Enoch2021 Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hello, once again I will chime in from a different angle. I believe the "debate" between OE and YE is futile, but I will submit my reasons for a vote. No scientific or even exegetical argument attempting to validate a very old earth will win over the majority of those committed to a YE. The reason is that all attempts to reconcile scientific claims with the Bible will be seen as subordinating Scripture to Science, or man, or whatever. We have infallible Scripture forced to make concessions to fallible man. The whole project is suspect, and so every individual proposal from Gap Theories to literary analysis or history is, almost a priori, inadmissible. Perhaps if a Biblical exegesis arose before the maturity of the sciences (or their vanity, as some on this thread would say) which allowed room for a reading that was not 6 24 hour periods, there would be little problem. But because all of this comes after claims made from non-biblical quarters, they are automatically deemed "apostate". Hence the frequent pitting of Scripture vs. Science, or God's word vs. man's word. We OE plead in vain that we see it as Interpretations of Scripture made in light of scientific claims (not opposition, but cooperation)--or as I have said elsewhere (borrowing from Augustine) the exegesis of one of God's books (Scripture) read side by side with the exegesis of the other (Creation--which He did create!). It is not a debate therefore. It is a shouting match. And, from what I can see, it involves a whole lot of mud-slinging. I do not see how Christ is being glorified and the Church edified by this topic. But that is my take. clb "I will submit my reasons for a vote." TRUTH isn't "Up for a Vote" "No scientific or even exegetical argument attempting to validate a very old earth will win over the majority of those committed to a YE" Maybe try a Valid Argument that's Supported, for starters. "The reason is that all attempts to reconcile scientific claims" I think you meant to say "Claims" that scientists make....that would be more precise. "sciences (or their vanity, as some on this thread would say)" True "Science" isn't the bad guy here. We have problems with people masquerading their a priori fairytales under the guise of "Science". Savvy? But because all of this comes after claims made from non-biblical quarters, they are automatically deemed "apostate". Actually No. They are deemed Apostate because they are Extrapolations from Assumptions. "It is not a debate therefore. It is a shouting match. And, from what I can see, it involves a whole lot of mud-slinging." Well things can get heated. What "mud-slinging"? "I do not see how Christ is being glorified and the Church edified by this topic." So are you postulating...that if something is not supported by the WORD but then is propagated (on a World-Wide Scale) to undermine that WORD.... we should just let it go? Did just Jesus let the Pharisees go for "Undermining" the WORD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 OK, I am still failing to see a case for how YEC can be taught as a science? I'm failing to see why Old Earth/Universe can be taught as "Science"?? Do you believe that the existence of other planets should be taught as "science" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 Actually, OEC strengthens faith because there is more scientific evidence to support it and many Bible verses that allude to an old earth and the dateless past. It is more of a stretch to make YEC fit and as Spock said could be a stumbling block to those who are seeking, but cannot get past a mere 24 hour period being the initial creation of the earth. OEC explains it scientifically, with Bible references and does not compromise G-d as the great and wonderful creator; who has been creating from the very, very, very beginning. Before earth was formed. No, it doesn't really strengthen faith at all. In fact, faith doesn't come from science or knowledge. The Bible says that faith comes from God himself through His Word (Rom.1:16, Rom.10:17, Eph. 2:8) My faith did not come by science, it came through G-d. However, my faith IS strengthened when I see the wonders of his creation and universe...and science has had a world of responsibility of bringing it to us to see and observe. There are no Bible verses that point to an old earth existing in the dateless past. There are verses that you have penciled that meaning into that have nothing to do with the age of the earth, but there is actually treatment of that issue in Scripture. We have already addressed this and verses to say differently on the OEC- New Earth thread. YEC cannot be a stumbling block to faith because it points people toward trusting the Word of God. No one loses faith on the grounds of trusting the very Word that God says produces faith in our hearts when we believe it. So this notion that YEC causes people to stumble is a load of hogwash. It is a desperate and irrational line of reasoning. Not really, just talk to and have real relationships with intelligent non-believers and understand why it could be so. It is hard for them to get around. That is why I try to concentrate on the person of Jesus in witnessing and stay away from theses types of debates with them. Plenty of believers love the L-rd, believe in his word, and believe in the possibility of an old earth. There are many Bible verses, along with logical, deductive reasoning, and science to support it. And by the way, the Old Earth view was ORIGINALLY proposed by nonbelievers. OEC isn't rooted in the Bible. The first old earthers in history were nonChristians who didn't beleive the Bible during the "Age of Reason." It was proposed over 200 years before modern science as we know it. For Christians to desperate try to support a view first championed by nonChristians is very disappointing. There you go again, believing that only Christians have knowledge or gifts of reasoning. Actually, there were Jewish sages, of long ago, that believed not only in an old earth, but in a social system on earth before Adam. See Lucifer, the anointed guardian cherub, in the Garden of Eden as a prince and ruler. Ezekiel 28: 12-19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hello, once again I will chime in from a different angle. I believe the "debate" between OE and YE is futile, but I will submit my reasons for a vote. No scientific or even exegetical argument attempting to validate a very old earth will win over the majority of those committed to a YE. The reason is that all attempts to reconcile scientific claims with the Bible will be seen as subordinating Scripture to Science, or man, or whatever. We have infallible Scripture forced to make concessions to fallible man. The whole project is suspect, and so every individual proposal from Gap Theories to literary analysis or history is, almost a priori, inadmissible. Perhaps if a Biblical exegesis arose before the maturity of the sciences (or their vanity, as some on this thread would say) which allowed room for a reading that was not 6 24 hour periods, there would be little problem. But because all of this comes after claims made from non-biblical quarters, they are automatically deemed "apostate". Hence the frequent pitting of Scripture vs. Science, or God's word vs. man's word. We OE plead in vain that we see it as Interpretations of Scripture made in light of scientific claims (not opposition, but cooperation)--or as I have said elsewhere (borrowing from Augustine) the exegesis of one of God's books (Scripture) read side by side with the exegesis of the other (Creation--which He did create!). It is not a debate therefore. It is a shouting match. And, from what I can see, it involves a whole lot of mud-slinging. I do not see how Christ is being glorified and the Church edified by this topic. But that is my take. clb I think I will have to agree. It is amazing we discuss these topics on one thread, then turn around, create another thread, and discuss the same thing all over again. I have to echo Solomon in Ecclesiastes "Vanity, Vanity. All is Vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 My faith did not come by science, it came through G-d. However, my faith IS strengthened when I see the wonders of his creation and universe...and science has had a world of responsibility of bringing it to us to see and observe. OEC isn't science. It is an assumption that pre-dates science and it came from unbelievers, not people whose faith was strenghtened in the Lord. It was their lack of faith that served as the impetus for believing the earth is old and disbelieving the biblical account. We have already addressed this and verses to say differently on the OEC- New Earth thread. Yes, and you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Not really, just talk to and have real relationships with intelligent non-believers and understand why it could be so. It is hard for them to get around. I have talked to them and their nonacceptance of the Bible's claims doesn't occur in a vacuum. Many of these people have already been indoctrinated with an atheistic worldview in sciences classes and from other influences in their lives. At no time has anyone looked at the Bible minus any other competing influences, having no exposure to any other worldview and rejected the Bible's claims on that basis. Their rejection of the Bible's claims always comes AFTER they have been exposed to other influences and had no means of challenging those influences and most of the time, it was while they were college students or even high school students. There you go again, believing that only Christians have knowledge or gifts of reasoning. Actually, there were Jewish sages, of long ago, that believed not only in an old earth, but in a social system on earth before Adam. See Lucifer, the anointed guardian cherub, in the Garden of Eden as a prince and ruler. Ezekiel 28: 12-19. No, you missed my point, entirely. I said that OEC didn't come from Christians. It originated with unbelievers in the late 18th century during the Age of Reason. You have absolutely no proof that Ezek. 28: 12-19 is referencing the pre-adamite earth. That is an assumption and is without biblical basis. You are letting your assumption drive your interpretation and that is vey poor exegesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted February 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.24 Reputation: 9,760 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2014 Let's give this a little time for a breather. Things have gotten more personal as time goes on and replies coming quick. 24 hour breather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts