you hold to, as well?  

 

If the Bible is not a book of science, why do so many try so hard to make it fit the scientific old earth narrative???   If it REALLY doesn't matter then why try so hard to prove that the Bible's narrative isn't reliable and why try to make the Bible fit within a scientific framework??

 

Anyone can find theologians that hold to views we ascribe to.  But that isn't really the best litmus test for truth.  The Bible cares deeply about the events of Genesis 1-11 and there are so many Scriptures that uphold the reliability and historicity of this section of the Bible, that it really just doesn't matter what theologians say.

 

I find i midly amusing that theologians in any other context are considered irrelevant, out of touch, unrelatable and don't really care about people and are seen as dry and boring until we need them to support a particular point of view, then suddenly they become useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

But Creationism DOES put the focus on Jesus.

I have to disagree. The only focus I am seeing is "6 24-hour time frames or the highway."

More so, the Gospel I am hearing is a Gospel of legalism.

 

In Creationism we are attempt to fortify the biblical link that exists between the Gospel and Genesis.

The only study or interpretation of Genesis 1 I read that actually linked the Gospel and Genesis 1 was your study on

No one has to believe any particular time frames to believe what the Bible says in that light.

 

The Bible in numerous places upholds the literal biblical narrative of a six day creation and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Firstly, I have to ask why the addition of the "historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis" was brought into this response?

Secondly, if Matthew's skipping of generations in his genealogy and claiming "14 generations" can be considered Bibilically sound, why cannot some slack in the interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 be likewise be considered Biblically sound?

 

Billy Graham is very diplomatic but sometimes, that can lead to error.  It does matter if we hold to the biblical narrative or not.  He is saying that it doesn't matter if it was evolution or not.   Is that the view you hold to, as well?

I do hope you understand that the debate over the age of the earth and the debate over evolution are not the same debate? Nevertheless, I personally do not believe in evolution as far as an "ancestor" giving rise to different Orders or different Families. But what if I encounter someone who believes in evolution and can't reconcile the science and faith?

I would like to tell him that Genesis 1 only gives us the faintest of details on how God made us and this place we live on. The rest is shrouded in mystery. All that matters is that you believe that God did create it and us, and that you understand that in the account we are shown how God took what was chaotic and void and turned it into something new and beautiful - and that is what He wants to do with you.

  

If the Bible is not a book of science, why do so many try so hard to make it fit the scientific old earth narrative???

It's not so much about making the Bible fit science as it is refuting the insistence that we have to interpret the 6 days of creation to be 144 hours long.

 

If it REALLY doesn't matter then why try so hard to prove that the Bible's narrative isn't reliable

This is where you are horribly, horribly wrong, Shiloh. And it breaks my heart that you would accuse me of trying to prove the Bible's narrative as unreliable. How many times do I have to tell you that re-evaluating how to interpret Genesis 1 is what saved me from the "faith vs. science" conflict? And the only reason I argue the point is because there are others who are in a similar boat. (Arguments like the one given in the OP will only lead them to further hurt, confusion, and frustration.)

 

and why try to make the Bible fit within a scientific framework??

I'm not. In fact, the only thing that makes sense to me is to remove any attempt to fit what scientists have studied of the earth's history into the Genesis 1 account because Genesis 1 was never about the scientific account, nor was it meant to be interpreted through Hellenistic scientific eyes.

 

Anyone can find theologians that hold to views we ascribe to.  But that isn't really the best litmus test for truth.

Shiloh, I posted that quote for the same reason you posted the words of someone else in the OP.

 

The Bible cares deeply about the events of Genesis 1-11 and there are so many Scriptures that uphold the reliability and historicity of this section of the Bible, that it really just doesn't matter what theologians say.

Why do you insist on bringing in Genesis 2-11 into how long it took for God to create the earth?

 

I find i midly amusing that theologians in any other context are considered irrelevant, out of touch, unrelatable and don't really care about people and are seen as dry and boring until we need them to support a particular point of view, then suddenly they become useful.

Why are you accusing me of this, Shiloh? Have I ever said anything negative like that about Billy Graham?

And really, is there something wrong with posting a quote when someone expresses a concept in a better way than you yourself could come up with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...