Young Earth bigotry?

[Diggo23]

This is a repeat of a thread i began on another site that i would like to start here.

I am posting this thread in order to alert Christians to an alarming trend in Christendom that pastor Jack Hayford referred to as "Young Earth bigotry". This represents a certain part of the Christian community that is dividing and backbiting over a doctrine that is not central to the scriptures. The position held by these segments of the christian community is what is known as young earth creationism. It is the belief that the days of creation MUST be held as 24hr periods (though the Hebrew word for 'day' is far more broader in its usage then how the English is normally taken) and the Earth/universe must be held as being no more then a ridiculous 10,000yrs old. Anyone who dares hold to anything outside these bounds is labelled a Bible compromiser or a heretic.

The christian church as a whole down through the centuries has never held this issue to be a central doctrine that is a matter of orthodoxy. Going straight to the Bible we see precisely why this doctrine is peripheral to it's over all message. NOWHERE in the Bible is there clear teaching as to the age of the Earth or the universe - it doesn't even address it!! - and NOWHERE in the Bible is this connected to any issue that will affect your salvation. The Bible is a book of salvation and was never intended to give dates on natural phenomena, that is why God has given us science and his revelation in the natural order. Too label another Christian as a Bible compromiser or a heretic based on one's beliefs as to the length of creation days/age of earth is slander and not consistent with Christian ethic.

What inspired me to raise such an issue was the response that "Charisma" magazine recieved from many "christians" who sent venemous mail to the editor for daring to have Hugh Ross on the front cover. Hugh Ross is an ardent defender of Biblical innerrancy and his ministry holds the approval of some of the most respected Christian apologists in Christendom: Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, J P Moreland, R C Sproul, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard etc. This man is being persecuted purely for a belief in a literal 6 long periods of time creation scenario. What is more shocking is the venemous letter written by Answers in Genesis attacking Charisma for having him on their cover, this letter can be read on their website. Christians everywhere need to grow up and stop the pharisee like backbiting that is threatning to split churches everywhere.

For an insight into this issue go to http://www.reasons.org/resources/mu...ndex.shtml?main and listen to the real audio file entitled Jack Hayford introduces Hugh Ross. I have not scene a controversy in Christendom cause so much strife and attack as what this absurd young earth nonsense has caused! It is not my purpose to paint all young earthers with the one brush but the unchristian behaviour reported in this post has all come from that particular segment. Groups such as Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research and Kent Hovind etc have been found guilty!
Any feedback on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

PS The Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary has posted an excellent article addressing this issue at http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

Below is a statement from the Internation Council on Biblical Inerrancy that is held to by Hugh Ross and his organisation Reasons To Believe reasons.org

International Council on Biblical Inerrancy Statements
We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.


- Damien

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:27 PM post located here
Diggo23:

This is a repeat of a thread i began on another site that i would like to start here.

I am posting this thread in order to alert Christians to an alarming trend in Christendom that pastor Jack Hayford referred to as "Young Earth bigotry".

Hayford Using this hypercharismatic who supports the pro-abortionist and pro-homosexual Wilhelm Klinton, "word of faith" heresy and the modalist heretic Paul Crouch as an authority is enough to shatter Diggo's credibility.

This represents a certain part of the Christian community that is dividing and backbiting over a doctrine that is not central to the scriptures.

Depends what you mean. Of course, it's more an issue of authority -- if you have the Scriptures alone, then 24-hours is the only meaning you'd get for the days of Genesis 1. HALOT is very clear that Genesis 1:5 is defining "day" as 24 hours long.

The position held by these segments of the christian community is what is known as young earth creationism.

YEC was held by nearly all Church Fathers and Reformers.

It is the belief that the days of creation MUST be held as 24hr periods ...

As indeed they must in the specific context of Genesis 1, i.e. with evening/morning and a numeric.

... (though the Hebrew word for 'day' is far more broader in its usage then how the English is normally taken) ...

Piffle. It's only taken as a long period of time in compound forms like b^eyôm, "in the day", usually an idiom for "when". In Genesis 1, yôm is NOT prefixed by the preposition b^e.

... and the Earth/universe must be held as being no more then a ridiculous 10,000yrs old.

Then call Augustine, Luther and Calvin "ridiculous" for stating this explicitly.

Anyone who dares hold to anything outside these bounds is labelled a Bible compromiser or a heretic.

Not heretic, but certainly compromiser.

The christian church as a whole down through the centuries has never held this issue to be a central doctrine that is a matter of orthodoxy.

Rather, it was not in dispute. The creeds were mostly negative statements, designed to refute heresies. E.g. the Nicene Creed was largely a rebuttal to Arianism.

Going straight to the Bible we see precisely why this doctrine is peripheral to it's over all message. NOWHERE in the Bible is there clear teaching as to the age of the Earth or the universe - it doesn't even address it!!

It does so, by the teaching of creation in six 24-hour days and the fact that man and women were created "from the beginning of creation". See Jesus and the age of the world.

- and NOWHERE in the Bible is this connected to any issue that will affect your salvation.

The Virginal Conception isn't either, but we should still defend it. And the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15 IS connected to the real history that Adam brought real bodily death through sin.

The Bible is a book of salvation and was never intended to give dates on natural phenomena, that is why God has given us science and his

And compromisers confuse this with the interpretations of this natural order with materialistic presuppositions. Conversely, the Bible is propositional revelation.

Too label another Christian as a Bible compromiser or a heretic based on one's beliefs as to the length of creation days/age of earth is slander and not consistent with Christian ethic.

Poor baby. It's quite OK for anti-YECs to slander though, isn't it, you hypocrite. Just look at your thread title!

But see also Answering some Hugh Ross supporters to refute similar bellyaching from squealing Rossites, blind to the failings of their master.

What inspired me to raise such an issue was the response that "Charisma" magazine recieved from many "christians" who sent venemous mail to the editor for daring to have Hugh Ross on the front cover.

Like what?

Hugh Ross is an ardent defender of Biblical innerrancy and his ministry holds the approval of some of the most respected Christian apologists in Christendom: Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, J P Moreland, R C Sproul, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard etc.

Guess what? R.C. Sproul withdrew his endorsement. Gleason Archer explicitly defended a global Flood in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Geisler explicitly argued that God created animals vegetarian, in his reply to Chuck Templeton quoted in Lee Strobel's book A Case for Faith.

This man is being persecuted purely for a belief in a literal 6 long periods of time creation scenario. What is more shocking is the venemous letter written by Answers in Genesis attacking Charisma for having him on their cover, this letter can be read on their website.

Here it is: Shame on Charisma! So what precisely in this article are you whinging about?

And of course our latest whinging compromiser thinks it was OK for Ross to slander YECs, aided and abetted by Charismania. E.g. YEC views ‘encourage a form of Gnosticism’, and his earlier comparison of YECs with Galatian Judaizing heretics. And Ross's crass claim, ‘Young-earthers sentimentalize the deaths of nonsoulish animals because it makes them think of their pets.’ Never mind that it undermines Geisler too. Of course, Geisler is inconsistent.

Christians everywhere need to grow up and stop the pharisee like backbiting that is threatning to split churches everywhere.

Oh, but like most anti-YEC bigots, it's OK to backbite AGAINST YECs. There is one rule for them and another for us.

It is not my purpose to paint all young earthers with the one brush but the unchristian behaviour reported in this post has all come from that particular segment.

I'm just touched by your generosity.

Groups such as Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research and Kent Hovind etc have been found guilty!

Where is the jury?

Any feedback on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Be careful for what you wish for -- you might get it!!

PS The Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary has posted an excellent article addressing this issue at http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

Yet, the Westminster confession was explicit in section 4:1:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

See also this detailed article on the views of the Church Fathers and the Westminster Divines, Holding Fast to Creation.

Below is a statement from the Internation Council on Biblical Inerrancy that is held to by Hugh Ross and his organisation Reasons To Believe

Guess what? I have FREQUENTLY appealed to this myself.

We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Yet that's what old-earthers do!!

[Sher]

Today @ 04:27 AM post located here
Diggo23:

This is a repeat of a thread i began on another site that i would like to start here.

I am posting this thread in order to alert Christians to an alarming trend in Christendom that pastor Jack Hayford referred to as "Young Earth bigotry". This represents a certain part of the Christian community that is dividing and backbiting over a doctrine that is not central to the scriptures.

What doctrines do you hold as central to scriptures? Do you read the Bible? Think for yourself? Or are you allowing someone to spoonfeed you this nonsense unchecked?

2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If you break scripture in Genesis 1-11, the very foundations, refered back to as truth by Jesus Himself, where does the next denial come? The Virgin Conception? The Resurrection? The very deity of Christ?

The position held by these segments of the christian community is what is known as young earth creationism.

Also known, and better defined, as Biblical Creationism ... because it is straight from scripture.

It is the belief that the days of creation MUST be held as 24hr periods ...

It is actually the agreement that Scripture must remain unbroken ... that Scripture tells us very clearly that the days are literal days ... by grammar, by construct, by context.

... (though the Hebrew word for 'day' is far more broader in its usage then how the English is normally taken)

It is no broader ... "in my father's day" ... "on this day" ... etc. It is the context that determines the meaning ... not the compromises to humanistic science. The context of Genesis demands the proper understanding of literal days ... by cardinal and ordinal numbers, usage of "morning and evening", comparison by Jesus to the work week, etc.

... and the Earth/universe must be held as being no more then a ridiculous 10,000yrs old.

Actually it is held to the lineage of Christ, which outlines it closer to 6,000 years old, give a bit. But I suppose one who denies the foundations, also denies the genealogy of our Saviour.

Anyone who dares hold to anything outside these bounds is labelled a Bible compromiser or a heretic.

Rightly so ... it is a compromise and it is heretical ... if the shoe fits, they must wear it.

The christian church as a whole down through the centuries has never held this issue to be a central doctrine that is a matter of orthodoxy.

Oh ... please do prove this Revisionist history

Going straight to the Bible we see precisely why this doctrine is peripheral to it's over all message. NOWHERE in the Bible is there clear teaching as to the age of the Earth or the universe - it doesn't even address it!!

Beginning in Genesis 1, dear ... "In the Beginning God ..."? Remember those verses from Sunday School ... time to pick your Bible up again.

- and NOWHERE in the Bible is this connected to any issue that will affect your salvation.

Not directly itself no ... but once one destroys the foundation, how will the building stand? Salvation cannot find a firm footing when one white ants the foundation away. It is as the foolish man's house on the sand ... crumbling to dust eventually because there is nothing to hold it there.

The Bible is a book of salvation and was never intended to give dates on natural phenomena, that is why God has given us science and his revelation in the natural order.

The Bible is more than that! It is a compilation of books ... history, science, instruction ... etc. God did give us HIS science ... it is man that twists it and then tries to make the Bible conform ... to millions of years of death and suffering ... not God's vision of "Very Good" creation.

Too label another Christian as a Bible compromiser or a heretic based on one's beliefs as to the length of creation days/age of earth is slander and not consistent with Christian ethic.

It is VERY consistant ... Christian ethic is based on Christ ... who was not the wimp that others evidently are ... WFJ who feel they have to nicey-nice people ... straight to hell.

What inspired me to raise such an issue was the response that "Charisma" magazine recieved from many "christians" who sent venemous mail to the editor for daring to have Hugh Ross on the front cover.

And good for them ... that article needed a strong Christian response ... especially since it had nearly nothing of Christ present in it.

Hugh Ross is an ardent defender of Biblical innerrancy ...

Who doesn't even know the definition of the word!

... and his ministry holds the approval of some of the most respected Christian apologists in Christendom: Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, J P Moreland, R C Sproul, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig and Dallas Willard etc.

Which just goes to prove how far the churches have fallen in their responsiblity to keep ALL Scripture unbroken.

This man is being persecuted purely for a belief in a literal 6 long periods of time creation scenario.

Oh, he has plenty of other things that he does wrong too. See the link I provide below for a whole table of things that Ross denies from Scripture.

What is more shocking is the venemous letter written by Answers in Genesis attacking Charisma for having him on their cover, this letter can be read on their website.

No ... that is not shocking at all. AiG is a fine ministry ... and they were right to hold the light up to the erroneous teachings. And please ... here is the link you "forgot" to add ... that will allow the reader to see for themselves how Hugh Ross compromises.

Christians everywhere need to grow up and stop the pharisee like backbiting that is threatning to split churches everywhere.

Yes ... I agree. The churches should go back to Scripture ... and stop believing and supporting the secular world. We are to be IN the world, not OF the world ... and the churches have failed miserably to teach the Truth.

I Jn 2:15 "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

:shersig:

[Sher]

Bwahaha Soc! You must have been posting while I was composing.

I could have saved myself a bit of typing there

Good Job

Sher

[chickenman]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Chickenman, please read the guidelines for this area ... and the update here.

***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.

[Diggo23]

"Depends what you mean. Of course, it's more an issue of authority -- if you have the Scriptures alone, then 24-hours is the only meaning you'd get for the days of Genesis 1. HALOT is very clear that Genesis 1:5 is defining "day" as 24 hours long" The Bible was never written to give an age of the Earth/universe etc and there is plenty of evidence that those "days" should not be taken as 24hrs. The Bible is simply silent on the age of the Earth issue.

"YEC was held by nearly all Church Fathers and Reformers" This is nonsense, there are many quotes that can be marshelled to show that there were a lot of Church Fathers who supported periods of "days" as more then 24yrs. One thing is for sure is that they never made it an issue of orthodoxy. One must remember that the church fathers did not have the insight into God's revelation in nature that we have today.

"As indeed they must in the specific context of Genesis 1, i.e. with evening/morning and a numeric." This is not evidence for 24hrs. The times when the numeral is used with the 24hr day is always in the context of human activity, so we are dealing with diferent contexts. The time when the numeral is used in Hos 6 within the context of divine activity is clearly long periods of time.
Besides this as Hebrew scholar Gleasan Archer points out this isn't a rule of Hebrew grammar anyhow

"Piffle. It's only taken as a long period of time in compound forms like beyôm, "in the day", usually an idiom for "when". In Genesis 1, yôm is NOT prefixed by the preposition be" Again this not a rule of Hebrew grammar so cannot be invoked as proof. This point avoids the fact that due to the language used in Gen 1 the prefix could NOT have been used! So if "day" was intended to be used as a long period of time then the prefix simply was not an option.
Having said this there is one simple proof that puts to rest both of the above quotes. Gen 1 is anthropomorphic in it's language intending to give us a blue print for a work week. Being anthropomorphic language then we should avoid pushing literalism too far. Similar to taking the statements in the Bible that God has a hand or breath too far. Isaiah tells us that God's ways are not our ways and Moses tells us that God's days are not the same as ours also (ps 90 "For a day(yom) unto the Lord is as a thousand years").

"Then call Augustine, Luther and Calvin "ridiculous" for stating this explicitly." Perhaps they did (could u give references?), but these men spoke in a period when we knew very little of God's revelation in nature. Today the evidence speaks loud and clear from general revelation that the universe is NOT 6-10,000 yrs old. And in Augustine's work "A Literal Meaning of Genesis" he clearly states that the "day" in Genesis is to be taken as other then what we normally consider a day. The church fathers never made this a point of contention in any case, collaboratively they didn't state much about the age issue.

"Not heretic, but certainly compromiser." I would call young earth bigotry to be comprimising since they are adding to God's word. Namely they are gleaming from the scriptures something that was never intended to be taught: The age of the Earth!

"It does so, by the teaching of creation in six 24-hour days and the fact that man and women were created "from the beginning of creation". See Jesus and the age of the world." There is excellent Biblical evidence that those days are not to be taken as 24hr periods so having said that then we have no way of calibrating the age of the Earth from the BIble. The age issue isn't stated in the Bible anywhere! Oh and your reference to Mark 10:6 doesn't help the young earth issue one bit since Jesus is referring to the creation of MAN not the natural order. Otherwise this would be an error since man was not made at the beginning of creation but at the end! On the 6th day. This is obvious from the context since Jesus is clearly referring to the beginning of man and the institution of marriage

"The Virginal Conception isn't either, but we should still defend it. And the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15 IS connected to the real history that Adam brought real bodily death through sin."
The virginal conception is connected since it is conected with Christ's deity and incarnation! The age issue is not! Oh and 1 Cor 15 says that death came to MAN, it does not say to the created order. A 24 hr interpretation is not going to help this issue anyhow since a over a 72hr period since the first animals were created occurs when Adam fell, and certainly something is going to die somewhere in that time period.

"And compromisers confuse this with the interpretations of this natural order with materialistic presuppositions. Conversely, the Bible is propositional revelation." Materialistic presuppositions are not required to see the absurdity of 10,000yr old Earth! The Bible is not propositional on the age of the Earth issue!

"Poor baby. It's quite OK for anti-YECs to slander though, isn't it, you hypocrite. Just look at your thread title!" This is typical young earth rantings, when they don't have facts they just make more noise! My thread is condemning the action of many YEC ATTITUDES not someone's character in labeling them as a "Bible compromiser".

"But see also Answering some Hugh Ross supporters to refute similar bellyaching from squealing Rossites, blind to the failings of their master" HAHAH someone is getting a little emotional, i will refrain from such immature ramblings.

"Guess what? R.C. Sproul withdrew his endorsement. Gleason Archer explicitly defended a global Flood in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Geisler explicitly argued that God created animals vegetarian, in his reply to Chuck Templeton quoted in Lee Strobel's book A Case for Faith" RC Sproul withdrew his comments on OEC because of the pressure he was under from YEC. GA does defend a global flood but still upholds an ancient universe. And Geisler may have made such comments but he is still old earth in his orientations, he makes this clear in his book "When Critics Ask".

"And of course our latest whinging compromiser thinks it was OK for Ross to slander YECs, aided and abetted by Charismania. E.g. YEC views ‘encourage a form of Gnosticism’, and his earlier comparison of YECs with Galatian Judaizing heretics. And Ross's crass claim, ‘Young-earthers sentimentalize the deaths of nonsoulish animals because it makes them think of their pets.’ Never mind that it undermines Geisler too. Of course, Geisler is inconsistent" Ross was right though! The apparent age nonsense that YEC carry on about is bordering on heresy! It defiles the very character of God! the God's revelation in nature can't be trusted theory is very similar to gnostic tendencies. And the bit about the pets hahaha, his point there while a bit tongue and cheek is actually quite true.

"Oh, but like most anti-YEC bigots, it's OK to backbite AGAINST YECs. There is one rule for them and another for us" I am backbiting against back biting not against people's character like many YEC do.

"It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good." I don't deny this, they didn't say 24hr days.

"We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation." Yet that's what old-earthers do!!" No we are extremely careful to observe the Hebrew rules of grammar and vocabulary and interpret the Bible as a whole. There is nothing wrong with using science to shape your interpretations as long as the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible is upheld. YEC freq down plays the God's revelation in nature in order to support their INTERPRETATION of God's word.

I suggest you cool down Socrates, you are getting way to emotional over this issue.

- Damien

[Diggo23]

"What doctrines do you hold as central to scriptures? Do you read the Bible? Think for yourself? Or are you allowing someone to spoonfeed you this nonsense unchecked?

2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If you break scripture in Genesis 1-11, the very foundations, refered back to as truth by Jesus Himself, where does the next denial come? The Virgin Conception? The Resurrection? The very deity of Christ?" I don't deny any of this! Gen1 should be taken literally! However we need to observe that God's general revelation needs to be considered also. And the most consistent interpretation of Gen1 is NOT the YEC way

"Also known, and better defined, as Biblical Creationism ... because it is straight from scripture." No it is straight from a superficial reading of the KJV of Genesis. If you bother probing further u won't come to this.

"It is actually the agreement that Scripture must remain unbroken ... that Scripture tells us very clearly that the days are literal days ... by grammar, by construct, by context" Taken in context of the whole Bible it does yield a literal day, but not a 24hr day!

"It is no broader ... "in my father's day" ... "on this day" ... etc. It is the context that determines the meaning ... not the compromises to humanistic science. The context of Genesis demands the proper understanding of literal days ... by cardinal and ordinal numbers, usage of "morning and evening", comparison by Jesus to the work week, etc." I have already answered this in the above post.

"Actually it is held to the lineage of Christ, which outlines it closer to 6,000 years old, give a bit. But I suppose one who denies the foundations, also denies the genealogy of our Saviour." No the geneologies were never intended to be counted to get an accurate age for something, that is not it's purpose. I do not deny the foundations, just your interpretation of them.

"Rightly so ... it is a compromise and it is heretical ... if the shoe fits, they must wear it." No it is good commonsense and YEC will one day be done away with just like the flat earth theory.

"Oh ... please do prove this Revisionist history " Show me any place where they fought over the age issue as a matter of orthodoxy!

"Beginning in Genesis 1, dear ... "In the Beginning God ..."? Remember those verses from Sunday School ... time to pick your Bible up again." Those statements in Gen1 are anthropomorphic and summary verses not intended to give detailed science theirein.

"Not directly itself no ... but once one destroys the foundation, how will the building stand? Salvation cannot find a firm footing when one white ants the foundation away. It is as the foolish man's house on the sand ... crumbling to dust eventually because there is nothing to hold it there." This is tied in with the whole "day" debate, which i am sure will be adressed elsewhere.

"The Bible is more than that! It is a compilation of books ... history, science, instruction ... etc. God did give us HIS science ... it is man that twists it and then tries to make the Bible conform ... to millions of years of death and suffering ... not God's vision of "Very Good" creation." No this is nonsense, the Bible is not a science book and was never intended that way. God has given us another book for that and it is called nature!

"It is VERY consistant ... Christian ethic is based on Christ ... who was not the wimp that others evidently are ... WFJ who feel they have to nicey-nice people ... straight to hell." I agree, but Christ advocated testing and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, many creationist actions are opposed to this, building a "God made it look like that so that we would think the Earth is old", that goes against the idea of observing and testing that are paramount to understanding truth.

"Which just goes to prove how far the churches have fallen in their responsiblity to keep ALL Scripture unbroken." No these are the top dogs as far as defenders of the faith are concerned.

"Oh, he has plenty of other things that he does wrong too. See the link I provide below for a whole table of things that Ross denies from Scripture." Please if anyone is going to provide a point in an debate do not give it as a link, bring to the debate so that everyone can see and test it.

[Sher]

I'm in a rush out the door ... but this killed me ... and I had to quickly respond ...

Today @ 06:53 AM post located here
Diggo23:

Please if anyone is going to provide a point in an debate do not give it as a link, bring to the debate so that everyone can see and test it.

You do realize, don't you, that you were the one who first brought up these things ... and providing NO link ... attempted to ridicule something you didn't offer up for refutal. The link was provided because you failed to do so ... so your attempts here to instruct on the finer points of debate are laughable.

More later when I return ... this should be hilariously simplistic to counter ... but I'm just out of time this morning.

:shersig:

[Diggo23]

"You do realize, don't you, that you were the one who first brought up these things ... and providing NO link ... attempted to ridicule something you didn't offer up for refutal. The link was provided because you failed to do so ... so your attempts here to instruct on the finer points of debate are laughable." While i didn't offer up a link my portrayal of the controversy was accurate. I haven't attempted to refute the YEC claim yet, but i can provide plenty of Biblical evidence against it. It is not commendable for one to bring up links in a debate since no one has time to side track and go reading and sifting through data.

- Damien

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am moving this to Cosmogony. It is an inhouse debate in the faith.

[scienceandgod98]

Creation-Date Debate
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/cr2.html

This site gives a good introduction to why young-earthism is not biblical or supported by science and how it is used by skeptics to claim the Bible's innaccuracy. Has links to many on-line resources as well.


Science Watch
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/sciencew.html

This regularly updated site reviews naturalistic and young-earth psuedoscience. One recent article
is an answer to Answer in Genesis' "scholarly" rebuttal to Charisma's article on Dr. Ross. See http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/sarfati.html

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

SandG98 - We do not allow debating by weblink but request that the relevant informatin be brought here so that it can be debated here. A good synopsis (not a blurb) can be given with a link for further information or used to support a point thoroughly made, but as it stands now, your post reads somewhat like an advertisement and has been double posted in two threads. Since you are very new, I iwll cut you some slack.

***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.

[Warcraft3]

Hello Socrates and Sher.........I do want to once again discuss the scriptural evidence for/against YEC but before I do I just wanted to comment on Socrates latest post...

YEC was held by nearly all Church Fathers and Reformers.

Yeah, Socrates is quite correct on this one. The Day-agers do not have much support among the fathers or reformers so I wouldnt even bother arguing this one. The framework view guys can make a somewhat decent argument here, but the majority still support the YEC view.

As indeed they must in the specific context of Genesis 1, i.e. with evening/morning and a numeric.

I find this to be a big problem for the day-age viewpoint. They have a very weak explanation for this one. I also think it can be shown that this is a problem for the YEC view as well........more on that later........

Then call Augustine, Luther and Calvin "ridiculous" for stating this explicitly.

Again.......Soc is pretty much on target with reference to the fathers and reformers......

Rather, it was not in dispute. The creeds were mostly negative statements, designed to refute heresies. E.g. the Nicene Creed was largely a rebuttal to Arianism.

Yep....Soc is right about the creeds too.

It does so, by the teaching of creation in six 24-hour days and the fact that man and women were created "from the beginning of creation". See Jesus and the age of the world.

I have read that article several times and have seen the chart at the end of the article......So my question is this.........How is the 6th day the "beginning"? I could say that Jesus said, "In the beginning"...not "After 5 days had already passed".
Now you could say Im being silly here and that there is a BIG difference between 5 days and millions of years.....but tecnically the 5th day is no more the "beginning" than millions of years later is. But what if the entire "week" is an elaboration or continuation of the verse "In the beginning.....", then we could say that the 6th "day" is in the beginning.

I just dont think you can be so literal about the "beginning" here, since being strictly literal rules out day 5 as the beginning.

Ill post more later on.



Russ

[Diggo23]

Nice post Steadele however i am not so sure about your comment on the church fathers. I will admit right off the bat
that they were not unanimously OEC but i wouldn't argue that
they were that way inclined towards the YEC view either. I present my point from Augustine's comments as well as Justin Martyr and there were others too that believed those days
were more then 24hrs in length. As far as i know too the church fathers didn't go into details about whether or not there was plant and animal death before the fall.
As for your last comment on Jesus' comments on creation, i already made that point in one of my last posts.

- Damien

[Sher]

Okay ... first comments: Quote feature ... please learn to use it ... your posts are almost incoherent in that you are running the other person's reply into your own. It isn't a hard feature to get down pat ... only slightly more to master. Add the bracketed word quote before each of your own words, ending each section with the same thing with a closing quote tag ... [ /quote ] without the spaces there.

Today @ 06:53 AM post located here
Diggo23:

SHER: What doctrines do you hold as central to scriptures? Do you read the Bible? Think for yourself? Or are you allowing someone to spoonfeed you this nonsense unchecked?

2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If you break scripture in Genesis 1-11, the very foundations, refered back to as truth by Jesus Himself, where does the next denial come? The Virgin Conception? The Resurrection? The very deity of Christ?

I don't deny any of this! Gen1 should be taken literally! However we need to observe that God's general revelation needs to be considered also. And the most consistent interpretation of Gen1 is NOT the YEC way

I'm sorry ... you are just wrong. Proper scholarship will show you how the context proves that Genesis 1's usage of day is consistant with the literal usage ... and it is approved as such anywhere else in the Bible ... it is only in Genesis 1 that people compromise and try to make it something different to bend to secular science. If someone were to tell you in plain English that you had to do something for a morning and an evening ... which is exactly how that translates ... you would evidently still be doing it for millions of years then? Bah!

SHER: Also known, and better defined, as Biblical Creationism ... because it is straight from scripture.

No it is straight from a superficial reading of the KJV of Genesis. If you bother probing further u won't come to this.

Sorry dearie ... I'm not a KJVO ... try again. You are the one who needs to "probe further" because the language and context are exact to literal days.

SHER:It is actually the agreement that Scripture must remain unbroken ... that Scripture tells us very clearly that the days are literal days ... by grammar, by construct, by context

Taken in context of the whole Bible it does yield a literal day, but not a 24hr day!

Yes ... the same whine here too. Prove it outside of your assertions here. You started the topic ... the burden of proof ... is yours.

I have already answered this in the above post.

I'll let Soc deal with you there then.

SHER: Actually it is held to the lineage of Christ, which outlines it closer to 6,000 years old, give a bit. But I suppose one who denies the foundations, also denies the genealogy of our Saviour.

No the geneologies were never intended to be counted to get an accurate age for something, that is not it's purpose. I do not deny the foundations, just your interpretation of them.

Proof please? ... beyond your assertions that is. It has been a perfect system for the Jews for thousands of years of record keeping. Do you really want to go against them as well?

SHER:Rightly so ... it is a compromise and it is heretical ... if the shoe fits, they must wear it.

No it is good commonsense and YEC will one day be done away with just like the flat earth theory.

Oh ... Puuuuleeze ... tell me you are not one of those people ... who really believe that flat earth was a prevalant theory beyond some fiction ... or one of "them thar" wacky groups of people who live in hippy communes in Texas storing up guns and ammo

SHER:Oh ... please do prove this Revisionist history

Show me any place where they fought over the age issue as a matter of orthodoxy!

No need ... because they accepted the young age ... until secular science began white anting the foundations. The burden of proof to your assertions lies with you.

SHER:Beginning in Genesis 1, dear ... "In the Beginning God ... Remember those verses from Sunday School ... time to pick your Bible up again.

Those statements in Gen1 are anthropomorphic and summary verses not intended to give detailed science theirein.

Proof please.

SHER:Not directly itself no ... but once one destroys the foundation, how will the building stand? Salvation cannot find a firm footing when one white ants the foundation away. It is as the foolish man's house on the sand ... crumbling to dust eventually because there is nothing to hold it there.

This is tied in with the whole "day" debate, which i am sure will be adressed elsewhere.

Sorry dearie ... it was your stipulation that this not be pulled to links ... or other areas on the web ... so be consistant ... bring your "proof" here ... if you actually can find anything concrete to support this drivel.

SHER:The Bible is more than that! It is a compilation of books ... history, science, instruction ... etc. God did give us HIS science ... it is man that twists it and then tries to make the Bible conform ... to millions of years of death and suffering ... not God's vision of "Very Good" creation.

No this is nonsense, the Bible is not a science book and was never intended that way. God has given us another book for that and it is called nature!

It's not nonsense ... and I never said it was a science book ... but rather argue that it gives us the foundations by which to interpret science ... and understand history. It is the fault of the modern churches that teach "just-so" stories ... and never get to the meat of the Bible ... teaching Geology, Biology, Anthropology, History, and Astronomy ... if the secular science community is right, then the Bible must be wrong ... and if the Bible is wrong, it can't be trusted to tell us about the Virgin Conception, the Resurrection, or the deity of Christ. If the history isn't true, if the geneology cannot be trusted ... then how can the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ be trusted either?

In John 3:12, Jesus said, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

(My thanks to Ken H. for this last bit based on the new DVD from AiG ... Genesis: The Key to Reclaiming the Culture ... it's only $5 and is packed with so much great information to pass on! I'm already planning on incorporating it into teaching my son.)

SHER: It is VERY consistant ... Christian ethic is based on Christ ... who was not the wimp that others evidently are ... WFJ who feel they have to nicey-nice people ... straight to hell.

I agree, but Christ advocated testing and rightly dividing the Word of Truth, many creationist actions are opposed to this, building a "God made it look like that so that we would think the Earth is old", that goes against the idea of observing and testing that are paramount to understanding truth.

Yes ... good ... now you are beginning to think for yourself. Now go to 2 Pet 3:5-6:

"For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."

Just as Adam and Eve were created fully formed, ready to procreate ... "very good" ... the Earth was prepared by the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2b), ready to be inhabited ... "of old".

SHER:Which just goes to prove how far the churches have fallen in their responsiblity to keep ALL Scripture unbroken.

No these are the top dogs as far as defenders of the faith are concerned.

And as Soc has shown, many have been now outspoken against what Ross purports. A person can be dead on right in many areas, and still be subject to compromise in others. I hate to see great men fall to such depths ... because it so hurts others who look up to them.

SHER:Oh, he has plenty of other things that he does wrong too. See the link I provide below for a whole table of things that Ross denies from Scripture.

Please if anyone is going to provide a point in an debate do not give it as a link, bring to the debate so that everyone can see and test it.

Addressed already ... but to refute your answer ...

While i didn't offer up a link my portrayal of the controversy was accurate. I haven't attempted to refute the YEC claim yet, but i can provide plenty of Biblical evidence against it. It is not commendable for one to bring up links in a debate since no one has time to side track and go reading and sifting through data.

It is very commendable when someone brings the topic of that link up ... and fails to provide the link as a common courtesy. Your reply here is, again, quite humerous. You attempted to bring something here to THIS forum ... no links ... and paraphrase it to your own liking ... to ridicule ... and when I posted the link, you got your knickers in a knot about it. What are you afraid of? That someone may actually read the article and see how silly you are speaking?

Now ... let's see something more than hot air ... where's your proof? Where's the beef of your topic?

:shersig: