Question to rhutchin about YEC

[seanD]

Where?




No it doesn't. That's why i said, for instance, less that 130 years.

As far as the bottom question, it was addressed multiple times in this thread. Genealogy was one of the issues brought up. As far as your top uqestion; you're asking me where in scripture it illustrates the origins of Adam?

[xtreem5150ahm]

As far as the bottom question,

There was no bottom question. It was a statement. It was a statement that YEC does not presuppose that there is no missing information. It works with what is in Scripture. The 130 years was the age that Adam was, when Seth was born, which means Adam and Eve had already been evicted from the Garden.

As far as your top question; you're asking me where in scripture it illustrates the origins of Adam?

No, i'm asking where in Scripture does it clearly show evolution a contradiction to the origin of Adam and the human race.

I'll rephrase an earlier question to bring the point home... When was the last time you've seen someone feed 5000 people with just a few loaves of bread and a couple fish?
When was the last time science documented water changing to wine?
Walking on water?

According to science, these things do not happen normally. Yet, according to God's Word, we believe them to be true and not a contradition with science, since we do not believe them to be the norm, but miracles worked by God. (i don't like the way i've worded this, since a friend of mine be all over this wording.. but since he's an atheist and you're a Christian, i'm not gonna fret too much)


The only way evolution is a contradiction with the Scriptural account of origins, is if you assume that God was not in charge of origins (and no, i'm not a TE, nor am i advocating TE). (and as evolutionists are quick to point out, evolution and origins are a separate issue... that is, when it's advantageous... else it's just assumed in the paradigm).

[seanD]

There was no bottom question. It was a statement. It was a statement that YEC does not presuppose that there is no missing information. It works with what is in Scripture. The 130 years was the age that Adam was, when Seth was born, which means Adam and Eve had already been evicted from the Garden.



No, i'm asking where in Scripture does it clearly show evolution a contradiction to the origin of Adam and the human race.

I'll rephrase an earlier question to bring the point home... When was the last time you've seen someone feed 5000 people with just a few loaves of bread and a couple fish?
When was the last time science documented water changing to wine?
Walking on water?

According to science, these things do not happen normally. Yet, according to God's Word, we believe them to be true and not a contradition with science, since we do not believe them to be the norm, but miracles worked by God. (i don't like the way i've worded this, since a friend of mine be all over this wording.. but since he's an atheist and you're a Christian, i'm not gonna fret too much)


The only way evolution is a contradiction with the Scriptural account of origins, is if you assume that God was not in charge of origins (and no, i'm not a TE, nor am i advocating TE). (and as evolutionists are quick to point out, evolution and origins are a separate issue... that is, when it's advantageous... else it's just assumed in the paradigm).

Adam didn't evolve from lower primates. He was created from dust as a fully formed man who had intellectual capacity, the ability to worship and make moral choices. Death was a result of Adam's sin. We can assume that Adam's race is where the origin of homo sapiens came. Unless you're arguing that there was another race of human not mentioned in scripture, then I don't clearly see what you're getting at.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Adam didn't evolve from lower primates.

I never said he did. I thought that's where you were trying to take this, since Gap Theory is a means to incorporate vast time into the Bible.

He was created from dust

The evolutionist tell us (again, when it suits their purpose) that evolution says nothing about origin, therefore (if they're telling the truth) there is no contradiction as you claim.

The problem i've with your wording is that you said that "evolution completely contradicts the origins of Adam and his race and this we see from scripture and how it's illustrated quite clearly" which implies that the Genesis account is wrong. 'Contradicts' is the wrong word. 'In conflict with' or 'conflicts' would be more accurate. Science is not the final word, else change water to wine.

Unless you're arguing that there was another race of human not mentioned in scripture

No, as a young earther myself, assuming another race before Adam is not indicated in Scripture and would hurt the position.
But evolution is not a contradiction. Even Ken Ham believes in evolution.

[seanD]

I never said he did. I thought that's where you were trying to take this, since Gap Theory is a means to incorporate vast time into the Bible.




The evolutionist tell us (again, when it suits their purpose) that evolution says nothing about origin, therefore (if they're telling the truth) there is no contradiction as you claim.

The problem i've with your wording is that you said that "evolution completely contradicts the origins of Adam and his race and this we see from scripture and how it's illustrated quite clearly" which implies that the Genesis account is wrong. 'Contradicts' is the wrong word. 'In conflict with' or 'conflicts' would be more accurate. Science is not the final word, else change water to wine.



No, as a young earther myself, assuming another race before Adam is not indicated in Scripture and would hurt the position.
But evolution is not a contradiction. Even Ken Ham believes in evolution.

Created from the dust in one day contradicts evolved from lower primates over millions of years.

My belief in the Gap theory is not a means to incorporate time, it solves theological issues for me, such as when and where Satan fell, which is not recorded anywhere in Genesis.

But Gap theory is not the topic of the thread.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Created from the dust in one day contradicts evolved from lower primates over millions of years.

No, it doesn't, actually. But it does conflict. Contradicts means that both could be wrong but both could be not right at the same time and in the same way. If it's phenomenological language, it would show that it is not a contradiction.... as long as there is another way of understanding the language, it is not a contradiction.

My belief in the Gap theory is not a means to incorporate time, it solves theological issues for me, such as when and where Satan fell, which is not recorded anywhere in Genesis.

Ok, fair enough.. for you it solves theological issues that you've noted.
Here's Wiki (and how i basically understand Gap Theory):

Wiki

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

© source where applicable

But Gap theory is not the topic of the thread.

Again, since you are the thread owner, fair enough...

[seanD]

No, it doesn't, actually. But it does conflict. Contradicts means that both could be wrong but both could be not right at the same time and in the same way. If it's phenomenological language, it would show that it is not a contradiction.... as long as there is another way of understanding the language, it is not a contradiction.




Ok, fair enough.. for you it solves theological issues that you've noted.
Here's Wiki (and how i basically understand Gap Theory):

Wiki

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

© source where applicable

Again, since you are the thread owner, fair enough...

You're shifting the subject away from the topic. This isn't a thread about ToE vs. creation. Arguing whether the interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is literal or metaphor is not the same issue as YEC. YEC is not based on the interpretation of just a single passage. It's based on presuppositional interpretation of sequential passages starting from Genesis 1:1 all the the way to Genesis chapter 12. Totally different issue.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Who's shifting?

You requested rhutchins show where he proves from Scripture how old the earth is. I said that you (a Gap Theorist) were holding him to a standard that you don't seem to want to share, and you've denied that.
All i'm trying to steer you to, is that you show where your position is Scripturally supported.

You're making quite a big dead about the presuppositions of YEC's and yet, are unwilling to acknowledge your own.

I'll point out the one i think you rely on the most.... its the presupposition that science has determined how old the earth is, therefore the Bible must be wrong (or rather, that the YEC interpretation of the Bible must be wrong).
And yet, i havent' seen those opposed to YEC show a science experiment describing how an ax head floated to the surface of the water, or how Jesus changed water to wine or how Jesus can forgive sins.

Claiming that there 'might be' gaps in the geneology is one thing, but i'd like to see the Scriptural reasons for this claim, else, as was said elsewhere, you're holding an opposing view to a higher standard than your own view.


But hey, you're the thread owner, so if you wanna shift, i guess it's your game.

[seanD]

Who's shifting?

You requested rhutchins show where he proves from Scripture how old the earth is. I said that you (a Gap Theorist) were holding him to a standard that you don't seem to want to share, and you've denied that.
All i'm trying to steer you to, is that you show where your position is Scripturally supported.

You're making quite a big dead about the presuppositions of YEC's and yet, are unwilling to acknowledge your own.

I'll point out the one i think you rely on the most.... its the presupposition that science has determined how old the earth is, therefore the Bible must be wrong (or rather, that the YEC interpretation of the Bible must be wrong).
And yet, i havent' seen those opposed to YEC show a science experiment describing how an ax head floated to the surface of the water, or how Jesus changed water to wine or how Jesus can forgive sins.

Claiming that there 'might be' gaps in the geneology is one thing, but i'd like to see the Scriptural reasons for this claim, else, as was said elsewhere, you're holding an opposing view to a higher standard than your own view.


But hey, you're the thread owner, so if you wanna shift, i guess it's your game.

I asked rhutchin to show me where in scripture a YEC proponent can make an argument for their position. He brought up the the Genesis genealogies, but this is not a sound argument because we know from other genealogies that there are gaps of missing information. An example is comparing Matthew's genealogy to the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, which shows clear gaps of missing information between the two. Therefore, in the case of counting the years in the Genesis genealogy, the proponent of YEC is presupposing that the genealogy is consecutively consistent and that there are no gaps of missing information there. Unfortunately, this was the only argument that rhutchin brought up.

As far as the Gap Theory, I can bring up arguments in support of it that would be pretty difficult to refute. For example, I bet you can't explain to me when Satan fell. We have two options here. Either Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis chapter 3 and for some reason it wasn't recorded (which proves there is missing information in Genesis); or Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (which proves there is a gap of missing information). But I don't know why you keep bringing up that theory when I never argued it in this thread or anywhere else in this section.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd quit spitting my posts apart when you respond because it's difficult for me to respond to your posts that way. I like how you responded in post #23 by keeping your argument intact.

[Chrawnus]

I asked rhutchin to show me where in scripture a YEC proponent can make an argument for their position. He brought up the the Genesis genealogies, but this is not a sound argument because we know from other genealogies that there are gaps of missing information. An example is comparing Matthew's genealogy to the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, which shows clear gaps of missing information between the two. Therefore, in the case of counting the years in the Genesis genealogy, the proponent of YEC is presupposing that the genealogy is consecutively consistent and that there are no gaps of missing information there. Unfortunately, this was the only argument that rhutchin brought up.

As far as the Gap Theory, I can bring up arguments in support of it that would be pretty difficult to refute. For example, I bet you can't explain to me when Satan fell. We have two options here. Either Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis chapter 3 and for some reason it wasn't recorded (which proves there is missing information in Genesis); or Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (which proves there is a gap of missing information). But I don't know why you keep bringing up that theory when I never argued it in this thread or anywhere else in this section.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd quit spitting my posts apart when you respond because it's difficult for me to respond to your posts that way. I like how you responded in post #23 by keeping your argument intact.

Well, Matthew did skip generations in his genealogy, but the only reason we know this is because we have the earlier genealogies in the OT to compare with. Furthermore, we have the reason why Matthew skipped names, namely to get the required symmetry. ("14 generations from X" etc...). What this reason (if there is any) would be isn't nearly as apparent for the Genesis genealogies.

And even if there were gaps in the genealogies (which I myself think is quite likely even though I'm a YEC myself) wouldn't necessarily mean that you could add in as many generations as you want and thereby extend the time the genealogies cover. There obviously is an upper limit somewhere.

You do bring up something interesting with Satan's fall however. But question to you is, what if Satan's fall actually is mentioned in the Bible? What if Satan deceiving Eve through the serpent is the fall? I.e what if Satans fall is roughly contemporary with humanity's fall? I personally find it a bit hard to believe that God would have let Satan stay in the Garden of Eden of all places if he had already rebelled against God.

To speculate a bit: God is creating the world. All is fine and dandy and Satan being one of the most honored (if not the most honored) angels of God is quite happy with how life is treating him. Then suddenly on the 6th day God decides to create humans, and makes it known that these buggers are actually created in His image. At first Satan doesn't do anything, or think anything in particular about it, but after some time he becomes immensely jealous of these pathetic little critters and can't for his life figure out why God gave them honor even bigger than his (since we're created in his image, and the fact that angels are ministering spirits to those who will inherit salvation and all that, Heb 1:13-14).finally he can't take it anymore, deceives Eve into disobeying God and leading Adam to sin in the same way, and voila, he's as fallen as fallen can be.

[xtreem5150ahm]

I asked rhutchin to show me where in scripture a YEC proponent can make an argument for their position.

No, you asked where he could prove the age of the earth from Scripture... requesting him to make an argument is a different ball of wax.

He brought up the the Genesis genealogies, but this is not a sound argument because we know from other genealogies that there are gaps of missing information. An example is comparing Matthew's genealogy to the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, which shows clear gaps of missing information between the two. Therefore, in the case of counting the years in the Genesis genealogy, the proponent of YEC is presupposing that the genealogy is consecutively consistent and that there are no gaps of missing information there.

Do you believe that Abraham was a literal figure?
When is Abraham presumed to have been alive?
Does that presumption fit with adding the geneologies?

Unfortunately, this was the only argument that rhutchin brought up.

Agreed

As far as the Gap Theory, I can bring up arguments in support of it that would be pretty difficult to refute.

Well, i did ask you if you had Biblical reasons for your position.

For example, I bet you can't explain to me when Satan fell.

That the Bible does not mention bananas says nothing about what it does say about other things.

We have two options here. Either Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis chapter 3 and for some reason it wasn't recorded (which proves there is missing information in Genesis); or Satan fell sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (which proves there is a gap of missing information).

And this say what, about the age of Creation? All it says is that bananas aren't mentioned. To recognise some info is not presented in Scripture says that something is not mentioned in Scripture.

But I don't know why you keep bringing up that theory when I never argued it in this thread or anywhere else in this section.

I keep bringing it up because, until now, you had been trying to hold rhutchins to a different standard than yourself... no, actually, you started holding him to a greater standard than you've now held yourself... you asked him to show in Scripture where the age of the earth is proved. The Gap Theory (apart from your explaination of why you subscribe to it) is an attempt to accommodate the long ages assumed by science .

And I'd appreciate it if you'd quit spitting my posts apart when you respond because it's difficult for me to respond to your posts that way.

Sorry, my writting skills are poor and it's a way that i can address particular points that you make.

I like how you responded in post #23 by keeping your argument intact.

It only happened because the only thing specific you said that i felt the need to address, was the accusation of shifting.

[seanD]

Well, Matthew did skip generations in his genealogy, but the only reason we know this is because we have the earlier genealogies in the OT to compare with. Furthermore, we have the reason why Matthew skipped names, namely to get the required symmetry. ("14 generations from X" etc...). What this reason (if there is any) would be isn't nearly as apparent for the Genesis genealogies.

And even if there were gaps in the genealogies (which I myself think is quite likely even though I'm a YEC myself) wouldn't necessarily mean that you could add in as many generations as you want and thereby extend the time the genealogies cover. There obviously is an upper limit somewhere.

You do bring up something interesting with Satan's fall however. But question to you is, what if Satan's fall actually is mentioned in the Bible? What if Satan deceiving Eve through the serpent is the fall? I.e what if Satans fall is roughly contemporary with humanity's fall? I personally find it a bit hard to believe that God would have let Satan stay in the Garden of Eden of all places if he had already rebelled against God.

To speculate a bit: God is creating the world. All is fine and dandy and Satan being one of the most honored (if not the most honored) angels of God is quite happy with how life is treating him. Then suddenly on the 6th day God decides to create humans, and makes it known that these buggers are actually created in His image. At first Satan doesn't do anything, or think anything in particular about it, but after some time he becomes immensely jealous of these pathetic little critters and can't for his life figure out why God gave them honor even bigger than his (since we're created in his image, and the fact that angels are ministering spirits to those who will inherit salvation and all that, Heb 1:13-14).finally he can't take it anymore, deceives Eve into disobeying God and leading Adam to sin in the same way, and voila, he's as fallen as fallen can be.

You could be right about Satan and when he fell. Only it seems the bible gives more illustration that is missing in Genesis. Jesus mentions seeing Satan being cast out of heaven in the past tense, and Revelation describes it as a pretty big war-like event that took place in the heavens between Satan and his minions and God and his minions. Of course, that could all just be biblical metaphoric imagery or symbolism, but it could also be literal. How about this theory. The angel Satan gets cast down to Earth as his temporary prison. And to make matters worse, God recreates things, including the earth, and creates Adam just to torment Satan even more. That’s not the only reason why I hold to the Gap theory, but I’ve never denied the fact that the Gap theory is… a theory… because it’s pure speculation.

I'm not necessarily saying the genealogies in Genesis should be stretched millions of years, I'm pointing out where it is presupposed that the genealogies are in consecutive and consistent order, where in other places they aren't. This means YEC must use presupposition. You guys are missing the point of the thread. I was pointing out that YEC is not based on one passage of scripture, but a theory based on speculation and presupposition of how a series of sequential passages in Genesis are supposed to have occured. I brought up the issue of ToE (with the risk of it veering off topic) into the picture only to show that the creation of Adam can be demonstrated from a single passage. And I did this in order to show a distinction between an argument that can be directly backed by scripture and an argument that can’t, which is YEC.

[xtreem5150ahm]

I'm not necessarily saying the genealogies in Genesis should be stretched millions of years, I'm pointing out where it is presupposed that the genealogies are in consecutive and consistent order, where in other places they aren't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...is-genealogies

[Chrawnus]

You could be right about Satan and when he fell. Only it seems the bible gives more illustration that is missing in Genesis. Jesus mentions seeing Satan being cast out of heaven in the past tense, and Revelation describes it as a pretty big war-like event that took place in the heavens between Satan and his minions and God and his minions. Of course, that could all just be biblical metaphoric imagery or symbolism, but it could also be literal. How about this theory. The angel Satan gets cast down to Earth as his temporary prison. And to make matters worse, God recreates things, including the earth, and creates Adam just to torment Satan even more. That’s not the only reason why I hold to the Gap theory, but I’ve never denied the fact that the Gap theory is… a theory… because it’s pure speculation.

I'm not necessarily saying the genealogies in Genesis should be stretched millions of years, I'm pointing out where it is presupposed that the genealogies are in consecutive and consistent order, where in other places they aren't. This means YEC must use presupposition. You guys are missing the point of the thread. I was pointing out that YEC is not based on one passage of scripture, but a theory based on speculation and presupposition of how a series of sequential passages in Genesis are supposed to have occured. I brought up the issue of ToE (with the risk of it veering off topic) into the picture only to show that the creation of Adam can be demonstrated from a single passage. And I did this in order to show a distinction between an argument that can be directly backed by scripture and an argument that can’t, which is YEC.

To be honest I have to say that I haven't thought of Jesus words that he saw Satan being cast out of heaven (I'm assuming you're referring to Luk 10:18) as referring to the fall of Satan in the sense of when he first fell. I've always connected it with Rev 12:7-9 where Michael and his angels wage war with the dragon and passages like Joh 12:31 and 16:11. Furthermore I believe that they're not referring to the event when Satan became morally corrupt and decided to rebel against God, but that they're referring to Satan's defeat at Jesus' hands when he gave his life as a sacrifice on the cross and conquered death.

I do see why someone could interpret it as referring to Satan's fall though (i.e his corruption and rebellion).


Regarding the genealogies and your statement that YEC's must presuppose that the genealogies are in consecutive and consistent order (atleast that's how I understood you). I don't really think that this is the case. I for one, am a YEC and have no trouble with gaps in the genealogies, I even suspect that there are gaps. The only reason I can think of that would require one to think that the genealogies weren't free of gaps would be if one was dead set on the idea that the age of the universe is only 6000 years old, but since I don't hold to that view I don't really need to presuppose anything other than the most reasonable assumption that the gaps have some certain limit. To me the age of the universe could be anything from 6000 to some unspecified, though not too high (obviously not in the millions/billions), number

I do agree with you that YEC can't be demonstrated from a single passage though, so I do agree with your sentiment that the YEC view, just like any other, is built atleast partly on speculation. I do think that the YEC view has a generally stronger support from the biblical data than both the TE and OEC view though (I wouldn't be a YEC otherwise ). I don't feel like bogging me down in a discussion about the merits of a YEC interpretation versus a Gap theory and/or OEC interpretation though, so I think I'll limit my future involvement in this thread until something that interests me comes up.

[seanD]

Maybe the problem is that there are varying YEC beliefs about the age of the earth. Usually when I'm discussing YEC, I generally have the (not more than) 5,000 year up to the Common Era theory in mind along with the method used to derive at that figure. Even if someone assumes the earth is 10,00 years old I wouldn't classify this belief under YEC just because they too would have to assume discrepencies in the genealogies like an OECer. Then there is no distinction between YEC and OEC.