What convinced me of a young Earth is really common sense. IF evolution and an old Earth are true and Genesis is nothing more than a fairy tale, then we have a huge problem. You see if there’s no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no literal Fall, if there’s no literal Fall, then there’s no literal Hell, if there’s no literal Hell, then there’s no need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ. The whole gospel falls apart.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are There Errors in the Bible?
- Thread starter Jason Gastrich
- Start date
Jason Gastrich
New Member
Praise God for those that started to post about their faith in the scriptures. It is of no surprise that the OECs will NOT TOUCH the theological or biblical implications of their viewpoint; even though they've had every opportunity to do so. They prefer to repeat a handful of OEC mantras while ignoring the most important part of the dilemma; the scriptural one.
This topic was created in order to discuss ALLEGED BIBLE ERRORS; not OEC/YEC. If anyone wishes to do so, then I will read and respond. Otherwise, I will visit this thread on occasion and avoid posting.
Lastly, I run a site called YECs.org. If anyone needs some awesome articles on young earth creation, please visit http://yecs.org . I also have another page with lots of great links, debates, and research on YEC and you can see it here: http://mustsee.jcsm.org .
Sincerely,
Jason
P.S. If anyone else continues to post on YEC/OEC, make sure you call people on straw men like Charles saying Ankerberg couldn't teach him YEC. Duh. Ankerberg isn't a scientist. He's an apologist. HINT: ad hominem is another logical fallacy I've seen used here quite a bit in the OEC camp. *shakes head*
This topic was created in order to discuss ALLEGED BIBLE ERRORS; not OEC/YEC. If anyone wishes to do so, then I will read and respond. Otherwise, I will visit this thread on occasion and avoid posting.
Lastly, I run a site called YECs.org. If anyone needs some awesome articles on young earth creation, please visit http://yecs.org . I also have another page with lots of great links, debates, and research on YEC and you can see it here: http://mustsee.jcsm.org .
Sincerely,
Jason
P.S. If anyone else continues to post on YEC/OEC, make sure you call people on straw men like Charles saying Ankerberg couldn't teach him YEC. Duh. Ankerberg isn't a scientist. He's an apologist. HINT: ad hominem is another logical fallacy I've seen used here quite a bit in the OEC camp. *shakes head*
Charles Meadows
New Member
Hey Jason,
"P.S. If anyone else continues to post on YEC/OEC, make sure you call people on straw men like Charles saying Ankerberg couldn't teach him YEC. Duh. Ankerberg isn't a scientist. He's an apologist. HINT: ad hominem is another logical fallacy I've seen used here quite a bit in the OEC camp. *shakes head*"
Didn't you say previously that YOU were not a scientist either?
*smiles slightly and giggles"
"P.S. If anyone else continues to post on YEC/OEC, make sure you call people on straw men like Charles saying Ankerberg couldn't teach him YEC. Duh. Ankerberg isn't a scientist. He's an apologist. HINT: ad hominem is another logical fallacy I've seen used here quite a bit in the OEC camp. *shakes head*"
Didn't you say previously that YOU were not a scientist either?
*smiles slightly and giggles"
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Jason,
More absolute nonsense! I would be very glad to more than "touch the theological or biblical implications of [my] viewpoint," but I didn't want to further derail your thread." And Jason, if you are not familiar with the theological answers to the imagined problems cause by OEC beliefs, I suggest that you do some reading. If you will do so, you will learn for yourself that the problems are 100% imaginary and based entirely on a lack of understanding of both the Scriptures and Biblical theology. And let’s ALL be honest enough to make the distinction between OEC beliefs and beliefs about evolution.
My personal faith is in God and His word to us; not in some man’s pet hermeneutical scheme. My personal faith does not require that I believe things that are not true, but only things that are true. God is true, the Scriptures are true, but the INTERPRETATIONS of the Scriptures held by some people in this thread are not true. I know this first of all from the Bible, and secondly from science. You may know a little bit about the Bible, but you know virtually nothing about science. A whole lot more study of the Bible, and a solid education in the natural sciences, would show you how sadly mistaken you are.
James 3:1. Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. (NASB, 1995)
No! - Everything in the Bible is there because God wants or has allowed it to be there. If we see something that looks like a mistake or contradiction, it may be! But, it is only an “apparent” mistake. Our own reasoning or interpretation causes this apparent discrepancy. If God allows it in the Bible, it is NOT an error.
Some say, "If the Bible has contradictions or errors, then God is not perfect or is lying." That is ridiculous. That's like saying that because we can not currently reconcile the theory of relativity and quantum theory that God is lying. That is also ridiculous. God reveals how and what he chooses. He is not in debt to us to demonstrate matters to suit our whims or understanding.
Why would God allow things in the Bible that are hard to understand or makes us question them or Him? - Faith - He has his reasons. Our ignorance and lack of understanding are not excuses for lack of faith. He shows us what we need to know.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)
Has God shown us, in the Bible, everything we want to know about the world? - No! - Get Real! He said, “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” This is our burden and our opportunity, to figure out how to do this! He said, “it’s the glory of God to conceal a thing, it’s the glory of a king to reveal it.” It’s interesting that we had the Bible for 3500 years and only in the last 20 have we had the technology to get on the “net” and argue this stuff. If the Bible teaches such irrefutable science, why did it not inform us sooner?
Is the Bible meant to be a scientific treatise? - No! - See above.
Is the Bible meant to be a scientific treatise on origins? - Theological: Yes! - “In the Beginning God…”; Physical: No! – “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thought”, “If I tell you earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you spiritual things?” See above.
What does the Bible teach us? - The Essentials – These are VERY clear and hard to mistake, though we always do (trivial matters and disputes cloud our minds). God tells us who He is. God tells us who and what we are (created in His image). God tells us that he is love and he loves us so much he sent His Son to die for us while we were yet vile sinners. God tells us our greatest desire in life should be Him. God tells us how to treat each other. God tells us how to shun hell. God tells us how to attain heaven. All else is a sideshow for our amusement (or vexation).
I’ve written on more than the original topic of the thread. I felt I would respond to the direction the thread has turned.
- My two cents -
In Christ,
Michael
Marcia
Active Member
This kind of statement bothers me a bit as it leaves the door open (not intentionally maybe) to statements that the Bible is true on theology but not on science, etc. Although the Bible is not a science book in the sense of being a book to teach us science, nothing discovered as objectively true by science will conflict with the Bible.
After all, God created the laws discovered by science, such as the law of gravity. God creates and reveals; science discovers what God has created. So I have no trouble saying that the Bible cannot be contradicted by science, when it is interpreting data correctly and has objective data to back up its assertions.
Since I believe in Gen 1 as a literal narrative, I do not think any theories that conflict with that are correct.
UTEOW;(and other evolutionary creationists)
One phrase and only one phrase you used has destroyed your arguments.
"We will need a lot of dark matter to hold these systems together."
Interesting you would appeal to something 'dark' when,"He was not that LIGHT, but was sent to bear witness of that LIGHT. That was the TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." You require something dark to hold things together and yet evidently your understanding is 'darkened'.
Consider this; "For by HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or pricipalities, or powers: ALL things were created by HIM and for HIM: and HE is before all things AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST."
Consider also, "Who being the brightness of his glory,and the express image of his person, AND UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER..."
My friend, you would do well to heed what others have been trying in this thread to tell you. Look to Scripture for your answers. Scripture makes it very plain that the earth is young, about 6000 yrs, give or take a decade or two. Not to take this as fact and on faith is to do violence to the rest of God's truths. Simply believe it. This must be a willful decision on your part. To say the earth is old is to call God a liar. You impugn the very character of God.
I really do not care what so-called science says. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. grace be with thee." "And they will turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
You see? It is all here on the printed page. All you must do is get a bigger God or exercise the measure of faith which He has given you. God was no fool which used death to create all we can observe around us. For evolution to work, there must have been many billions of deaths before Adam. This does violence to Scripture and impugns God. You CANNOT have both God and evolution. You CANNOT make the God of Life into a god of death who killed billions of living things to create other living things. It simply doesn't work.
Peace man! Be at peace and believe God, jettison (sp) your theories and accept what God says is fact.
In Him only;
Jim
"luv ya bro"
One phrase and only one phrase you used has destroyed your arguments.
"We will need a lot of dark matter to hold these systems together."
Interesting you would appeal to something 'dark' when,"He was not that LIGHT, but was sent to bear witness of that LIGHT. That was the TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." You require something dark to hold things together and yet evidently your understanding is 'darkened'.
Consider this; "For by HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or pricipalities, or powers: ALL things were created by HIM and for HIM: and HE is before all things AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST."
Consider also, "Who being the brightness of his glory,and the express image of his person, AND UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER..."
My friend, you would do well to heed what others have been trying in this thread to tell you. Look to Scripture for your answers. Scripture makes it very plain that the earth is young, about 6000 yrs, give or take a decade or two. Not to take this as fact and on faith is to do violence to the rest of God's truths. Simply believe it. This must be a willful decision on your part. To say the earth is old is to call God a liar. You impugn the very character of God.
I really do not care what so-called science says. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. grace be with thee." "And they will turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
You see? It is all here on the printed page. All you must do is get a bigger God or exercise the measure of faith which He has given you. God was no fool which used death to create all we can observe around us. For evolution to work, there must have been many billions of deaths before Adam. This does violence to Scripture and impugns God. You CANNOT have both God and evolution. You CANNOT make the God of Life into a god of death who killed billions of living things to create other living things. It simply doesn't work.
Peace man! Be at peace and believe God, jettison (sp) your theories and accept what God says is fact.
In Him only;
Jim
"One phrase and only one phrase you used has destroyed your arguments.
"We will need a lot of dark matter to hold these systems together."
Interesting you would appeal to something 'dark' when,"He was not that LIGHT, but was sent to bear witness of that LIGHT. "
I think you entirely missed the point.
As far as dark matter goes, there are quite few reasons to suggest that either it exists, or that there is something seriously wrong with what we know about gravity. The most likely is dark matter. When you look at the visible matter in a galaxy and then check the orbital velocities. They do not match. You need about 5 times more mass to make the orbital mechanics work. When you look at gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters, again you get bending consistent with there being about 5 times more mass there. And when you look at the gravitational effects on light from the cosmic microwave background, you again get about 5 times as much invisible matter as visible.
Besides, "dark" here means unseen. Not "evil." That is the fallacy of equivocation.
Now for the quote. There was a suggestion that maybe the speed of light has changed. So I went through a derivation to show that if that were the case, then our measurements of the rotational velocity of M31 would be off by a factor of about 1000. Now since we measure something like 400 km/sec then the real velocity would have to be greater than the speed of light. It was a sarcastic statement to say that you would need a lot of extra matter to hold together a galaxy where the parts were travelling at the speed of light. It really could not be done.
"We will need a lot of dark matter to hold these systems together."
Interesting you would appeal to something 'dark' when,"He was not that LIGHT, but was sent to bear witness of that LIGHT. "
I think you entirely missed the point.
As far as dark matter goes, there are quite few reasons to suggest that either it exists, or that there is something seriously wrong with what we know about gravity. The most likely is dark matter. When you look at the visible matter in a galaxy and then check the orbital velocities. They do not match. You need about 5 times more mass to make the orbital mechanics work. When you look at gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters, again you get bending consistent with there being about 5 times more mass there. And when you look at the gravitational effects on light from the cosmic microwave background, you again get about 5 times as much invisible matter as visible.
Besides, "dark" here means unseen. Not "evil." That is the fallacy of equivocation.
Now for the quote. There was a suggestion that maybe the speed of light has changed. So I went through a derivation to show that if that were the case, then our measurements of the rotational velocity of M31 would be off by a factor of about 1000. Now since we measure something like 400 km/sec then the real velocity would have to be greater than the speed of light. It was a sarcastic statement to say that you would need a lot of extra matter to hold together a galaxy where the parts were travelling at the speed of light. It really could not be done.
But there aree serious implications here. Granted, anything is possible for God. But you have to ask: Why a history recorded in space that never happened? Why fossil bearing rock of animals that never lived? And so on. Maybe you do not have a problem with the details of an "appearance of age." I do.
Charles Meadows
New Member
I personally don't have a problem accepting that God could make an earth with the appearance of age - but why would he?
I don't know, did Adam or Eve have a belly-button? What did their RNA-DNA look like?
Did Adam speak from the moment God breathed life into him? Apparently the words were in his memory, God must have put them there without the "normal" process of learning.
Hankd
I don't have a problem with God making the universe any way He chose to. Perhaps in answer to the question, "why would He make it with an appearence of age?": one might reply, "to confound the wise of this world, that He might show His mighty power, that He might reveal Himself to the humble, that He might shut the mouths of the "scientists" who think they know more about how this universe was created than God does. As was said to one who was more perfect than any man of his day, "Where were YOU when the foundations of the earth were laid? Where is the way where light dwelleth? Hast thou given the horse strength? Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. Who can number the clouds in wisdom? Gavest thou the goodly wings to the peacocks?...
Well... you get my point by now I think.
You say "evolutionary creation" I say, with God's Book, MIRACULOUS INSTANTANEOUS LITERAL 6/24 HOUR DAY CREATION. It is impossible for there to be errors in God's Book, of any kind. The error rests solely in your, or my, understanding. Where we may find an alleged error; obey a simple rule. God is always right.
I think the greatest thing I have learned in the Bible is two words..."BUT GOD..."
Have a nice day friend.
In Him only;
Jim
Well... you get my point by now I think.
You say "evolutionary creation" I say, with God's Book, MIRACULOUS INSTANTANEOUS LITERAL 6/24 HOUR DAY CREATION. It is impossible for there to be errors in God's Book, of any kind. The error rests solely in your, or my, understanding. Where we may find an alleged error; obey a simple rule. God is always right.
I think the greatest thing I have learned in the Bible is two words..."BUT GOD..."
Have a nice day friend.
In Him only;
Jim
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
We have here in Matthew 4 a historical narrative in which Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and this historical narrative tells us explicitly how Satan accomplished this—he took Jesus up into an “exceeding high mountain” from which Jesus could view the entire earth. In order for this historical event to have actually taken place, it would be necessary for the earth to be flat. Therefore, the writer of Mark’s Gospel clearly believed the earth to be flat, and this very mistaken concept caused the writer of this Gospel to write a historical narrative that was not historically accurate.
[ July 18, 2004, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
We have here in Matthew 4 a historical narrative in which Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and this historical narrative tells us explicitly how Satan accomplished this—he took Jesus up into an “exceeding high mountain” from which Jesus could view the entire earth. In order for this historical event to have actually taken place, it would be necessary for the earth to be flat. Therefore, the writer of Mark’s Gospel clearly believed the earth to be flat, and this very mistaken concept caused the writer of this Gospel to write a historical narrative that was not historically accurate.
[ July 18, 2004, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Whoops!
Monitors: Please delete this post. My post above did not seem to have actually been posted, so I posted it again, and both posts showed up, this one as a duplicate before I edited it.
Monitors: Please delete this post. My post above did not seem to have actually been posted, so I posted it again, and both posts showed up, this one as a duplicate before I edited it.