APOLOGETICS AND HONESTY

In which definitions are you interested? This does a fairly good job of refuting the claims of most YEers on the 2LOT.

 

I find it absolutely facinating, amazing, and unreal that the OEC, & Evolutionists claim that we are "INTERPRETING" scripture, (when all we're doing is accepting it AS WRITTEN), and that we simply don't understand that Moses & God wrote the narrative to a "scientifically ignorant" society.

All God needed to say (if the current version is not literal) is that He created the heavens & earth. End of story, no details, no misinformation, nothing to indicate the process He used-------.
Instead He told us many details, & you either accept His word, or not; your choice.

 

In which definitions are you interested? This does a fairly good job of refuting the claims of most YEers on the 2LOT. </font>[/QUOTE]Its embarassing when you put the wrong URL in your post. I corrected it. Try the one that I have posted now.

 

Personally JWP, though I am staunch YEC myself, I believe this is a bit unfair. They do accept His Word, just not the literal meaning (in this case).

Don't we all do the same thing?

John 6
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Have you, and in what manner have you eaten His flesh and drank His blood?

Literally?

HankD

 

First, I want to thank you for your conciliatory tone.

Second, the point I have the most question about is how old the universe actually is. I have no difficulty believing that God spoke it into existence. I have no difficulty believing that God created it outside the governance of time as we know it. Otherwise, I can see how someone could come to the belief solely through reading the scripture that the universe is older than the specific creation on earth or that the universe had a previous creation... though I think the Scofield approach has some pretty serious weaknesses.

It is my opinion that it is and that there is no contextual indication anywhere that it isn't. I don't think that precludes everything other than YEC however.

I think it does preclude macroevolution however.

I think you have a strong opinion that is not shared by others with equal training and knowledge.

I really don't. I mostly do that for the benefit of those who must always have "an answer".

I think that is what often frustrates people like UT. My goal is not to prove any detail in particular but simply to establish that real possibilities exist within the bounds allowed by the evidence that do not conform to the naturalistic, uniformitarian presuppositions evolution but do conform to scripture.

Evolution also assumes that everything begins at "zero" and moves up from there. A creator nullifies this assumption completely.

 

Neither since both are going to be taught evolution as a fact and the only "scientific" explanation for origins without any discussion of the philosophical underpinnings or even basic honesty about it being a theory (witness the Georgia case).

I will agree with you that creationists shouldn't be haphazard with facts... it does hurt the cause. I do however think that the same scrutiny placed on creationists should be turned on evolution- not just its conclusions or explanations but its premises.

 

And for the Pastors who are untrained in the sciences a reference to true.origens.org would be a good idea.Then tell the to go to thier search windows and type young earth or old earth and hit search.They will find out much more than they want to know.
I for one am a YEC guy but I do know for a fact the earth is at least 59 3/4 years old based on my own personal experience.