Flood: Global or Local

[A Beautiful Truth]

Please spare us this boring existentialism. I've already explained that the YE/global flood view is the only one that follows from Scripture alone without imposing uniformitarian "science" over it. If you disagree, show us all from Scripture.

I'll start another thread. But I have shown from scripture already in posts in various threads. I'll have to condense in one thread.

Yawn I've already explained ministerial v magisterial uses of science to you on this thread. Science is fine if it is ministerial (submitting to the propositions of Scripture and deducing theorems from them) rather than magisterial (presuming to sit in judgment upon Scripture).

Again, why bother?

Nope, all different, and this is true of their development too. The creationist paleoanthropologist Dr Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer assigned Neandertals to the basic type Homininae along with us; gorillas to Gorillinae and orangs to yet another. This is in the IDM book edited by Dembski, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, IVP 1998, where Ross is also a contributor, so check for yourself!

What, did you think I thought they were related or something! That has been my beef with you YEC's! (regarding primates that walk on two legs!)

My point was that with your flood speciation model, it seems you group them morphologically. If so, then gorillas, orangutans, Neandertal, and humans are all kind of similar. My question was to show how precarious you definition can be taken, not that I actually take it.

Why? Prove it. And I don't mean, claiming that a few thousand kinds of land vertebrates on the Ark could give rise to millions of kinds of ALL creatures!

I have never said all creatures, but land dwelling, air breathing creatures.

Pearls and reps are ostensibly to reward posts not people. I acted in the spirit of this by rewarding one of yours.

You use yours for the wrong reason, (like boasting) that is why I refrained. I did not want to be a part of it.

Don't blame me for what happens in your church. And how do we know that your agressive anti-YEC attitude is not responsible.

I was not agressive, by any means. Most people in my church do not even know I am an old earth creationist. This brother could not stand that my husband is an elder at church and that I teach women's studies, though my husband and I never held a class on creation or anything related.

The thing is, he knew my stand through a discussion we had on science and then he badgered our poor pastor for years with AiG info. He was the agressive one. He finnally left because He could not get his way (Hence my poll about leaving a church if it did not take a stand against (non-evolution)old earth creationism).

Now my husband and I have spoken about our old earth/day age beliefs more in the past two months than we have in the last five years combined because of the strife this brother has caused and people asking us questions. When he left the church he spoke in typical AiG fashion so people have been curious as to my husband and my beliefs ("Could they really be compromisers, I mean, they have been here in leadership and have taught nothing but the gospel...?). Prior to this, they had no idea. So, in actuality, AiG's Operation refute compromise may have actually worked to further the case for old earth creationism in my church.

Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). And I know for a fact from eye-witness reports that Ross does just what you whinge about. In a large church in my country, he had a double session: the first, he preached these unctious warm things about unity and not dividing over the age issue; in the second, he attacked YECs by name. No doubt Charleen will find some way to justify it, since anything goes when attacking YECs, even abetting atheists.

I'd have to hear the details and his side of the story.

If you happen to have the ear of RtB, you may want to tell them that it would be great to explain what they mean by "species" in a scientifically testable format so that it can be critiqued. At present, they have no answer to observed speciation, but would have no trouble if they were not so dogmatic in equating kinds with modern taxonomic species, which is just a man-made designation.

I'll see what I can do!

[kuboes1831]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Dee Dee Warren

Kuboes, I have asked Soc to not be rude and now he has complied. You also keep the spirit of this section of the forum and do not be rude as this post was. Leave it to the moderators to clear up disciplinary issues and do not make posts that are nothing more than an attack upon another poster. Take it to the Locker Room.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[bar Jonah]

Yeah, take a look at the history of the church and tell us that the billions-of-years view is the orthodox view! Puh-lease!

Who gives a rat's tuchis if one view or the other is "orthodox?" Being the mainstream view doesn't make one correct! Fallacy of majority!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yeah, take a look at the history of the church and tell us that the billions-of-years view is the orthodox view! Puh-lease!

Who gives a rat's tuchis if one view or the other is "orthodox?" Being the mainstream view doesn't make one correct! Fallacy of majority!

I believe William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, Francis Shaffer, Chuck Colson, John Ankerburg, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser to be competent thinkers and scholars--and they have not the problem you and Socrates has about the days being long ages.

You may call it a "fallacy of majority" but I would call it having wise councel. They may differ on the particulars, but they do not see the big deal about it.

[Socrates]

Soc wrote "Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). "
Where do the apostles say that one has to be young earth? Nowhere in the canonical New Testament but only in the Gospel according to YEC.

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

Scripture Verse:

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

Scripture Verse:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.

Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.

Socrates get your facts right.

So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis?.

[kuboes1831]

There is no reply to Socrates who misreads scripture and gets his facts wrong

[bar Jonah]

Misreads? He's quoting it pretty directly.

You, on the other hand, are bragging about a bunch of fallible men who are your "wise council." Who gives a flying fig what a bunch of fallible men believe? Give me God's infallible word, any day.

Mere men are NOT authority for doctrine! Not in history, not today, not ever. SO many men in the history of the church have spouted falsehoods, it makes one's head spin.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Misreads? He's quoting it pretty directly.

You, on the other hand, are bragging about a bunch of fallible men who are your "wise council." Who gives a flying fig what a bunch of fallible men believe? Give me God's infallible word, any day.

Mere men are NOT authority for doctrine! Not in history, not today, not ever. SO many men in the history of the church have spouted falsehoods, it makes one's head spin.

You are fallible, too.

I do not believe your Bible interpretation. Now, are you going to say like Socrates that your interpretation actually is the text? I don't doubt that you would confuse one's interpretation with the actual text, but I just wanted to be sure.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

Scripture Verse:

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’

Do you believe He was wrong? Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning, but five days later. No, use the context--He is speaking of the institution of marriage.

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

Scripture Verse:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.

Was Jesus mistaken again? Abel was not slain at the foundation of the world. He was probably at the very least a young man by the time he died. Was Jesus mistaken? No, of course not. Context would be important.

[A Beautiful Truth]

You have the double standard to call a comic "unethical tactics" when AiG continues to send out "attack packs" and what not against their brethern and encourages its followers to "challenge" their church leadership to take a stand against the day/age interpretation. AiG is guilty of stirring up strife, I can testify to that in my own church.

Rubbish -- the nearest thing would be the Progressive Creationism Attack Pack. Note, attack on the false teaching, not people!

The following snip was from an article from the PCA's website. The article is called "One Explanation of the Creation Dilema" by Ray Williams

"Although this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence should be good news to Christians, since it proves that there must be a Creator, the reality is that young-earth advocates have resorted to vicious attacks on people like astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross and his Reasons-to-Believe ministry. At his presentations, people confrontationally try to disrupt his message, to seeking unbelievers, by distributing their “Attack Pack” material that disparages his character. In a fund raising letter for the organization Answers-in-Genesis, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without. Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers mentioned in Acts 20. "

I am not the only one who sees AiG's vicious attacks against their brothers. Hugh Ross is mentioned in a good way on PCA's website, you might want to check it out.

You are wrong about AiG not mentioning Ross by name, perhaps you just did not know? or forgot?

[kofh2u]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

Scripture Verse:

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

Scripture Verse:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.

Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.


So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis?.

Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am a large denominational church, and increased with tithes, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations, and defensive of erroneous doctrine, and in decline of church membership, and trapped in Dogma, and unprotected from an ever growing Age of Enlightment:

[kofh2u]

There is no reply to Socrates who misreads scripture and gets his facts wrong

Well, not misreads... its the eord "yowm." It means a long duration of time, but it can mean day. A yom can be a 1000 years tonThe Word. Or, as on the 4th yowm of creation... a regular 24 hpur day.

So... reading Genesis in this age, the Age of Scientific Enlightenment, we get Genesis more clearly as follows:

Gen. 1:5 And The Universal Force called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the Azoic Era. (1)


Gen. 1:8 And The Universal Force called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the Archeozoic Era. (2)

Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the Proterozoic Era. (3)


Gen. 1:14 And The Universal Force said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for symbolic references, and for the four seasons, and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:
Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the Paleozoic Era. (4)


Gen. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the Mesozoic Era. (5)


Gen. 1:31 And The Universal Force saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the Cenozoic Era. (6)

Gen. 2:2 And upon the short few, four thousand millennia of years, a Seventh Era of Geological Time begins, the Universe ended its work of which it had made all living creatures; and it rested, seemimgly, on this seventh Era from all its work which it had made.

[seer]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

Scripture Verse:

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

Scripture Verse:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.

Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.


So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis?.

Hey Socrates, I hear you are a YEC. I started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22389

Of course I am getting beat up by christians and non-christians alike. Would it be possible for you to e-mail me? I have a couple of quick questions.

[Socrates]

Do you believe He was wrong? Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning, but five days later.

5 days on the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning -- 0.0004% away, which is insignificant when the Bible typically uses whole number accuracy.

No, use the context--He is speaking of the institution of marriage.

What crap -- this phrase always refers to the beginning of the creation itself. Just compare other passages where this phrase is clearly used of the whole creation.

Scripture Verse:

Mark 13:19 ‘For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.’

Scripture Verse:

2 Peter 3:4 ‘[Scoffers say] “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”’

What are you trying to say -- they were not male and female before they married? What were they, hermaphrodites?

Was Jesus mistaken again?

No, I leave it to old-earth compromisers to imply that. Especially when Charleen's idol Ross goes to books by Christ-haters like Ian Plimer to try to get dirt on YECs. Not that Charleen would mind, because Ross can do no wrong in her eyes.

Abel was not slain at the foundation of the world. He was probably at the very least a young man by the time he died.

Since Seth was a replacement for Abel and was born when Adam was 130 (Genesis 4:25, 5:3), then Abel’s death would have occurred only 3% of the way into that timeline

[Socrates]

From St John Chrysostom (347–407), Bishop of Constantinople, regarded as a Doctor of the Church because of his doctrinal insights, while his name means "Golden-mouthed" because of his eloquence in preaching. In his Homilies on Genesis, he said:

24:3 [God tells Noah that] Men have performed so much evil that their impiety has poured out and covered the whole earth. Therefore I will destroy both them and the earth. Since they themselves have already destroyed themselves beforehand by their iniquities, I will bring complete perdiction and exterminate them and the earth, so that the earth might be cleansed and delivered from the defilement of so many sins.

....

25:6 Fifteen cubits upwards was the water raised above the mountains. Not without reason does the Scripture reveal this to us, but so that we might know that those who drowned were not only men and cattle and four-footed beasts and reptiles, but also the birds of the heavens and all the beasts and other irrational creatures which dwelt in the mountains.

....

Behold how the Scripture once and twice and many times informs us that there occurred a universal destruction, that not a single creature was saved, but all drowned in water—both men and animals.