Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth …’
CMI ^ | March 26, 2009 | Peter Milford

Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: OneWingedShark; xzins
If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

Do you believe that despite what is stated in Genesis and Exodus and the clear statements of Jesus on the subject, that man is, in fact, the product of a natural evolutionary process?

51 posted on 03/26/2009 11:01:00 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
For a real mind-bender, let's ask "how long did God exist before creating the universe, earth, etc?"

If you believe that God is eternal, then you already have the answer to that question.

52 posted on 03/26/2009 11:03:25 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If you believe that God is eternal, then you already have the answer to that question.

Ok, so at what point did God go "on the clock"?
53 posted on 03/26/2009 11:10:22 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
Ok, so at what point did God go "on the clock"?

That is a better question.

He did state that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, did he not?

After he did that, did he change the clock? Or is he still using the same one?

54 posted on 03/26/2009 11:15:36 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

But reading the Bible for physics is like reading Principia for theology.

Using it as a science text devalues the Scripture.


55 posted on 03/27/2009 12:43:37 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I suppose we'll know for sure eventually.
56 posted on 03/27/2009 5:37:38 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
But reading the Bible for physics is like reading Principia for theology. Using it as a science text devalues the Scripture.

If the scripture presents false information, then it has no spiritual value.

Jesus walked on water.

If he did not do that, if He did not have the power to override the laws of physics, then he was not divine and his disciples, who recorded the event, were all lunatics or liars.

Jesus commanded the sea to calm and the wind to stop. If the seas and the wind did not obey his command, then he was a liar or a lunatic, as were his disciples.

57 posted on 03/27/2009 5:51:45 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
balance your checkbook with other people's money

As I understand the current rules, I can do that as either a Republican or a Democrat.

58 posted on 03/27/2009 6:04:27 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“...there is nothing separating the creation of the heavens and the earth from creation week.”

Except all of the observational evidence to the contrary, of course!


59 posted on 03/27/2009 6:31:18 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

That is funny ! ( the financial system bit)


60 posted on 03/27/2009 6:32:47 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Would that you were running our Treasury Department.
I may not agree with all you say here,but at least
you have a coherent thought process!


61 posted on 03/27/2009 6:34:32 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts; xzins
Except all of the observational evidence to the contrary, of course!

Were you there?

62 posted on 03/27/2009 6:36:24 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Except all of the observational evidence to the contrary, of course!
Were you there?”

Your question astounds me. Were you there when the Magna Carta was written? If not, how do you know that it was? Honestly, you really didn’t mean to ask that question, did you?


63 posted on 03/27/2009 6:44:06 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts; xzins
Honestly, you really didn’t mean to ask that question, did you?

Yes I did.

Were you there to witness the creation?

If not then you did not observe it.

There may be some "circumstantial" evidence that could be utilized to support a different version of creation than the one recorded in Genesis, but there is no "observational" evidence. None. You were not there. I was not there. No one observed it, except God.

So I will again ask the simple question (the same question God asked Job in chapter 38):

Were you there?

Were you there when the Magna Carta was written?

No.

If not, how do you know that it was?

There is a record from the people who were there. Just as we have a record of the persons who were present at the creation. You choose to reject the eyewitness testimony of God in favor of the circumstantial evidence from people who were not.

64 posted on 03/27/2009 6:53:31 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Were you there?

The assumption of those who do not believe in a young earth is that observable processes of change (radiometric decay, the expansion of the universe) have been going on in the same way since they began.

Now I'll admit that is an assumption, but it is an assumption that is challenged by no observable data whatsoever. For one among scores of possible examples, there is no known case of argon-40 reconstituting itself into potassium-40.

Those who believe in a young earth can counter this by:

- Asserting that every single one of these process measurements is a lie, deliberately propounded by a scientific establishment which has maintained the lies over two centuries in a deliberate attempt to destroy Christianity, or

- Asserting that God deliberately created the universe with countless evidences of great age as a test of faith, intending that believers discard it all and replace it with the genealogical tables of the Old Testament.

I find neither of those assertions necessary to my belief.

65 posted on 03/27/2009 6:54:23 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; P-Marlowe; GodGunsGuts

The parallel to the Magna Carta doesn’t work. “Were you there?” is a perfect question. The only one present would have been the creator Himself, and He has left a record. One believes the record or one doesn’t.

In THAT record, the story says that the creation of heaven and earth was part of creation week.

That story could only be told by one Person. (note the capital “P”.)


66 posted on 03/27/2009 6:56:43 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; GodGunsGuts; xzins
I find neither of those assertions necessary to my belief.

Me neither.

How long did it take Jesus to turn water into fine vintage wine?

67 posted on 03/27/2009 6:57:41 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Neither evolution nor any other science make any statement whatsoever about creation; Creationists continue to spread their belief through the incessant repetition that it does.

Were you there to witness the New York Mets World Series victory in 1931? No? Then how do you know that it didn’t happen?

Strengthen your faith. God would be pleased.


68 posted on 03/27/2009 7:01:20 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; P-Marlowe; xzins

“Were you there?”

Yes he was, xzins told me. In fact, I have it on good authority that PM suggested that Eve might be a good playmate, ah, helpmate, for Adam, so we can blame him for all that originates from that suggestion.


69 posted on 03/27/2009 7:05:14 AM PDT by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Actually, the Bible is allegorical. And the record establishes conclusively that the earth is very old.

“That story could only be told by one Person. (note the capital “P”.)”

Regarding the capital “P”, I have occasionally wondered how German writers express the same reverence when using nouns that refer to God, since all nouns are capitalized in German. Can you shed some light on that?


70 posted on 03/27/2009 7:05:58 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

Again you refuse to actually dialog. I never said that man was NOT a special creation. Further, I myself brought up the creation of man and woman as a point that there IS an element of story-telling to the creation narrative of Genesis.

(The creation-story appears again, right there in Genesis wherein God creates man and woman at the same time in that account.) Do you mean to say then that, because things SHOULD be read literally, always, that BOTH accounts are factually true down to minuta even though on the literal side they contradict each other? I am a programmer, in logical-thinking contradictions mean something is wrong, usually an assumption. Therefore, because there is a contradiction here under the assumption that both stories are literal-narrative/scientific-documentary style language, that may be the false assumption. There is no problem if these stories are being presented in a more story-telling fashion, that is the second account is merely a refresher/prolog to the story that is being told there, namely the fall of man.

You smugly throw out Paul's verse condemning the wise as foolish (Cor.) when it is manifestly obvious that I was not calling your stance foolish, but rather your inability to dialog & communicate... in other words, even though I apologized for it I was not calling your beliefs foolish but your actions; you.

Again and again you dance away from dialog, reason, and analysis instead imagining non-existent attacks and an arrogance exceeded only by congress... and taking a rebuke in completely the wrong way, even after I explained it.

Answer this: How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me? How can I present a defense of my views when you refuse to listen?

Zacheeus asked Jesus "How can a man be born again? Can he enter his mother's womb a second time?" This was a perfectly valid question to a very literal taking of Jesus's own words. But is that what Jesus was talking about?

71 posted on 03/27/2009 7:16:30 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; enat

Of course. Thanks for asking. Reverence is expressed in English because we don’t capitalize every noun. Germans do so with the language itself. “Denn also hat Gott die Welt geliebt...”

There is some level of age that will be expressed in any miracle. As Marlowe points out, Jesus created a vintage wine out of water. Vintage wine, as we know, requires time.

Necessarily the earth had to have soil, and soil is the result of a process. Therefore, there’s some level of age that would have been apparent. Likewise, a fully made human would bypass birth, infancy, adolescence, etc. There would be an apparent age.

Sedimentary layers, however, would be a different subject.

For those areas I rely on the thoughts of my sister, Alamo-girl, and her understanding of a few things things, to include: (1) That Eden was outside of time, and (2) that the point of the big bang, due to relativity and the speed of light, has a different place on the scale of time than does the earth. Time would pass far more on the earth, part of the rapidly expanding universe.


72 posted on 03/27/2009 7:27:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me?”

The short answer is that there can’t be. Most of the creationists and YECs on this site believe that one cannot be a Christian if one does not hold to the belief that the Bible is literally true (at least in public!). They have a scorecard (OK, perhaps it’s an allegorical scorecard) that they use to assess the Christianity of those who take positions such as yours (or mine). If the boxes don’t get checked, then you’re not a Christian, and hence condemned.

As a Christian myself, I find it hard to accept that brand of fascism as a tenet of my faith.


73 posted on 03/27/2009 7:29:34 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
It seems that I'm having a senior moment here.

The Mets came into being long after I came upon the earthly scene. For some reason, your point goes over my head. The Mets were created, originated, formed, begun long after 1931. ORGANON, by Aristotle, NVOUM ORGANON, by Francis Bacon. Mortal things have beginnings. Then there is the big guy.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Whether it was 4004 BC or millions or billions of years earlier, things are the same. The big guy did it, not some piece of primordial slime with an itch in its left knee.

Now as to the matter of the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Didn't Blaise Pascal put that one to rest centuries ago?

Caddis the Elder

74 posted on 03/27/2009 7:34:29 AM PDT by palmerizedCaddis (There is a place left on earth where some folks can still walk on water!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

>>“How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me?”
>
>The short answer is that there can’t be. [snip]
>If the boxes don’t get checked, then you’re not a Christian, and hence condemned.

*nod* - I see that you understand.

>As a Christian myself, I find it hard to accept that brand of fascism as a tenet of my faith.

The fascism, yes. I notice, though, that there has been no reply to my observation that if time is not uniform (as relativity indicates) and God’s creating [the Heavens] is described by the Hebrew word meaning “stretch” then, considering that the center and the edges of creation would be moving at different speeds and therefore subject to different ‘time elapsments’ then how can the term day be literal? That is, if the universe is experiencing different times at different locations, how is one literal time-dependent descriptive word adequate?


75 posted on 03/27/2009 7:39:18 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Amen brother.

So much of this reminds me of the Sunni’s and the Shiite's.

76 posted on 03/27/2009 7:49:55 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You really have to stop making sense—we’ll have none of that here!

Don’t expect a meaningful reply to your posts. Nor should you expect to “win” any arguments. The fact is that science and true Christianity are perfectly compatible, and that is the majority view among all faiths. It is but a small minority of Christians who refuse to use their God-given ability to reason.

Now imagine what a middle school science class curriculum would look like if they had their way!


77 posted on 03/27/2009 7:50:40 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about.

I agree. I find this whole topic asinine. All it does is get Christians worked up over minutiae, and gets the atheists/agnostics riled up over "what idiots all Christians are."

Some people just need to find a hobby.

78 posted on 03/27/2009 7:53:10 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater ("Get out of the boat and walk on the water with us!”--Sen. Joe Biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
I find you guilty of apostasy. /sarcoff
79 posted on 03/27/2009 7:55:39 AM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat
Answer this: How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me?

You called me a fool. I called you nothing.

How can I present a defense of my views when you refuse to listen?

You refused to answer my question. Let me repeat it. It is a simple yes/no question:

If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

But is that what Jesus was talking about?

No.

I was not calling your beliefs foolish but your actions; you.

Thank you for the clarification.

80 posted on 03/27/2009 8:14:06 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat
Strengthen your faith. God would be pleased.

My faith in God or my faith in Evolution?

81 posted on 03/27/2009 8:19:00 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Your Christian faith.


82 posted on 03/27/2009 8:23:26 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat

>You refused to answer my question. Let me repeat it. It is a simple yes/no question:
>
>If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

I do not believe that Man is an unspecial creation. I do not believe that Man came from anything but God. I never said that I did, nor did I ever say anything that could be taken otherwise.

>>Zacheeus asked Jesus “How can a man be born again? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time?” This was a perfectly valid question to a very literal taking of Jesus’s own words.
>>But is that what Jesus was talking about?
>
>No.

*sigh* - And you still refuse to see that ‘day’ might be used in the figurative sense (”back in my day”)? Again, I ask, if time is not uniform, and might change its ‘speed’, as we see from relativity... if the original Hebrew word describing God’s creating the Heavens is to stretch... then considering that the edges must travel at a faster pace then the center and therefore have different time ‘speeds’ {time dilation} then how can the literal-reading time-descriptive word “day” describe that reality adequately? (”I don’t know.” IS a valid answer, and the most honest one to questions like “When is Jesus coming back?”)

>>Answer this: How can there be a meaningful conversation when you have already condemned me?
>
>You called me a fool. I called you nothing.

Then stop acting/being one, for Christ’s sake! (And your actions have worse than called me ‘anything’, you have treated me like a simpleton, one lacking understanding and reason, whilst refusing to [use] reason yourself.) You are perpetuating a shame to Christ. Hell, if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d be seriously offended by your failure to dialog, by your failure to address my questions, and by your manner of taking what I say as something completely different than what I did say... and before you take THAT as a “sign of weak faith” let me say my faith is NOT dependent on you, but on the living Son of God, Jesus Christ.


83 posted on 03/27/2009 8:34:26 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
Whether you believe Earth is five thousand years, a few million years, round, flat as a pancake, center of the universe, or backwater corner, honestly doesn’t make a difference to salvation in the belief in Jesus Christ.

Actually, it does. "Salvation in the belief of Jesus" is based on the fall of man and man's redemption through Christ. If the Creation was some sort of "theistic evolution", then it renders the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the Fall as just that-a story. If man evolved (theistically), then it destroys the story that God created two people who sinned and therefore brought death and damnation on the rest of humanity.

84 posted on 03/27/2009 8:41:28 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; P-Marlowe

==Using it as a science text devalues the Scripture.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, and is therefore above science. God says he created the Universe and everything in it in Six Days. God says that He created Mankind, male and female, on Day 6. Jesus Christ, God the Son, confirms this in the New Testament.

PS If you asked me, giving fallible science priority over infallible scripture is a devaluation of scripture by definition.


85 posted on 03/27/2009 8:41:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Very well said!


86 posted on 03/27/2009 8:43:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>If you asked me, giving fallible science priority over infallible scripture is a devaluation of scripture by definition.

Then what do you think of the like of Blase Pascal (Pascal’s Wager) who used science and reason to buttress his faith and help convince others about it?


87 posted on 03/27/2009 8:45:36 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; P-Marlowe
==Then what do you think of the like of Blase Pascal (Pascal’s Wager) who used science and reason to buttress his faith and help convince others about it?

Perhaps the following will help answer you question:

All the above confuses the ministerial v magisterial approach to science. Scientism is an example of the magisterial use of science, where it stands over Scripture like a magistrate and judges it. Such ‘science’ is bound to be flawed, because science by its very nature is tentative, and starts with axioms invented by fallible humans and not revealed by the infallible God. Science should never be elevated to the same level as logic, because valid logical deductions from true premises always lead to true conclusions, while scientific theories come and go. This characteristic of science especially applies to origin science (the study of one-off origins in the past), and some apply this even to operational science (the science of repeatable observations in the present2), although it’s not our main point of debate.

The ministerial use of science occurs when science submits to Scripture. This means that all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. Many Scriptural passages show that Christians are not supposed to check in their brains at the church door, but to use their God-given minds in subjection to God’s Word.3

The following section from Refuting Compromise should explain further why we like RATE, and why it is diametrically opposed to scientism.

Ministerial and magisterial uses of science contrasted

The ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help us decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but recognizes that while Scripture is ‘true truth’ it is not exhaustive truth. In contrast, the magisterial use overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science). The following examples can aid our understanding of the differences between the magisterial and ministerial use of science in the interpretation of the Bible:

A magisterial use of reason is that of theistic evolutionists who claim that all living organisms, including man, have evolved from a simple cell. So if they regard Genesis as remotely historical at all, it must be ‘reinterpreted’ to be compatible with the idea that one kind has changed into another kind, quite contrary to the plain language of the biblical text.

88 posted on 03/27/2009 8:55:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat
I do not believe that Man is an unspecial creation. I do not believe that Man came from anything but God. I never said that I did, nor did I ever say anything that could be taken otherwise.

But you did not answer the question. Let me repeat the question (It is a "Yes/No" Question:

If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

Yes or No.

You are perpetuating a shame to Christ.

By believing his words?

Hell, if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d be seriously offended by your failure to dialog, by your failure to address my questions, and by your manner of taking what I say as something completely different than what I did say.

It appears to me that you ARE seriously offended. BTW I don't believe I have failed to answer any of your questions. You may correct me if I am wrong. Further, I don't see where you have answered mine.

and before you take THAT as a “sign of weak faith” let me say my faith is NOT dependent on you, but on the living Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Did I accuse you of having a "weak faith"? I don't believe so. You have accused me of many things on this thread; of not having faith, of being a fool, of perpetuating a shame upon Christ. All I am doing is expressing my belief in his words. I honestly don't understand your visceral reaction.

If I say God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is within them in 6 days am I perpetuating a Shame upon Christ. Weren't those the same words that were inscribed by God on the Ten Commandments? Was God perpetuating a shame upon Christ by inscribing them?

89 posted on 03/27/2009 9:21:41 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat
Your Christian faith.

How are my beliefs incompatible with Christian Faith?

Is Christianity at odds with the words inscribed by the hand of God on the Ten Commandments? Does Christian faith necessarily require a belief in an "Old" (By our understanding) Earth or a belief that man is descended from lower forms of life?

I hadn't heard that before.

90 posted on 03/27/2009 9:31:22 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts; xzins; enat; Alamo-Girl
Weren't those the same words that were inscribed by God on the Ten Commandments?

Yes, they were. And I don't think they are shameful. They describe reality and real events. I don't pretend to know all about the reconciliation of creation and the doubts of those who are theistic evolutionists, but I do know that I believe the biblical record to be true.

I doubt the theistic evolutionary take on it, because it requires a radical reinterpretation of God Himself. The way I see it, theistic evolution necessitates that God be viewed more as a cosmic tinkerer than an Omnipotent Sovereign.

I don't think the biblical record supports the view of God as cosmic tinkerer.

91 posted on 03/27/2009 9:36:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

For some, Christian faith requires absolute belief in the literal truth of the bible. That absolute belief inhibits a strengthening of the faith that is necessary in order to use the faculties that God gave man to ascertain the method of creation (for instance).


92 posted on 03/27/2009 9:44:45 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: piytar

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

How many Biblical passages introduce themselves by saying ‘pay particular attention to this fact’?

And yes, sunrise and sunset a first day; as well as sunrise and sunset day two; just MIGHT be poetic language, seeings as how the actual SUN had not yet been created.


93 posted on 03/27/2009 9:51:22 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

CONTEXT !!!!

Peter was not speaking about creation; he was speaking about the coming “Day of the Lord.”

Stop twisting the Bible against God.


94 posted on 03/27/2009 9:54:48 AM 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 93 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about.

Which proves that they have no idea what the Bible is even about!

Ages and times are of great importance, and that is why so much of the Bible deals with them.

95 posted on 03/27/2009 9:58:00 AM 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: editor-surveyor

Yes, the context was about God’s patience. People wonder “when will the last days come” and Peter explains that God is not on the same time scale as us.

And what is the LITERAL interpretation of “sunrise” and “sunset” on the “days” before the Sun was created?


96 posted on 03/27/2009 9:58:29 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"I think there is enough ambiguity as to what happens before and during the first day of creation to allow for a old earth even with a very literal reading of Genesis."

Then why does the entire Bible speak to only two ages:
The age before the judgement, and the age after the judgement?

97 posted on 03/27/2009 10:05:16 AM 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 6 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; xzins; Alamo-Girl; enat; OneWingedShark; GodGunsGuts
That absolute belief inhibits a strengthening of the faith that is necessary in order to use the faculties that God gave man to ascertain the method of creation (for instance).

Fascinating.

Since you have apparently abandoned any reliance upon the literal truth of scripture as a basis for your understanding of creation and with that abandonment it has apparently allowed you to freely "use the faculties that God gave man to ascertain the method of creation", perhaps you can explain to all of us the "method of Creation" that God used.

Try to keep it under 500,000 words and try not to be too technical. Most of us fundamentalists are not as educated as you.

98 posted on 03/27/2009 10:08:19 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: piytar
"this whole debate is in the end meaningless and destructive."

If you believe that, then why do you not leave this thread? - What you are doing here on this thread is truly destructive, and prevents obedient believers from studying the meat of God's word, rather than forever remaining in fetal contraction, sipping only the "sincere milk."

99 posted on 03/27/2009 10:13:00 AM 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 16 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Then why does the entire Bible speak to only two ages: The age before the judgement, and the age after the judgement?

The Bible speaks of three ages, a previous age, this present age and the one to come. One of the places is...

Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

100 posted on 03/27/2009 10:13:52 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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