Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Storming Young-Earth Creationism ( is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?)
Christianity Today ^ | 4/30/2009 | Marcus R. Ross

Posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic), geologists and Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to convince young-earth creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that the data from geology point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient age.

I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's historical overview of church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful documentation puts to rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the church fathers held views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise present the origins of modern geology well, particularly within the broader historical backdrop of Christian influences on scientific thought.

But BR&T is essentially a negative critique. Theologically, the authors seek to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as describing six rotational days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt? They clearly dislike the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or "gap theory" (there was a large gap of time between the first and second verses of Genesis), and display reservations about the day-age view (the six days were much longer periods). The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g., the "framework hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will not make a positive case for any of these.

(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: answersingenesis; creationism; evolution; icrorg; junkscience; oldearthspeculation; religionofatheism; sciencefiction; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last
The Bible, Rocks and Time is available at ChristianBook.com and other book retailers.




1 posted on 05/10/2009 8:21:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

BTW, in this book, the authors also argue strongly against the Flood as a global, geologically formative event in history.

The authors are Christians. They however make no case for what the flood in Genesis 6-9 actually was. They don’t even tell us whether they believe the flood ever occurred.

The reviewer’s point is this —— a robust concept of the Creation cannot be articulated when Genesis 1 is evaluated in near isolation from other relevant Scripture (e.g., Gen. 2, 3, 6-11; Rom. 1 and 8; 2 Pet. 3).

For instance, were Adam and Eve historical individuals?

Where was the Garden of Eden?

Was the Fall an actual event? And how does this relate to evil? These and many other questions are never addressed in this book at all.


2 posted on 05/10/2009 8:26:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Obvious solution ~ just admit that when God handed down Genesis 1 He used a word to describe the vast periods of time involved but human beings later on, not understanding the enormity of that time period, simply misappropriated God's word to use for the period of Sundown to Sundown.

Not only that, they began using the word to describe the period of time from Midnight to Midnight, and we all know that's just not right.

3 posted on 05/10/2009 8:26:47 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Thomas Paine asked if God didn’t make the sun until the third day, then what exactly, were the first three “days”?


4 posted on 05/10/2009 8:31:26 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

I think I have read somewhere that the orginal Hebrew word used may mean other things than one solar day.

Day is an english word.


5 posted on 05/10/2009 8:36:59 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; fortheDeclaration; Quix; xzins; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; demshateGod; doc1019; ...

The key word here is “reformed.”

They are as a group, certainly not Bible believers; they are scoffers on all of the most inportant issues of god’s word. They as a body represent the bulk of the misguided fools known as the “higher critics.”


6 posted on 05/10/2009 8:39:26 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"These and many other questions are never addressed in this book at all."

Would you expect them to demolish their own thesis?

7 posted on 05/10/2009 8:41:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain
"I think I have read somewhere that the orginal Hebrew word used may mean other things than one solar day."

You may well have read that; there are so many lies in print, but that idea cannot be honestly supported by Biblical text.

8 posted on 05/10/2009 8:43:02 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Maybe I’m . . . torn about the young earth stuff.

Certainly as it’s most often stated, I think it’s not true.

I do happen to think that Genesis creation was in 6 rotational days. But it doesn’t really matter that much, to me, if it was 6 thousand years/a thousand years = one of God’s ‘days’ sort of time line.

I do believe that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

It may well be that the VOID AND WITHOUT FORM state of the world was 6 or so thousand years ago but I mostly don’t believe that, either. There’s Chinese writing that’s 7,000 years old.

There’s nuclear sites in India that go back a very long time.

I suspect God has used this boot camp a lot for a long period of time, mushing things all over and starting over many times.

It doesn’t really matter.

What matters is what we do with Jesus The Christ in the here and now. Are we ready to meet HIM, OR NOT?

Do we love HIM unsurprassingly, or not.

All else is chaff.


9 posted on 05/10/2009 8:45:15 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Thomas Paine asked if God didn’t make the sun until the third day, then what exactly, were the first three “days”?

Paine was a bitter man, and his question is a strawman. The Bible does not say that he waited until the third day to make the sun.

10 posted on 05/10/2009 8:45:45 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

If God could create the universe, couldn’t he create the geological facts that we are “reading”? IOW if you accept the existence of God and His omnipotence, who is to say that he didn’t create a world that appears millions of years old.


11 posted on 05/10/2009 8:46:30 PM PDT by Optimist (I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Optimist
who is to say that he didn’t create a world that appears millions of years old.

The supposition always is that Adam and Even were created MAN and WOMAN, not babies.

The logical conclusion would be that God created the earth already aged as well.

12 posted on 05/10/2009 8:50:32 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Quix
"What matters is what we do with Jesus The Christ in the here and now. Are we ready to meet HIM, OR NOT?"

This is one of the big reasons why it matters. We cannot get ready to meet him without fully understanding what he has told us. The detailed information given in his word is not without purpose. He placed the information in his word because we need it desperately. Many souls drift due to this old Earth blasphemy.

13 posted on 05/10/2009 8:50:41 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Optimist

He could, but He’s not given to deception— that’s the domain of That Other.


14 posted on 05/10/2009 8:50:43 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Optimist
"If God could create the universe, couldn’t he create the geological facts that we are “reading”?"

The Genesis judgment created every visible feature on Earth.

An observant eye sees a very young Earth in such things as hills that still have deep soil that brings forth new land slides every winter. An old Earth would be nothing but bedrock and rugged, unclimbable cliffs, with shallow oceans full of sediment.

15 posted on 05/10/2009 8:58:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I doubt that many folks have gotten that caught up in it all.

I believe it’s important to know what Christ taught.

It’s even more important to KNOW CHRIST PERSONALLY.


16 posted on 05/10/2009 8:58:47 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
My understanding of this issue: True theologians who study the text of the Bible know Genesis as poetry. The written word was rare, and knowledge was passed from generation to generation in lyric form, primariy to aid in the memory of it; and also, to make an impression on the listener that would be retained. Long before Genesis was ever inscribed in written word, it was likely passed on in its lyrical form.

Every verse of the beginning ends in the phrase, "and it was good." The entire point of Genesis was to make us all understand the inherent goodness of God's creation - all of it. The point was never to pass on the geological science of how the Earth came to be.

This is how our parish priest, whom I respected a great deal as a man of God and also as a really smart guy, explained it to me, and it is the most logical thing I've ever heard.

17 posted on 05/10/2009 9:01:24 PM PDT by PLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
So you'd rather turn to the conventions of men in the absence of some clear cut statement in the Bible that "day" means a really, really, really long period of time?

What a novel idea eh!

18 posted on 05/10/2009 9:01:43 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Here's the other way you have to look at it. God inspires men ~ He doesn't dictate anything.

Moslems think there's a perfect Koran in Heaven that was handed down to men. We recognize that as an heresy, so why impose that sort of standard on our Bible.

BTW, if you don't believe what I believe your chances of attaining salvation are commensurately diminished.

19 posted on 05/10/2009 9:05:01 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Many souls drift due to this old Earth blasphemy.

Blasphemy to whom? When was Lucifer created? When did Lucifer rebel? And remember Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals gives praise to the first 'radical' rebellion. That 'fall' was the reason for why this earth looks pretty much the way we find it today. Genesis does not say anything more about the rebellion than what we find in Genesis 1:2... And busy little fingers place the verb was in Genesis 1:2 instead of 'became'. Isaiah says that God did not create this earth void and without form... it became that way. Jeremiah tells a bit about that time, as does Isaiah and Ezekiel. Peter and Paul write about that time also. So when you use the term blasphemy I would like to know who is blaspheming whom.

20 posted on 05/10/2009 9:06:37 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Bama and Company are reenacting the Pharaoh as told by Moses in Genesis!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Your confusion is so deep that it is far beyond the capacity of a FR thread to remedy it.

You should open the Bible before attempting to comment thereon.


21 posted on 05/10/2009 9:06:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Got one open right here. Authorized by the appropriate Catholic authorities too ~ and it’s in English. Makes it much easier to read.


22 posted on 05/10/2009 9:09:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PLK

“The entire point of Genesis was to make us all understand the inherent goodness of God’s creation - all of it. The point was never to pass on the geological science of how the Earth came to be.”

If the “point” is separated from it’s basis in fact, then the “point” is not a “point” but merely an “opinion”.


23 posted on 05/10/2009 9:13:36 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Blasphemy to whom?"

To those that believe his word, and do not look to reduce it to a fallible level.

"When was Lucifer created?"

That is not covered by the chronology we are given.

"When did Lucifer rebel?"

It had to be after the six days of creation, because at the end of the sixth day, God said that it was "very good," which would have not been true if rebellion had occurred at that point.

" Isaiah says that God did not create this earth void and without form... it became that way."

Sorry, that simply is not true. The Earth had to be without form at some point if it didn't always exist. (which it obviously didn't)

24 posted on 05/10/2009 9:17:15 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PLK
The written word was rare, and knowledge was passed from generation to generation in lyric form

Not all that rare. If you believe Moses penned Genesis, then writing in both Egypt and Greece had been around hundreds of years.

Moses' primary reason for writing was to set down for the Jews an account of where they came from. There's no reason for the stories of their ancestors, from Abraham back to Adam, which geneology Moses graphed very carefully (remember he was an extremely educated man) should not be true. He was trying to show them how God had moved over time and brought things into being right down to their day.

In the same way, there's good reason to think that the story of the creation of world that Moses set down was accurate as well. There were lots of creation stories floating around at that time and Moses wanted to record the real one. The Jews had just seen lots of miracles; it wouldn't be as hard for them to understand as it seems to be for many of us that God could create the world in 7 days. If God hadn't done so I don't believe Moses would have used the language he used.

25 posted on 05/10/2009 9:18:14 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PLK
I have concentrated my study and have taught the Book of Genesis for the last eight years. There is no indication at all that chapter one is poetry. Hebrew experts have affirmed over and over again that it is historical narrative.

I am wondering how you can narrow down "the point" of the chapter to show "the inherent goodness of creation?"

There is now growing scholarship to indicate that Adam wrote Genesis 2:4 to 5:1 on a clay tablet. That tablet, and 10 others, were probably used by Moses to compose the first 37 chapters of Genesis. Trace the use of the Hebrew word, "toledoth."

26 posted on 05/10/2009 9:20:42 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: what's up
what's up said: "The logical conclusion would be that God created the earth already aged as well. "

I'm not a religious person, but it appears to me that religion is about FAITH. What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.

If an omnipotent being created the entire universe, and if that omnipotent being wished to test the faith of humans, then it would practically be required to create the earth with evidence contrary to the faith.

If, instead of what we see, the earth was a place where the evidence for divine creation was obvious to all, no faith would be required to become a Christian. It's the choice to embrace the faith that makes Christianity what it is.

27 posted on 05/10/2009 9:20:46 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“The key word here is ‘reformed.’”

I hold to a YEC viewpoint mainly because anything else just doesn’t fit theologically (literalness of Adam & Eve, original sin, etc.), so I don’t agree with these authors.

However, the term “reformed” is often a code word for “calvinism” and not liberalism. Henry Morris and his cowriter (a Prebsyterian - thus Calvinist minstry) wrote the definitive first YEC book, “The Genesis Flood.” Most “reformed” Christians I know hold to a YEC or at least a literal creation view. Whatever, I’m not sure that “reformed” means what you think. Blessings on you.


28 posted on 05/10/2009 9:22:29 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Quix

“It doesn’t really matter.”

Well actually brother it does. With all kindness in what I am saying, understand that if we can’t take all of Genesis literally, then how can we take the Garden of Eden situation literally which is essentially to the idea of original sin for which the Lord Jesus Christ had to be the second Adam without sin so he could be the bearer of our sins as described in the Bible. I tell you in great humility that it is indeed important.


29 posted on 05/10/2009 9:28:13 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Optimist

He can create (like he did Adam) a creation with the appearance of age, fully formed in other words.

That being said, what I don’t believe in is making assumptions and reading things into the text that are not there.....this leads to a loss in faith if the “assumption” is proven wrong.

No, I don’t believe the earth is over 3 Billion years old, but I also don’t think Usher got his dates completely right either.
Who is more wrong? In my opinion, the old earthers have a lot more explaining to do than young earthers.


30 posted on 05/10/2009 9:29:43 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“I’m not a religious person, but it appears to me that religion is about FAITH. What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.”

For someone who is “not religious”, I must say I am in awe at your wisdom. The Bible says, “Faith......is the evidence of things not seen.”


31 posted on 05/10/2009 9:31:42 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; Alamo-Girl

My bias is to take Genesis overwhelmingly literally.

However, on issues of Scripture about which reasonable people can differ . . . I have not found those areas to be

CENTRAL to my relationship with God nor CENTRAL to my relationship with those who Love God unsurpassingly.


32 posted on 05/10/2009 9:36:37 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!


33 posted on 05/10/2009 9:39:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"Blasphemy to whom?"

To those that believe his word, and do not look to reduce it to a fallible level.

Well whatever the subject every individual will be blasphemed at any given time.

"When was Lucifer created?"

That is not covered by the chronology we are given.

But Lucifer the first rebel was there in Genesis 2 and not one word mentions his creation, but yet Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 both describe his creation. Check out for example Ezekiel 28:12 There Satan is called the king of Tyrus, (a bit of historical record for the student of history) we are told Satan sealest up the *sum*, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

Verse 13 says that Satan was in the Garden of God, Eden... and then we get his past before the Garden of Eden, and even the only named entity that has been judged to death. So Genesis does not cover that 'time' before the 'soul/breath of life' was placed into a mortal vessel.

Peter says there are 3 different heaven/earth ages in IIPeter 3, and Paul says in Ephesians that some were chosen BEFORE the foundation of the world... Now these words 'foundation of the world' are actually a verb that means casting down / overthrow and the overthrow did not happen after the soul was placed in a flesh body.

"When did Lucifer rebel?"

It had to be after the six days of creation, because at the end of the sixth day, God said that it was "very good," which would have not been true if rebellion had occurred at that point.

It could not have happened after because there in the midst of the garden was the 'tree' (figuratively speaking) of the knowledge of good and evil. The very thing that God did not intend for his children in flesh to know or as Solomon says remember the pretty little snake made it his business to inform these 'new' flesh minds, and as I directed you to Ezekiel that describes the creation of Lucifer.

" Isaiah says that God did not create this earth void and without form... it became that way."

Sorry, that simply is not true. The Earth had to be without form at some point if it didn't always exist. (which it obviously didn't

Oh but it is true... Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; *****He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain (very same Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:2) He formed it to be inhabited: "I AM the Lord; and there is none else. ...............NOT even that first rebel so many get enamored by.

34 posted on 05/10/2009 9:40:49 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Bama and Company are reenacting the Pharaoh as told by Moses in Genesis!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

Oh, i agree,, i was just pointing out how silly it is to say that its a literally true, word for word, and then interpret that through the lens of being a modern American.

I even doubt it even means a specific period of time “X”. I think its clearly prose, used to make the main critical point. We live in a world that God has made for us. The rest is silliness that detracts from the true message of Jesus.


35 posted on 05/10/2009 9:41:02 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.

Not really "despite". Those mountains of evidence will actually always point to the work of God. It's just that we don't have full knowledge yet. But as scientists are faithful to do good science and go where the evidence leads, what is physical around us will always lead to deeper awareness of God (truth). But it takes time because our knowledge is limited.

"Faith" does not mean "blind faith". The bottom-line true meaning of faith as discussed in the New Testament means that one does not trust in (have faith in) one's own righteousness. Rather, a Christian puts all faith in Christ to get total righteousness in order to secure eternal life.

The term has become twisted in discussing scientific matters.

36 posted on 05/10/2009 9:41:13 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Read “the Age of Reason” by Paine sometime. He wasn’t a bitter person, he was a person of extreme intelligence who could smell dishonesty a mile away. He helped found this country with “common sense”. Common sense is one of the best books you’ll ever read. It swept this country like wildfire. Its sales were only exceeded by the Bible. And Paine didn’t mind going after a sacred cow or two. The colonists who loved the Bible dearly, also consumed the writings of Paine just as voraciously. Odd, huh?

You might find your faith is stronger for reading it. Unless of course, your faith is etremely weak, then don’t read it.


37 posted on 05/10/2009 9:52:57 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I'm not a religious person, but it appears to me that religion is about FAITH. What better way to demonstrate faith than to embrace religious ideas despite literally mountains of scientific evidence.

O'Brien explains something similar to Winston Smith in 1984

Big Brother is always right! Don't question it.

38 posted on 05/10/2009 10:08:21 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Obama in Office for 100 days: Wall Street panics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
Sola Veritas said: "I tell you in great humility that it is indeed important."

My youngest brother described the evolution (if you'll pardon the word) of his faith in almost exactly the terms you described. Once he had recognized Jesus as his saviour, then it led logically, just as you described, to embracing the facts which account for Jesus' life on earth. Without the Original Sin committed specifically by Adam and Eve, there would be no mission on earth for Jesus.

One can see how this interconnectedness of ideas could lead to a uniformity in Christian thought and how the Bible would have a secure and literal place in the teaching of Christianity. If one does not have faith in all of the teachings, then it just wouldn't make sense.

39 posted on 05/10/2009 10:12:01 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Oztrich Boy said: "O'Brien explains something similar to Winston Smith in 1984"

It's been decades since I read it.

Remind me, was there a term used to describe the belief system that Winston was being urged to adopt?

40 posted on 05/10/2009 10:17:27 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Reformed Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley

This reformed Christian (me, for those of you in Rio Linda) holds to the young age earth. I'm not going to try to argue it; geology isn't my specialty. I just find other arguments trying to explain why the Bible shouldn't be taken literally in Genesis 1 to be linguistic gymnastics.

41 posted on 05/10/2009 10:20:41 PM PDT by Jemian (PAM of JT ~~ I don't like lizards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The key word is NOT “reformed”. I am reformed and I believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs, inspired by the Holy Spirit and profitable for reproof, doctrine, training in righteousness. I believe in the virgin birth. I believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone. I believe in the physical death and bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ. He will return in the body and gather those who are alive with Him, those dead in Christ having preceeded.

Reformed Christians do believe in the Bible as God’s Word.


42 posted on 05/10/2009 10:25:58 PM PDT by Jemian (PAM of JT ~~ I don't like lizards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In case anyone is interested... The Affiliation of Christian Geologists
43 posted on 05/10/2009 10:27:32 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Optimist

Yahweh = Loki?


44 posted on 05/10/2009 10:28:47 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

[[First, they argue that the Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood as a historical narrative documenting the creation of the universe and its inhabitants in six normal (rotational) days.]]

First I will argue that they’re arguemtns are wholly irrelevent to God’s TRUTH- Second I’ll argue that they MUST Deny whole portions of God’s word in order to come to hteir twisted ideology- Third I’ll argue that these peopel are NOT endowed with the truth, nor with intellectual honesty

They are NOT Christians- they only claim to be- They are not ‘reformed Christians’ they are apostates- those hwo have tasted of the truth, but who turn just before accepting the truth, and now are set agaisnt the Church of God-

Don’t be fooled by these folks- many many will claim to be God’s own, but Few will actually be His, and hte bible tells us how to spot these charlatans/apostates- their4 actions reveal their hearts true motives


45 posted on 05/10/2009 10:42:06 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; God; CottShop
I am an equal opportunity poet.

Shadow Dance

My faith is a guttering candle,
The shadows dance on the wall,
The wind is howling at the door,
And the house beams creak in the hall.

But the words on the page do not waver,
All steady and strong do they stand,
In the quivering light of my candle,
They are firm in the ramparts they’ve manned.

In my life I have stood in the forest,
I have thrown out my leaves in the sun,
I have watched as the winters descended,
To burn with their ice what I’d done.

The cold is the foe that has fought me,
This flame is my warmth as my shield,
With these words as my army in darkness,
Never, while they stand, can I yield.

NicknamedBob . . . . . May 10, 2009


Echoes of Light

Hold then to your candle in darkness,
While I in the sunlight will dwell,
Your darkness is only the dust in your eye,
From the whirlwind with you in its spell.

Stare out into darkness forever,
And look for the echoes of light,
Look down into shadows for guidance,
Or open your own eyes to sight.

The waves turn to foam at the shoreline,
But out in the sea they are glass,
Here they will seem to be present,
But out in the sea they will pass.

It’s only the ends that we notice,
Between them the lines disappear,
When the seed falls on rock it will foster,
The thought that a garden is here.

NicknamedBob . . . . . May 10, 2009

46 posted on 05/10/2009 10:58:00 PM PDT by NicknamedBob ("Newspapers mold minds" -- and that's how you get Zombies. They have moldy minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

bkmk


47 posted on 05/10/2009 11:07:04 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And one of my favorite questions, if God didn’t create in six days, why on earth do we have the 4th commandment, remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy?


48 posted on 05/11/2009 12:14:49 AM PDT by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quix

One thing you may want to think about: did sin and death enter the world when Adam fell? Or was there all sorts of dying going on prior to Adam’s fall?

It would seem to me that assuming thousands of years or what have you prior to Adam’s fall would involve a lot of dying, so if that were the case, death did not enter when Adam fell after all.

The consequences of that change in doctrine I’m sure you can figure for yourself.


49 posted on 05/11/2009 12:17:24 AM PDT by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; DesertRhino
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...

...14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Apparently, Mr. Paine got his days mixed up; God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, not the third one. A very unscientific thought is that He created light/Day, separating it from darkness/Night, as a general phenomena in the universe, but that He didn't create self-generating and light-reflecting celestial bodies for this solar system until Day 4 which were then assigned to marking time here. Until we get to ask Him, there will be those who will accept these passages literally (such as I) and those who will accept them as indicating ages.

50 posted on 05/11/2009 2:03:27 AM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson