Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    No, but affirmation of the ICBI statements IS a requirement for membership in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and for teaching positions at some Christian colleges and seminaries.
    Can you cite one point of ICBI statement which is NOT truthful?

    I believe in OEC (Genesis 1:1) and a type of YEC (Genesis 1:2-31). Dr. Henry Morris founder ICR called my view of the literal 6 days, to my face, evolution.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Can you cite one point of ICBI statement which is NOT truthful?

      I believe in OEC (Genesis 1:1) and a type of YEC (Genesis 1:2-31). Dr. Henry Morris founder ICR called my view of the literal 6 days, to my face, evolution.
      I agree with and affirm the ICBI statements. I was not trying to cast doubt on their veracity, but merely to agree with chrawnus that the ICBI is not divinely-inspired Scripture.
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
        I don't agree with him here.

        He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
        He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.
        I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.

        Comment


        • #19
          And progressive creationism.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.
            Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              And progressive creationism.
              Is that the Day-Age view?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.
                Sure. Historical Creationism is basically the view that the entire cosmos was created in verse 1 at an indeterminate period of time (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Heavens and earth being a merism (a figure of speech) for the entire cosmos). The rest of the narrative isn't really describing new creative acts, so much as laying out God's preparation of the Promised Land which is the focus of the Pentateuch. This is developed in OT scholar John Sailhamer's book Genesis Unbound, and a good summary of the view can be found at John Piper's website here, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...-promised-land

                Its the view that I currently lean towards, especially since it seems to accord well with John Walton's cosmic temple inauguration view.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  Can you briefly describe for me "Historical Creationism?" As an OEC I fall under Progressive Creationism, and affirm a literal interpretation of Genesis.
                  So you believe the 6 days of Genesis 1 are actual days? I believe so. While I believe Genesis there is a long period of time in verse 2 between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 that follows as 6 actual days. I reject the gap theory. That there was a first creation Genesis 1:1 the gap where the geological ages came about, then the 6 days. I believe the geological ages are explained as being the flood evidence.

                  I at one time believed in a day-age view Genesis 2:4. That the six days are called a day. Therefore the days were really ages of time.
                  Last edited by 37818; 01-01-2015, 06:31 PM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    I don't know why people keep forgetting this, but there are non-YEC literalist interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Historical Creationism, and the Gap Theory for instance.
                    First off, please excuse any typos, I blame autocorrect as I'm on my phone.

                    I'm not forgetting that. My problem isn't that there are alternate non-YEC literal interpretations, or even non-literal ones.
                    My problem is that Geisler is saying is fine for people to do it with Genesis, while he demonises Licona for looking into what genre the Gospels are.
                    I disagree with his comment that the situations are different.
                    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                    1 Corinthians 16:13

                    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                    -Ben Witherington III

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                      First off, please excuse any typos, I blame autocorrect as I'm on my phone.

                      I'm not forgetting that. My problem isn't that there are alternate non-YEC literal interpretations, or even non-literal ones.
                      My problem is that Geisler is saying is fine for people to do it with Genesis, while he demonises Licona for looking into what genre the Gospels are.
                      I disagree with his comment that the situations are different.
                      Wouldn't the big difference between the two accounts be historicity? The OEC literalist believes that the Genesis narrative is an accurate historical account meant to be taken historically. They just interpret the meaning of the actual text in a different way than YECs. But Licona's proposition, that the Matthew account of the risen saints is apocalyptic symbolism, is non-historical. Isn't it? That seems like a significant difference to me.

                      That said, I think Geisler's dispute with Licona is misplaced. I don't agree with Licona's reading, but I don't think it necessarily bucks inerrantism.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        So you believe the 6 days of Genesis 1 are actual days? I believe so. While I believe Genesis there is a long period of time in verse 2 between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 that follows as 6 actual days. I reject the gap theory. That there was a first creation Genesis 1:1 the gap where the geological ages came about, then the 6 days. I believe the geological ages are explained as being the flood evidence.

                        I at one time believed in a day-age view Genesis 2:4. That the six days are called a day. Therefore the days were really ages of time.
                        The term Progressive Creationism, as I understand it, is the same as the Day Age understanding. I read the text literally with a different understanding than you seem to. I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          The term Progressive Creationism, as I understand it, is the same as the Day Age understanding. I read the text literally with a different understanding than you seem to. I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.
                          Well why would the expression "the evening and the morning were the first day. were the . . . day" not make reference to one 24 hour earth day? Jewish days are reckoned from evening to evening. If metaphorical days, still, "the evening and the morning" referring to actual days would be part of the metaphor using the Hebrew word "day." Besides Genesis 2:4, can you give another example, where that term, that you know of, refers to a long indefinite period of time?

                          The current solar wind mean velocity, if shortly after our Sun became the star that it is. It would be about 4 days at 93 million miles to blow the debris past Earth to allow the Sun, Moon and stars to appear in the sky as distinct lights. A plausible explanation for day 4.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Well why would the expression "the evening and the morning were the first day. were the . . . day" not make reference to one 24 hour earth day? Jewish days are reckoned from evening to evening. If metaphorical days, still, "the evening and the morning" referring to actual days would be part of the metaphor using the Hebrew word "day." Besides Genesis 2:4, can you give another example, where that term, that you know of, refers to a long indefinite period of time?
                            As I wrote before:
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            I am not sure why some insist that a literal understanding of Genesis requires 24 hour days. There are at least 3 literal meanings for yom. One is a 24 hour day, another is a long indefinite period of time, and the third is sunrise to sunset, the daylight hours.
                            That means that my understanding is also quite as literal as the 24 hour day understanding. The words for morning and evening are also the words for beginning and ending.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              As I wrote before:That means that my understanding is also quite as literal as the 24 hour day understanding. The words for morning and evening are also the words for beginning and ending.
                              Can you give me a source for this?
                              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                              Sir James Jeans

                              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                              Sir Isaac Newton

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                And progressive creationism.
                                Progressive Creation? have not heard that term before can you give me a synopsis or a link to a the explanation a layman can understand?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X