Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[Cow Poke]

As a specific example: suppose (just suppose) that the Earth really was created less than 10,000 years ago. If that is in fact the case (just supposing, okay?) then every Christian that presently supports "billions of years" is allying him(her)self with the anti-biblical, anti-Christian agendas of Atheists/Humanists/Materialists, agreed?

And it's SILLY to ASSUME that just because somebody doesn't necessarily believe in a 6 day Creation - that they automatically "support" "billions of years".

You leave out the possibility that they JUST DON'T KNOW, and it's not the most important thing in their life.

There are MANY things in the Bible I wonder about, and/or can't explain.

I DO believe, however, in personal evangelism, and when I'm talking to somebody about accepting Jesus as Lord, your very finite version of Creation isn't on my mind at all.

So, what does it profit you or God for you to be at war with Christians, simply because they may not understand (or DISAGREE) with your interpretation?

[Jorge]

Jorge,

I think you are being unnecessarily divisive.
There are SOME things that I consider "essentials" that would keep me from having fellowship with others who claimed to be believers.

Why is it necessary to attack anybody who doesn't agree with your specific view of Creation?

What do you hope to gain by that?

How does this square with repeated calls in the NT for unity - even Jesus said "by this shall all men know you are my disciples", referring to loving one another.

One question ... make that two:

1. Are you over or under 45 years of age?

2. Have you been a Christian for a "short" time or for a "long" time?

Jorge

[Jorge]

And it's SILLY to ASSUME that just because somebody doesn't necessarily believe in a 6 day Creation - that they automatically "support" "billions of years".

You leave out the possibility that they JUST DON'T KNOW, and it's not the most important thing in their life.

There are MANY things in the Bible I wonder about, and/or can't explain.

I DO believe, however, in personal evangelism, and when I'm talking to somebody about accepting Jesus as Lord, your very finite version of Creation isn't on my mind at all.

So, what does it profit you or God for you to be at war with Christians, simply because they may not understand (or DISAGREE) with your interpretation?

I'll address this after I get the answer to my two questions (last post)

Jorge

[Irate Canadian]

This evangelist is doing what many Evolutionist TWebbers do (most notably O-Mudd (Jim) and Rogue06) with their "the age issue is not salvational" schtick.
"the age issue is not salvational" schtick.

Wow, haven't seen this level of arguing since I visited a certain cesspool of the internet....

[Cow Poke]

One question ... make that two:

1. Are you over or under 45 years of age?

yes

2. Have you been a Christian for a "short" time or for a "long" time?

Jorge

You mean like 10,000 years as opposed to BILLIONS?



(sorry, I couldn't resist)



I don't think there's any hope of an actual discussion with you, Jorge, so I shall leave you to your devices.

[Cow Poke]

I'll address this after I get the answer to my two questions (last post)

Jorge

No need.

[Irate Canadian]

One question ... make that two:

1. Are you over or under 45 years of age?

2. Have you been a Christian for a "short" time or for a "long" time?

Jorge

Jorge,

CP's a pastor....

[Cow Poke]

Jorge,

CP's a pastor....

Did ya HAVE to tell him that!?!?!?!

Now he'll only hate me MORE!

[Juvenal]

Did ya HAVE to tell him that!?!?!?!

Now he'll only hate me MORE!

At least no one told him you were a Southern Baptist.

[Cow Poke]

At least no one told him you were a Southern Baptist.

thehugemanatee.jpg

[rogue06]

And it's SILLY to ASSUME that just because somebody doesn't necessarily believe in a 6 day Creation - that they automatically "support" "billions of years".

This is a good point.

There was a lot of disagreement among the Early Church fathers (ECFs) about the nature of the "days" mentioned in creation and how long the creation took. While many did think that it took place over six literal 24 hour long sequential days there were others who thought that it took place instantly, some that thought it took place outside of time and many others, for various reasons, who thought that each day was equal to a thousand years.

In the latter group were those who cited Psalm 90:4 as the basis of their reasoning:

A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

And II Peter 3:8:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

As well as noting that the Bible records that Adam lived until the age of 930 despite Genesis 2:17 recording God as saying that he would die the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Life.

The point being that of all the ECFs who rejected the woodenly literal reading, none that I know of thought that the universe was billions of years old. Of course that was due to the fact that during their time there wasn't any evidence yet known that showed that God's creation was by many orders of magnitude older than several thousand years.

[Cow Poke]

This is a good point.

There was a lot of disagreement among the Early Church fathers (ECFs) about the nature of the "days" mentioned in creation and how long the creation took. While many did think that it took place over six literal 24 hour long sequential days there were others who thought that it took place instantly, some that thought it took place outside of time and many others, for various reasons, who thought that each day was equal to a thousand years.

In the latter group were those who cited Psalm 90:4 as the basis of their reasoning:

A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

And II Peter 3:8:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

As well as noting that the Bible records that Adam lived until the age of 930 despite Genesis 2:17 recording God as saying that he would die the day he ate of the fruit of the Tree of Life.

The point being that of all the ECFs who rejected the woodenly literal reading, none that I know of thought that the universe was billions of years old. Of course that was due to the fact that during their time there wasn't any evidence yet known that showed that God's creation was by many orders of magnitude older than several thousand years.

And I simply don't know.

I've heard arguments from both sides, but my faith that "God created the world" is not shaken, and I don't think I'm going to Hell for not knowing, and not making it a salvific issue in my life.

Kinda like - did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

[KingsGambit]

CP doesn't generally frequent this section. It was a reasonable question for him to ask you, even if you feel you've answered others "31 times".

[rogue06]

And I simply don't know.

I've heard arguments from both sides, but my faith that "God created the world" is not shaken, and I don't think I'm going to Hell for not knowing, and not making it a salvific issue in my life.

Kinda like - did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

The important part is believing that "God created the world." Since the Bible gives us scant information as to how or when I don't think God will much care what we think about that as long as we believe that He is the creator.

And believe it or not the bellybutton question was hotly contested in centuries past.

[Cow Poke]

The important part is believing that "God created the world." Since the Bible gives us scant information as to how or when I don't think God will much care what we think about that as long as we believe that He is the creator.

In all my years of soulwinning, this has ONLY come up one time - I simply asked the person, "I'll be happy to address that, but can I tell you about Jesus first?"

After we prayed, and he accepted Christ as Savior, I asked, "what about your question". He smiled and said, "it doesn't matter".

And believe it or not the bellybutton question was hotly contested in centuries past.

Why does this not surprise me?