Should you leave your church?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Question for young earth creationists: Do you think you would leave your church if your church leadership would not take a stand against old earth creationism? (I do NOT mean Theistic Evolution when I say "old earth creationism"--What I mean by old earth creationism is belief that God created the heavens and the earth and that He specially created Adam and Eve--they did not evolve. And, as its name implies, that the days in Genesis were not 24 hours.)

[Socrates]

I would not stay in a church where the leadership elevates uniformitarian "science" over Scripture, as all old-earth theories MUST.

[bar Jonah]

I would, and I did. Although there were a number of other elements that led me to leaving. But this is one of them.

Agreed, Soc-meister.

[emulator]

What if I'm not sure if the earth is young, but I think so, and is there a limit to how old the young earth can be?
I wouldn't leave a church that supported oec, because I don't think it's that important.

[bar Jonah]

Right. It's not important if people want to choose to interpret the Bible as being just figurative rather than real history. Jesus lives on in our hearts and minds and in the way we live... and His sacrifice was a mythological symbol of how we should all sacrifice of ourselves for others.

:riwink:

[A Beautiful Truth]

What if I'm not sure if the earth is young, but I think so, and is there a limit to how old the young earth can be?
I wouldn't leave a church that supported oec, because I don't think it's that important.

But if it is not that important, would you leave the church if it did not take a stand against OEC?

I am not saying that it preaches OEC and bad mouths YEC, but that it does not censor OEC from being taught in fair, balanced way, along with YEC.

Like end times teachings...

[A Beautiful Truth]

Right. It's not important if people want to choose to interpret the Bible as being just figurative rather than real history. Jesus lives on in our hearts and minds and in the way we live... and His sacrifice was a mythological symbol of how we should all sacrifice of ourselves for others.

:riwink:

The old earth creationists (not evolutionists) believe Genesis actually is an account of God's creation. We actually believe God created the universe and earth and specially created the first humans, Adam and Eve. This is not metaphorical, it is historical. I also do not believe the Tree of Life was metaphorical, as many young earth creationists believe.

We have this day issue. The seventh day has clearly not ended. The seventh day sets a standard. If the seventh day is not 24 hours (and I believe I have argued for that succussfully on the "Analogous Day" thread in this same forum--if you would like to take issue with this please contribute to our discussion there, if you don't mind) then it is not without scriptural support for believing that the other days are likewise not 24 hours.

It simply does not follow that belief in long days leads to belief that Christ's sacrifice was a symbol, as you have said. You probably would not deny that it is at least reasonable to believe that God is still on His Sabbath rest/day (Hebrews 4), so you may see it is reasonable that at least one day was not nessesarily 24 hours, and yet you do not believe Christ's sacrafice was mythology. Because I believe the other six are not 24 hours, does not mean I take Christ's sacrifice as a symbol, either.

In fact, I believe that there is a double standard within YEC apologetics. Do you YEC's not study evidence that supports the resurrection? I read "The Case for Christ" and I tell, you, it is powerful how much evidence there is for the reliability of the documents, the witnesses, the historocity of Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. When you study this, and put your mind in the place of the skeptic, you see the importance of the corroborating evidence--evidence outside scripture that shows how reliable the scriptures are as historical documents. You probably would not hesitiate to use this information in your witness to skeptics about Christ and His historical resurrection.

But yet this is not so with YEC's take on Genesis. How can you witness to a skeptic who does not believe the Bible if you need to start at the Bible to arrive at the Bible? It is completely circular. Old earth creationists see and use outside evidence that support the historical record of Genesis. We can therefore arrive at the Bible. It just depends on your audience if you start or arrive at the Bible. Now Socrates will probably jump in here and say you must start with the Bible because man is too corrupt to see anything unless he is first regenerated. But again, this is a double standard, for will a YEC deny the importance of using outside evidence concerning the historical person, death, and resurrection of the Christ? Putting the N.T. up for falsifiability, leads to a greater witness and support for the N.T. Likewise, putting the creation account up for falsifiability leads to a greater witness and support for the creation account. The Genesis account is a reliable and accurate history of creation (from an old earth perspective, that is :smile:)

There is SO MUCH evidence FOR the Bible, OUTSIDE the Bible that LEADS TO the Bible--just like the evidence for the resurrection. The young earth creationists miss this witness entirely.

I say "misses" because YEC creation apologetics does not come at apologetics from the angle that having the account up for falsifyability is a strength and a powerful witness in favor of Christianity. What have we to fear? God has left mankind with evidence both in the Bible and outside the Bible. The two are going to match up because God does not lie in His witness in the word, or creation. The creation is for all to see, and receive a witness. I believe YEC's are fighting against the witness God gave in creation. As an example, is it not true that Darwinian evolution has come into question by well known atheistic scientists? And yet how many well known atheistic scientists believe the earth is young? Please let this tell you something.

We, as Christians, need to work with God. We need to bring out of our treasures both "old and new".

[Socratism]

The pastors in my church (we have had three since it was founded) all believed in an old earth.

But I stayed in the church and converted them.

Once people hear the other side from me they are convinced.

I can be very convincing one-on-one.

[rogero]

The pastors in my church (we have had three since it was founded) all believed in an old earth.

But I stayed in the church and converted them.

They must've not had much science background, especially geology...


Once people hear the other side from me they are convinced.

I can be very convincing one-on-one.

Well, you haven't been very convincing on Tweb in Natural Sciences and Biology, at least to the scientifically trained. Sounds like you think quite highly of yourself...

[Socrates]

The old earth creationists (not evolutionists) believe Genesis actually is an account of God's creation. We actually believe God created the universe and earth and specially created the first humans, Adam and Eve. This is not metaphorical, it is historical. I also do not believe the Tree of Life was metaphorical, as many young earth creationists believe.
Ipse dixit. One day Charleen might surprise us all and find out what we really believe rather than parrot what Ross claims we believed.


We have this day issue. The seventh day has clearly not ended. The seventh day sets a standard. If the seventh day is not 24 hours (and I believe I have argued for that succussfully on the "Analogous Day" thread in this same forum--if you would like to take issue with this please contribute to our discussion there, if you don't mind) then it is not without scriptural support for believing that the other days are likewise not 24 hours.
I do mind -- you brought it up here, and it's absurd nonsense from Ross that no exegete had ever heard of. So God told the Israelites to rest for a 24-hour seventh day in honor of a still continuing seventh day He ceased from His work and blessed? :dufus:


In fact, I believe that there is a double standard within YEC apologetics. Do you YEC's not study evidence that supports the resurrection? I read "The Case for Christ" and I tell, you, it is powerful how much evidence there is for the reliability of the documents, the witnesses, the historocity of Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. When you study this, and put your mind in the place of the skeptic, you see the importance of the corroborating evidence--evidence outside scripture that shows how reliable the scriptures are as historical documents. You probably would not hesitiate to use this information in your witness to skeptics about Christ and His historical resurrection.
Of course -- this is eye-witness evidence, because there is no scientific evidence for a one-off event like the Rez. So we should use the eye-witness evidence of Scripture as well. Also, YECs do not reject science, and affirm its ministerial use. Old-earthers use science magisterially.


But yet this is not so with YEC's take on Genesis. How can you witness to a skeptic who does not believe the Bible if you need to start at the Bible to arrive at the Bible? It is completely circular.
Nope, axiomatic.

[Typical misrepresentation of me snipped]


God has left mankind with evidence both in the Bible and outside the Bible. The two are going to match up because God does not lie in His witness in the word, or creation.
That's right. And since creation is cursed while the Bible is not, and the Bible is propositional revelation, we should interpret creation in the framework of Scripture. But Charleen twists Scripture to make it fit her limited understanding of "science".


The creation is for all to see, and receive a witness.
But according to Ross, all this big bang "evidence" has not been available till the last few decades, so cannot be "general revelation".


I believe YEC's are fighting against the witness God gave in creation. As an example, is it not true that Darwinian evolution has come into question by well known atheistic scientists? And yet how many well known atheistic scientists believe the earth is young? Please let this tell you something.
Why? Geological uniformitarianism was the basis of biological evolution, so is even more entrenched. And since when is truth determined by majority vote among atheists?


We, as Christians, need to work with God. We need to bring out of our treasures both "old and new".
Yes, and part of this working is to get the church back to the authority of Scripture over "science".

[bar Jonah]

On a side note, Soc, that OEC-YEC debate that we at GODISNOWHERE recently sponsored here in Denver between Ross' "Reasons to Disbelieve" on one side, and Bob Enyart and one other guy on the other side.... went extremely well! Enyart absolutely slaughtered them, singlehandedly. They provided virtually no evidence from beginning to end. They failed to address 90% of what he presented, and appeared to just assume that everyone would take their position by default, without them even having to present a case. I was amazed, to be honest. Enyart even held back, didn't go for the jugular like he usually does, and he still absolutely demolished them. Especially in the area of geology. (One of the Ross guys is a geologist, and he actually claimed in front of an audience that he was completely unaware that were there polystrata fossils!) :doh:

He had NO ANSWER for that, for the discovery of millions-years-old fossils with proteins including DNA..... for a millions-of-years strata field of jellyfish taht were fossilized all together..... for the movement of colossal sections of tectonic plates without their crumbling, etc....... and a bunch of other geological issues.

Man, I wish you could have been there. :lol: The Ross guys were embarrassingly weak and ineffectual. It was a massacre.

[Socrates]

On a side note, Soc, that OEC-YEC debate that we at GODISNOWHERE recently sponsored here in Denver between Ross' "Reasons to Disbelieve" on one side, and Bob Enyart and one other guy on the other side.... went extremely well! Enyart absolutely slaughtered them, singlehandedly. They provided virtually no evidence from beginning to end. They failed to address 90% of what he presented, and appeared to just assume that everyone would take their position by default, without them even having to present a case. I was amazed, to be honest. Enyart even held back, didn't go for the jugular like he usually does, and he still absolutely demolished them. Especially in the area of geology. (One of the Ross guys is a geologist, and he actually claimed in front of an audience that he was completely unaware that were there polystrata fossils!) :doh:

He had NO ANSWER for that, for the discovery of millions-years-old fossils with proteins including DNA..... for a millions-of-years strata field of jellyfish taht were fossilized all together..... for the movement of colossal sections of tectonic plates without their crumbling, etc....... and a bunch of other geological issues.

Man, I wish you could have been there. :lol: The Ross guys were embarrassingly weak and ineffectual. It was a massacre.

Sorry to have missed it. A bit far to travel :wink: So Ross got done even in his alleged strong suit, science? The Scriptural case would be even more of a rout against the old-earth compromise. I hope the debate will persuade more people to trust Scripture as primary authority for earth history.

[Avatar_of_evil]

Lol

[Socrates]

The pastors in my church (we have had three since it was founded) all believed in an old earth.

But I stayed in the church and converted them.

Once people hear the other side from me they are convinced.

I can be very convincing one-on-one.
Good work! :cheers:

But if the pastors remain dogged in their preference for "science" over Scripture, it's time to shake off the dust of your feet.

[A Beautiful Truth]

On a side note, Soc, that OEC-YEC debate that we at GODISNOWHERE recently sponsored here in Denver between Ross' "Reasons to Disbelieve" on one side, and Bob Enyart and one other guy on the other side.... went extremely well! Enyart absolutely slaughtered them, singlehandedly. They provided virtually no evidence from beginning to end. They failed to address 90% of what he presented...

Oh, did he try to flood the discussion with lots of topics that COULD NOT be addressed (because of lack of time)? This is a common YE tactic. The old earth guys like to focus on a few topics that can be addressed thourougly and completely. They do not "play" to the audience like the YE guys do. As a whole, old earth creationists tend to be more quiet in nature and less theatrical. If this is so, you should understand that being polite in a debate does not mean you "loose" a debate. YEC style in debates is quite typically much like defense attorneys.

There are indeed two sides to every story. I would like to hear from the RTB folks who were there.

Speaking of two sides...I've heard YE creationists say Kent Hovind did a great job on the John Ankerburg show as well.... so much for fair objectivity!

Your opinions here are just that--opinions. You are, of course, entitled, but realize that your Christian brothers are deserving of your mercy, grace, and love.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ipse dixit. One day Charleen might surprise us all and find out what we really believe rather than parrot what Ross claims we believed.

Gee, Soc, I thought we went through this. I am sorry if I got this wrong. I thought I remembered that you believed that Adam would have lived forever even without the Tree of Life. (Just as the animals would have lived forever even though they were not given the Tree of Life) My point is that man was subject to the laws of nature even before the Fall, THAT IS WHY the Tree of Life, THAT IS WHY the Garden of Eden...



I do mind -- you brought it up here, and it's absurd nonsense from Ross that no exegete had ever heard of. So God told the Israelites to rest for a 24-hour seventh day in honor of a still continuing seventh day He ceased from His work and blessed? :dufus:

Do you agree that God is still on His Sabbath rest?

Do you agree that one takes their Sabbath rest on the Sabbath day?

If God is on His Sabbath rest (from His creative work week), then He is on His Sabbath day. Sabbath rest and Sabbath day are inseperable. You cannot have a Sabbath rest without a day on which to rest. It is the seventh day, that is when Sabbath rest is taken. The Scriptures are clear God is on His Sabbath rest from His creative work week (or do you believe there have been more creative days just not recorded in scripture?) God is still working on His Sabbath, Jesus made this point--He still works in our lives on His seventh day, just as we ought to do good on our Sabbath day. Do you not see the parallel?



That's right. And since creation is cursed while the Bible is not, and the Bible is propositional revelation, we should interpret creation in the framework of Scripture.

Is this how atheistic scientists figured out Darwinian evolution has fatal flaws? Did they believe Scripture first?


But Charleen twists Scripture to make it fit her limited understanding of "science".

I, of course, deny your assessment.

BTW--did science help us understand that the sun does not "rise" and "set"--meaning go around the earth?



But according to Ross, all this big bang "evidence" has not been available till the last few decades, so cannot be "general revelation".

General revelation has ALWAYS been available. And it is good of God that as knowlege increases, His witness is ALWAYS there!



Why? Geological uniformitarianism was the basis of biological evolution, so is even more entrenched.

And even those who believe in an old earth (btw--it is uniformitarianism plus catastrophes) also believe that Darwinian evolution is false. Go figure.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Good work! :cheers:

But if the pastors remain dogged in their preference for "science" over Scripture, it's time to shake off the dust of your feet.

I can guessed which way you voted!

Just because one is an old earth creationist does NOT mean that one prefers "science" over Scritpure.

[bar Jonah]

Btw, I think it's worth noting that the title of the thread does not match the question of the poll.

Would I leave? Yes. Should you leave? That's not quite so simple.

[flipper]

One of the Ross guys is a geologist, and he actually claimed in front of an audience that he was completely unaware that were there polystrata fossils

It was a pretty interesting debate, although I missed Bob Enyart's opener which I think focused more on the YEC scientific side. Too many of the arguments revolved around the specific meaning/interpretation of Hebraic words for my taste; that was of linguistic interest only, but I could see why it is of crucial relevance to Christians and, to be fair, I wasn't the target demographic here.

I think the YECs did a better job of presenting their case than the OECs.

Two points: John Nicholl is actually a geophysicist, not a geologist. That seems like hairsplitting, but paeleontology is only peripherally relevant to geophysics (although complimentary in some industries like petroleum exploration). So although I was mildly surprised he hadn't heard of polystrates which were a part of geology 101 when I was at school, I'm not sure it's a grievous failure bearing in mind the different requirements of his specific discipline.

The second is this jellyfish story. I keep seeing this argument made by creationists (Bob Enyart made it) that geologists are baffled because the strata were seperated by "millions of years".

A cursory amount of research reveals this not to be the case. The geologist, Whitey Hagadorn, who wrote the paper that caused the media interest over the jellyfish while he was at Caltech, is indirectly quoted in a Geotimes article:


Because there is no unconformity between the layers, Hagadorn says, the stranding events could represent a period of time anywhere from one season to a hundred thousand years.

http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/NN_jellies.html

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?

[bar Jonah]

It was a pretty interesting debate, although I missed Bob Enyart's opener which I think focused more on the YEC scientific side. Too many of the arguments revolved around the specific meaning/interpretation of Hebraic words for my taste; that was of linguistic interest only, but I could see why it is of crucial relevance to Christians and, to be fair, I wasn't the target demographic here.

I think the YECs did a better job of presenting their case than the OECs.

Two points: John Nicholl is actually a geophysicist, not a geologist. That seems like hairsplitting, but paeleontology is only peripherally relevant to geophysics (although complimentary in some industries like petroleum exploration). So although I was mildly surprised he hadn't heard of polystrates which were a part of geology 101 when I was at school, I'm not sure it's a grievous failure bearing in mind the different requirements of his specific discipline.

The second is this jellyfish story. I keep seeing this argument made by creationists (Bob Enyart made it) that geologists are baffled because the strata were seperated by "millions of years".

A cursory amount of research reveals this not to be the case. The geologist, Whitey Hagadorn, who wrote the paper that caused the media interest over the jellyfish while he was at Caltech, is indirectly quoted in a Geotimes article:



http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/NN_jellies.html

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?
Thanks for chiming in, Flipmeister, with an obviously old-earth (tho not Creationist) view! :rithumb:

[truthman]

Charleen, I'm so glad that you 'think' I believe that the Tree of Life wasn't an actual tree. When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

Correctly address your audience and I'll correctly apply.

It sounds here like you're talking to a bunch of YECs that I've never even met. I'll wait for them to reply.

truthman

[kuboes1831]

No Soc youmare wrong as usual, those who worked out old earth geology were catastrophists and not uniformitarian. You should get your facts straight instead of putting up a straw man of uniformitarianism. All YEC geolgy is as uniformitarian !

I suggest leave your church if the pastor is YEC, he is liable to get his bible interpretation wrong

[Abigail]

are you a creationist kuboes1831?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, I'm so glad that you 'think' I believe that the Tree of Life wasn't an actual tree. When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

Correctly address your audience and I'll correctly apply.

It sounds here like you're talking to a bunch of YECs that I've never even met. I'll wait for them to reply.

truthman

Very sorry, Truthman. Please excuse me clumping all YEC's together on the this issue, it is just most of the ones I've come in contact with deny that man or animal (soulish animals) would have been subject to the laws of nature (including death) before the Fall and could have died before the Fall. It pretty much makes the Tree of Life useless, unless if for some metaphoric reason...

But I do apologize for obviously offending you. I hope you accept my apology.

If you would like to better inform me of your position, I would be very happy to hear it.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Btw, I think it's worth noting that the title of the thread does not match the question of the poll.

Would I leave? Yes. Should you leave? That's not quite so simple.

I noticed that after I made the poll and asked myself if I should have changed it.

But then I thought for this purpose it would be just as well to keep it as is. If a Christian should do a thing, then they should be obedient and actually do it--that is why I left would/should interchangable.

[A Beautiful Truth]

When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

And I understand this as well. Think about it. I've been called a "compromiser" a "churchian" and many other unfortunate names by Socrates and indeed it is hard to continue to read what he says, whether there's truth in it or not. But I don't think he writes for my benefit, but for his favored audience.

[Socrates]

Very sorry, Truthman. Please excuse me clumping all YEC's together on the this issue, it is just most of the ones I've come in contact with deny that man or animal (soulish animals) would have been subject to the laws of nature (including death) before the Fall and could have died before the Fall. It pretty much makes the Tree of Life useless, unless if for some metaphoric reason...
OIC, so Charleen's faulty accusation was based on faulty logic. What else is new? Of course, YECs do believe in no death (of nephesh chayyah, before the likes of Morton dishonestly accuse YECs of not believing in plant or cell death) before sin. For mankind, the means was the Tree of Life. Once more, it's basic theology -- God ordains the means as well as the ends.

[Socrates]

No Soc youmare wrong as usual, those who worked out old earth geology were catastrophists and not uniformitarian.
Not Hutton and Lyell!

You should get your facts straight instead of putting up a straw man of uniformitarianism. All YEC geolgy is as uniformitarian !
What nonsense. And you should be perfectly aware that there are different meanings of this word. The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori.

I suggest leave your church if the pastor is YEC, he is liable to get his bible interpretation wrong
Why don't you prove the error in interpretation instead of spouting ipse dixits.

[Socrates]

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?

And AiG has an article based on this same Hagadorn paper, Hundreds of jellyfish fossils! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/fossils.asp) which shows how they fit perfectly with catastrophic burial in a Flood that started in the sea. It is a huge problem for uniformitarian geologist.

And please don't post any more in a creationist-only area.

[kuboes1831]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.

For Socrates benefit, the majority of the geologists who worked out the vast age of the earth and the geoloigc column were catastrophists and not uniformitarian. Hutton was only one geologist of many in the late 18th cnetury, and Lyell came a bit too late onto the scene to redirect the way most geologists were going.

You say, "The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori."
This is such a false statement! No what happened was that the proto-geologists of the 17 and 18th century looked at strata with originally YE and flood geology assumptions and as they found evidence which did not fit they begin to recognise that the earth was older than they thought. Old earth was a CONCLUSION not a PREMISE. Go and do some history of geology and read the original writers of the period- in French as well, but remember the 18th century french used the imperfect tense in a different way!

So remember old-earth geologists came up with an old earth after research disproved their young earth. Also note that many of the geologists who worked out the column did accept a global flood, though most came to reject it for both biblical and geological reasons.

They were also not fixed in any view that only processes observed today could have happened in the past. You misrepresent them.

Today's young earthers start with the presumption of a young earth and then twist the evidence to fit. They may have Exodus 20vs 11 on their side but not verse 16.

Finally Austin's nonsense on canyons on Mt St helens and the Grand Canyon out-lyells lyell for its extreme and flawed ultra-uniformitarianism. He makes Darwin's over uniformitarian geology seem quite catastrophist.

Two final things dear humble and loving Socrates, first do some proper homework and secondly if you are actually a Christian beleive then speak of fellow Christians with some love. Your sheer lack of love makes me doubt whether you can be saved.

Not appropriate for this area, please take it to the Locker Room.

[Abigail]

That's fine Kuboes1831, it is just so hard to tell when everyone is so tetchy with each other.

[A Beautiful Truth]

OIC, so Charleen's faulty accusation was based on faulty logic. What else is new? Of course, YECs do believe in no death (of nephesh chayyah, before the likes of Morton dishonestly accuse YECs of not believing in plant or cell death) before sin. For mankind, the means was the Tree of Life. Once more, it's basic theology -- God ordains the means as well as the ends.

So you left out the answer to the question: If mankind needed the Tree of Life in order to maintain his physical life, what kept the animals and sea mammals from death? This is why the question of the Tree of Life is so important. If man was subject to physical death apart from the Tree of Life, so were the animals, and yet we do not see a miraculous provision for them as we do for man in the Tree.

[Socrates]

So you left out the answer to the question: If mankind needed the Tree of Life in order to maintain his physical life, what kept the animals and sea mammals from death?
Who knows? Let's go by what Scripture DOES reveal, and that is original vegetarianism for humans and animals.

This is why the question of the Tree of Life is so important. If man was subject to physical death apart from the Tree of Life,
Once again, it's not that he was subject to death, but merely that God ordained that he would not die physically and the Tree was His means, somehow.

Calvin agreed with AiG (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’


so were the animals, and yet we do not see a miraculous provision for them as we do for man in the Tree.
Argument from silence. And Wesley agreed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

This just shows that AiG's views are just the same as those of esteemed Christian commentators throughout the ages. So Ross and his devotees are misleading to claim that YEC is a modern aberration invented by SDAs.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So, please translate this for me in your own words so I am sure I have this right.

Do you believe that animals would have died without the Tree of Life or not?

It is pretty clear the Tree of Life was the thing that kept Adam from physical death.

It is pretty clear the animals were not given the Tree of Life.

Therefore, you argue out of ignorance if you say there was some miraculous provision for them. And this is aside from our differences about carniverous activity before the Fall. Would soulish animals have died, period, before the Fall, in your opinion, without a miraculous Tree of Life? In your own straightforward words, please.

[Socrates]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.
It doesn't show.


For Socrates benefit, the majority of the geologists who worked out the vast age of the earth and the geoloigc column were catastrophists and not uniformitarian.
They were still rejectors of biblical history.


Hutton was only one geologist of many in the late 18th cnetury, and Lyell came a bit too late onto the scene to redirect the way most geologists were going.
Come off it -- he was most influential, even though he was a lawyer and not a geologist.


You say, "The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori."
This is such a false statement!

Not at all. Hutton said:

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added) [‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.]


No what happened was that the proto-geologists of the 17 and 18th century looked at strata with originally YE and flood geology assumptions and as they found evidence which did not fit they begin to recognise that the earth was older than they thought. Old earth was a CONCLUSION not a PREMISE. Go and do some history of geology and read the original writers of the period- in French as well, but remember the 18th century french used the imperfect tense in a different way!
Lovely ipse dixits all round. Conversely, I documented my claim.


So remember old-earth geologists came up with an old earth after research disproved their young earth. Also note that many of the geologists who worked out the column did accept a global flood, though most came to reject it for both biblical and geological reasons.
Certainly not biblical reasons, otherwise they would have been thought of before. And not even scientific reasons, but based on placing their fallible interpretations of geology above Scripture.


They were also not fixed in any view that only processes observed today could have happened in the past. You misrepresent them.
Not so as shown with Hutton.


Today's young earthers start with the presumption of a young earth and then twist the evidence to fit. They may have Exodus 20vs 11 on their side but not verse 16.
Please explain.


Finally Austin's nonsense on canyons on Mt St helens and the Grand Canyon out-lyells lyell for its extreme and flawed ultra-uniformitarianism. He makes Darwin's over uniformitarian geology seem quite catastrophist.
What piffle -- he shows that canyons, fossilized vertical tree trunks and fine laminae NEED not take long ages.



Two final things dear humble and loving Socrates, first do some proper homework and secondly if you are actually a Christian beleive then speak of fellow Christians with some love.
I do -- see my post Compromising WFJs are ineffective witnesses, and misunderstand biblical agapè love (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=214125#post214125).

Edited out response to portion of prior post that was edited by me.

[kuboes1831]

There is no answer to utter nonsense.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Kuboes, take it to the Locker Room if you don't wish to debate or discuss or defend your statements.

[kuboes1831]

To keep everyone happy I shall attempt to explain things briefly and hope all have sufficient neurons to cope.

Geologists did not start with a belief in an Old Earth. Period. If we go to 1660s with Steno who looked at strata in Italy and worked out the principle of superposition – oldest always at the bottom of any pile unless something inserted later. He assumed a young earth pretty much in accord with 6 days and a big flood. (I don’t know whether like everyone else except Ussher and Henry he allowed for chaos and then reordering in 6 days.) The theorists of the earth Ray, Burnett, whiston, Woodward took for granted a young earth (6 days + chaos), and that all strata were laid down in the flood. Their biblical interpretation which pre-dated any field work let them be open to more than a straight 6 days. Many imply a long chaos but don’t define it. Lhwyd wrote to Ray on 30 feb 1691 suggesting from field evidence that the earth must be older than everyone thought. Letter in Ray Three Physico-theo discourses p285

It carried on in 18th century and slowly field work made people revise their young earth stance;
William Hamilton on Mt Vesuvius and at Pompeii in the 1770s realised that old lava flows developed soil and then covered by more lava and some of these were more than a few thousand years old because so many of them
De Saussure in the Alps in 1770s assumed rocks in the centre of the Alpine chain were creation rocks i.e. c4000BC until he noticed that at Vallocine by Chamonix these rocks had water rounded pebbles and were vertical bedded and thus “tres vieux”. His friend de Luc also found similar things and reckoned the earth had to be 10s of thousands (but objected to Hutton’s millions)
In 1880s Rev Jas Douglas gave paper to Royal Society saying that evidence pointed away from young to an old earth
Also William Smith abetted by the Evangelical rev J Townsend who stressed that the age was more than Ussher’s as a result of extensive field work. 1790s
There are many more excluding Hutton.
Only one who assumed YE and didnt agree with evidence for OE was the High church Rev William Jones of Nayland 1790s
Result they began with YE assumptions found them wanting and became OE at differing rates and to different degrees.

At first they argued that all strata were laid down in the flood but realised that there were too many strata for one flood and suggested more, - hence multiple catastrophist.

So in period from 1660 to 1800 “geologists” began with YE assumptions and moved to OE because of what they saw. Many were devout Christians and anti- desist and Hutton’s approach.

Reading matter Stuart MccReady ed The Discovery of Time 2001 p172-204
Evang Quarterly April 2002 vol lxxiv p 143ff
The Churchman 1998 vol 112 no 3 225-56

Austin’s extreme Uniformitarianism.

Austin rightly saw canyons which had been formed quickly after the eruption on Mt St Helens. But falsely extrapolated from that to a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon and suggests that the GC was eroded in a hundred years or so. He also assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated and these erodable – there is no evidence. It is simply Young Earth Creationists stating that the GC was deposited during the Flood and eroded soon after. If that isnt extreme Uniformitarianism I don’t know what is. It makes Lyell look positively anti-uniformitarian in his book, which is far more restrained than Socrates claimed.
Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell .

To save Socrates replying he will say that this is ipsi dixit. But he has never given any evidence to back up his claims.

[Socratism]

To keep everyone happy I shall attempt to explain things briefly and hope all have sufficient neurons to cope.

Geologists did not start with a belief in an Old Earth. Period. If we go to 1660s with Steno who looked at strata in Italy and worked out the principle of superposition – oldest always at the bottom of any pile unless something inserted later. He assumed a young earth pretty much in accord with 6 days and a big flood. (I don’t know whether like everyone else except Ussher and Henry he allowed for chaos and then reordering in 6 days.) The theorists of the earth Ray, Burnett, whiston, Woodward took for granted a young earth (6 days + chaos), and that all strata were laid down in the flood. Their biblical interpretation which pre-dated any field work let them be open to more than a straight 6 days. Many imply a long chaos but don’t define it. Lhwyd wrote to Ray on 30 feb 1691 suggesting from field evidence that the earth must be older than everyone thought. Letter in Ray Three Physico-theo discourses p285

It carried on in 18th century and slowly field work made people revise their young earth stance;
William Hamilton on Mt Vesuvius and at Pompeii in the 1770s realised that old lava flows developed soil and then covered by more lava and some of these were more than a few thousand years old because so many of them
De Saussure in the Alps in 1770s assumed rocks in the centre of the Alpine chain were creation rocks i.e. c4000BC until he noticed that at Vallocine by Chamonix these rocks had water rounded pebbles and were vertical bedded and thus “tres vieux”. His friend de Luc also found similar things and reckoned the earth had to be 10s of thousands (but objected to Hutton’s millions)
In 1880s Rev Jas Douglas gave paper to Royal Society saying that evidence pointed away from young to an old earth
Also William Smith abetted by the Evangelical rev J Townsend who stressed that the age was more than Ussher’s as a result of extensive field work. 1790s
There are many more excluding Hutton.
Only one who assumed YE and didnt agree with evidence for OE was the High church Rev William Jones of Nayland 1790s
Result they began with YE assumptions found them wanting and became OE at differing rates and to different degrees.

At first they argued that all strata were laid down in the flood but realised that there were too many strata for one flood and suggested more, - hence multiple catastrophist.

So in period from 1660 to 1800 “geologists” began with YE assumptions and moved to OE because of what they saw. Many were devout Christians and anti- desist and Hutton’s approach.

Reading matter Stuart MccReady ed The Discovery of Time 2001 p172-204
Evang Quarterly April 2002 vol lxxiv p 143ff
The Churchman 1998 vol 112 no 3 225-56

Austin’s extreme Uniformitarianism.

Austin rightly saw canyons which had been formed quickly after the eruption on Mt St Helens. But falsely extrapolated from that to a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon and suggests that the GC was eroded in a hundred years or so. He also assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated and these erodable – there is no evidence. It is simply Young Earth Creationists stating that the GC was deposited during the Flood and eroded soon after. If that isnt extreme Uniformitarianism I don’t know what is. It makes Lyell look positively anti-uniformitarian in his book, which is far more restrained than Socrates claimed.
Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell .

To save Socrates replying he will say that this is ipsi dixit. But he has never given any evidence to back up his claims.

There must be something wrong with this post. Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell?

[Socrates]

St Basil the Great (On the origin of Man 2:6-7):

Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. Gid did not say: "I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds." It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for were were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) .... We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of al foods; "eat all that in the same was as edible plants (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them .

Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures werennot yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that teh vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores .... But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow ...

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with rgard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

Calvin agrees that death came through sin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’

Wesley also greed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [[I]The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

[Socrates]

[Acanthostega]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.

Please can you clarify? When you say you're a "straight down the line Creationist", does that mean you reject the concept that all living organisms descended from a single common ancestor (or a very few original ancestors)? I know that some theistic evolutionists also like to call themselves creationists - but this part of TWeb specifically excludes those advocating theistic evolution. So that isn't your position, correct?

[apostate]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

Apostate this section is for OEC/YEC's only. If you do not fall into this category then please refrain from posting here. If you are apologies it is not clear.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As I've said before, I'll give you a Garden with not carniverous activity. But the whole earth was no Garden, Socrates. The Garden was set apart from the rest of creation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.

[Cephas]

While I find the Creation doctrine very important, and I believe it helps guide Christians and sober their minds, it wouldn't bother me if my church (and its young-earther Pastor) did not take a stand against OEC. There are much weightier matters assailing the Church--moral relativism, humanism, compromise, etc. etc. I believe it's more important right now and in the medium-long run to instill Christians and the Church with Biblical principles of morality, the fruits of the Spirit, loving people, hating sin, etc. We focus too much on the fine print that we miss the big letters. (HOWEVER! This does not diminish the importance of it. Every single part of the Scripture is important for some reason).

[Faramir]

While I find the Creation doctrine very important, and I believe it helps guide Christians and sober their minds, it wouldn't bother me if my church (and its young-earther Pastor) did not take a stand against OEC. There are much weightier matters assailing the Church--moral relativism, humanism, compromise, etc. etc. I believe it's more important right now and in the medium-long run to instill Christians and the Church with Biblical principles of morality, the fruits of the Spirit, loving people, hating sin, etc. We focus too much on the fine print that we miss the big letters. (HOWEVER! This does not diminish the importance of it. Every single part of the Scripture is important for some reason).
Well said Cephas.

However, I would take it one step further (and if you did and I didn't get it my apologies).

I would say that the Creation issue should never be a divisive issue. I am not saying that we should not take it seriously. Like Cephas said, every part of Scripture is important. But 1) we have much more important matters to deal with and 2) we are called to love one another.

One of the reasons I enjoy TWeb so much is becasue I can discuss differences in doctrine with fellow believers without it turning into a screaming match. In fact, serious disagreements are often discussed in the spirit of Christian love and unity that should accompany all discussion between fellow believers. That is in most forums, not here :sigh:. Why does the creation "debate" generate so much hostility among brethren?

I enjoy discussing creation issues with fellow Christians, as long as that discussion does not turn divisive. And you may notice that I don't post much here. :sigh:

In answer to the opening post I would consider leaving my church if my pastor did take a firm stance against OEC. Now, my pastor is YEC, but has said from the pulpit that he considers OECers brothers in Christ and does not have a serious issue with them. (Which is good 'cause I was very OEC at that time).


Just my :2cents:

[Socratism]

They must've not had much science background, especially geology...

Well, you haven't been very convincing on Tweb in Natural Sciences and Biology, at least to the scientifically trained. Sounds like you think quite highly of yourself...

Evolutionists have no sense of humor, even when I over state things so outrageously that they can obviously only be interpreted as satire.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.
Ipse dixit means an assertion made but not proven. (With a few exceptions, Most assertions made on tweb are not proven.)

gg

[Socrates]

As I've said before, I'll give you a Garden with not carniverous activity. But the whole earth was no Garden, Socrates. The Garden was set apart from the rest of creation.
God decreed that both humans and animals were vegetarian in the context of the whole earth. The account of His planting the garden is in the next chapter. Further, even when Adam was cursed and expelled from the garden, his diet was still to be plants. God permitted man to eat meat only after the Flood. All this makes sense only if the original decree was for vegetarianism.

[Socrates]

I would say that the Creation issue should never be a divisive issue.
Paul says that the ones causing the division are the ones bringing doctrines contrary to the apostles' (Romans 16:17). Jude 18-19 likewise says:
... remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."
These are the ones that cause divisions ..."

This seems to be just what the Apostle Peter said in Peter 3:3-6, which in the next verse adds the further information that the mockers are uniformitarians who believe in the constancy of processes right from the beginning because they are willingly ignorant of the global cataclysm, claiming that:

everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
Fact: old-earth ideas were unknown in the church till conservative commentators became intimidated by the alleged geological evidence for long ages. That's why you won't see a trace of day-age, gap, framework, days of proclamation, theistic evolution or any other dodge before the 19th century.


I am not saying that we should not take it seriously. Like Cephas said, every part of Scripture is important. But 1) we have much more important matters to deal with and
That's the whole point. All the other matters presuppose the final authority of Scripture. The creation controversy is more foundational because it questions whether Scripture should be the final authority about events in earth history, or be subjugated to uniformitarian "science".


2) we are called to love one another.
Indeed, and sometimes this love entails pointing out serious errors.


One of the reasons I enjoy TWeb so much is becasue I can discuss differences in doctrine with fellow believers without it turning into a screaming match. In fact, serious disagreements are often discussed in the spirit of Christian love and unity that should accompany all discussion between fellow believers. That is in most forums, not here :sigh:. Why does the creation "debate" generate so much hostility among brethren?
Yeah, why do the old-earthers attack YECs as being ignorant of science and gnostic? Oh, I know -- because no matter how polite or well informed we are, we show up their compromise for what it is.


In answer to the opening post I would consider leaving my church if my pastor did take a firm stance against OEC. Now, my pastor is YEC, but has said from the pulpit that he considers OECers brothers in Christ and does not have a serious issue with them.
I also think they are my brothers in Christ. YEC organisations like ICR and AiG have explicitly said so in detail many times. But I still have a serious issue with them for subsuming biblical authority under "science". Even AiG's new book affirming the biblical creation framework and refuting long-age/local flood teaching, Refuting Compromise, explicitly says that OECs like Ross are true Christians:

Can one believe in millions of years and still be a Christian?
This is a very important question that must be addressed at the outset. Despite what some opponents have claimed, AiG (like most YECs) has always affirmed that one does not need to believe in six-day creation to be saved. The Bible says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not by works (Eph. 2:8), and the content of saving faith is belief in the deity of Christ (Rom. 10:9–13, applying a Joel 2:32 reference to YHWH/Jehovah to Christ) and in His death for our sins, His burial, and bodily resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1–4).

We know that people can be genuine Christians, believing those doctrines, even if they don’t accept creation in six 24-hour days. Van Bebber and Taylor’s rebuttal to Ross explicitly stated, ‘We believe that Dr Ross is saved, and that his expressed desire to live for Christ is genuine.’ Answers in Genesis has stocked the Bebber and Taylor book for years as the definitive critique of Ross without any disclaimer, which is tacit agreement by AiG that we don’t question Ross’s salvation.

In fact, the founding chairman of AiG (Australia), Prof. John Rendle-Short, was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years (before AiG came into existence). But like so many other people, including his own father Dr Arthur Rendle Short, an eminent English surgeon and apologist, he struggled with the problem of death and suffering before the Fall, which is the basis for the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45). Fortunately, he wasn’t consistent, and, despite the conflict which we demonstrate in chapter 6, held to the foundational message.

Unfortunately, people like Billy Graham’s former colleague Charles Templeton, who later apostatized, and the heretical Bishop Spong, were consistent, and threw out the gospel along with the foundations. That’s why several AiG articles have concluded that, yes, one can be a Christian and deny a young earth, but it can still have baneful consequences which will be detailed in this book, mainly involving the authority and understandability of scripture, and sin as the ultimate cause of human and animal death and suffering in the world.

[Socrates]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.
Ipse dixit is Latin for "He himself said it". It refers to a statement that the person evidently expects to be accepted on his word alone so provides not the slightest supporting evidence.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ocean life was not given dietary restrictions, therefore it is wrong to assume that the diet pronouncements covered the entire animal population of earth. It is my belief that this was confined, therefore, to the Garden of Eden. Also note that when man was given meat to eat post flood, the mention of animal diet changing is not there.

[Socrates]

Ocean life was not given dietary restrictions, therefore it is wrong to assume that the diet pronouncements covered the entire animal population of earth.
Even so, fish are also called nephesh chayyah. But how on earth does it affect the argument that all the animals at least on land (if you take erets in a more restrictive meaning) were given only green plants.


It is my belief that this was confined, therefore, to the Garden of Eden.
How do you propose to support this belief?


Also note that when man was given meat to eat post flood, the mention of animal diet changing is not there.
Which is why informed YECs realise that animal diets must have changed between the Fall and the Flood. The fact remains that Gen. 9:3 refers to a change in human diets from green plants they were originally given. And this original vegetarianism is in an adjacent verse to giving the animals a vegetarian diet as well.

[Socrates]

Evolutionists have no sense of humor,
Of course not -- it has no survival value :bouncing:

[AV1611]

Considering the fact that you can never leave the church (body of Christ) I found the question strange...but that me just being pedantic :teeth:


I would not stay in a church where the leadership elevates uniformitarian "science" over Scripture, as all old-earth theories MUST.
I support Gap theory not because of 'science' but because the Holy Bible teaches it.

see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43777

where I wrote:

In Genesis chapter one “as regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it” (Darby’s Synopsis). Now let us turn to:

Jeremiah 4
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. [Gen 1:2 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.]
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

These verses “clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment” (Scofield Reference Bible) and this refers to a period prior to Genesis 1:2. We see such a primal creation hinted at by Peter:

Peter 3
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished [Gen 1:2 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.]:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

A more simple reasoning is thus:

Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So if the Sun was not created until the fourth day (a) from where did the light come from on the first day? (b) How can we even be talking about days as 24 hour periods if the Sun was not created until the fourth ‘day’?

[kofh2u]

Ipse dixit means an assertion made but not proven. (With a few exceptions, Most assertions made on tweb are not proven.)

gg


Proven?

What does that mean?

Nothing is "proven" in the absolute sense, only relative to some disciple.

I am saying, everything is a matter of belief, ultimately.

For instance, a Geometric "Proof" is an acceptable use of the word.

Semantical Proofs might be acceptable because they are referenced to some authority, that some other text supports what is stated.

Mathematical Proofs are merely deductions founded upon twelve Field Postulates. A postulate is an assumption that must be accepted, and idea that is agreed upon as correct.

Ultimately, we are convinced that we are thinking, are able to think, because we observe ourselves doing so. Descartes exained the reasoning.

What we think about is already in our mind,instinctual or phylogenetic memory.

All else is merely stimuli from our senses. After birth, we gradually make assumptions about the meaning of sensory inputs. From there, we exterpolate and deduce the whole of an external world, nothing proved.
Everything is founded on postualed inferences, our ideas about what our senses are telling us. This is empiricism. We rely upon sensory "proof."

Magicians remind us that sensory inputs are not equal to the truth of what is really occurring. Insanity demonstrates that sensory stimuli may be false.
All sensory input is used to learn what it means. Hypothesis is followed by theory after theory. We build boxes of thinking t
is way which we call paradigms.

Many instances of fallen paradigms are of historical note.

I am saying, everything is a matter of belief, ultimately.

[wels member]

If a pastor no longer taught that God made the world in 6 days or believed adam and eve were Gods first created people

I would not leave. there would no need for me to leave because that pastor then would have left me. and more importantly Gods bible truths and the lutheran confession's.


no My faith would still be the same it is the pastor who would be guilty of leaving the Bible which is the Confessional Lutheran faith.
as the book of concord states
article one
] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8.

He would no longer be lutheran he would be the one to leave.
And if he had a large following. Then the rest would have to leave with him
even if they took the building over.

they still would not have changed the Lutheran faith but only have left it.

[wels member]

If your pastor and congregation has left your bible believing faith .never feel guitly for it is them that has left you> it does not matter if they take the building with them .

Find others who believe the bible and nothing but the bible and worship with them. That is what confessional Lutherans have to do.If we can't find bible believing lutheran churches we start our own!we dont leave our lutheran faith.
we start our own churches and call bible believing pastors.and let those who have left the faith leave!

[wels member]

what God says about genisis is an historical fact.
God created the earth and every thing in 6 day's and on the 7th day he rested.
and then he set up his sabath on the 7th day. If the days were eons of years
then the Jews would never had a sabath. But since they were natural day's
they were to rest and keep the 7th day holy.

if one rejects what God says about a 6 natural day creation than they would have a hard time
explaning how God could set up the 7th of these days as a sabath that all Jews were to follow and use it as a rest day as God did after the 6 days of his creation.

[Jack777]

The Bible does not say that God created everything in six days.

Ipse dixit is good to say. It has a certain flair.

I like res judicata and agricolae pugnant too.

[lchemist]

I wouldn't let my church to take a stand on one of these theories.

[srvfan]

If there was a Noachian global flood, how come dinosaur fossils aren't located alongside cattle, lamb, birds, and any other animals used as burnt offerings in Biblical times? And yes, how come there's no human fossil alongside them? Paluxy doesn't count!

[srvfan]

One more thing, I believe that the role of the church is to unite all believers regardless of their belief in creationism. Let's face it, many Christians are fragmented by many things--social class, income level, material possessions, etc. Don't let such debate alienate us any further!

[Thedonhopeless]

where in the bible does it say God created the earth?

i am a distinction, i believe in YOUNG LIFE, not young earth, i can't tell from scripture how old the actual physical earth is, for it starts with God floating in it.

Now, it is pretty clear God created everything in it in 6 days.

[srvfan]

where in the bible does it say God created the earth?

Genesis 1:1, KJV "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the EARTH." (all caps mine)

Obviously, it did not say HOW LONG did God create them.