Believing the Bible in the Face of 'Evidence to the Contrary'

[Ken Hamrick]

But in any case, the determination of such would not be based on any science as such, but strictly on a philosophical interpretation of a theological position. Thus, attempting to discuss it scientifically would only invite skepticism from a reasonable person yet to come to faith in the God of the Bible.

Regarding the existence of God and the fact of creation, there are many points of evidence worth discussing with unbelievers. This is most assuredly not one of them. At best, it is a distraction, but usually tends to be extremely counterproductive. If the universe looks billions of years old, then why not cede the point and move on? It's not a hill to die on. Christ died on Calvary, and so must all who would be saved.

There’s no such thing as a reasonable
skeptic. See Rom. 1 starting at v. 18. God has shown them the truth and they suppress it. Since God has not ceded the point, neither should we. The trustworthiness of inspired Scripture is a hill to die on.

 

[37818]

Do you believe that God created a universe that was already old?

Understand, if God created our old universe in that actual earth day, being understood as in the context of Genesis 1:1-5, then those billions of years would actually be those billions of years we now see. ". . . God, that cannot lie, . . ."

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Understand, if God created our old universe in that actual earth day, being understood as in the context of Genesis 1:1-5, then those billions of years would actually be those billions of years we now see. ". . . God, that cannot lie, . . ."

What do you men by, “ we now see”? We can only see billions of years by ASSUMING that God did not recently and miraculously create. If we assume what is not true, then who is really the liar?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Every miracle makes God out to be a liar in the eyes of those who do not believe. Lazarus lived out his days, after being raised from the dead, by all appearances as if he had not died. The wine served at the wedding, after Jesus had miraculously produced it, was not different from that which took much time and effort to produce. Those who go looking for naturalistic evidence in the face of divine revelation of a miracle will find such evidence and miss the miracle. But they have deceived themselves and have not made God a liar.

An understandable response, but using unprovable assertions. However, we do know that when Naaman was healed of leprosy in the OT, his healed skin did not look his age. And the wine Jesus made was surprisingly better than the best of the wedding. There is no proof that post-miracle what a scientist might find upon examination would look like your run-of-the-mill subject after the miracle.

But regardless of these appearances, arguing about the age of the earth or universe is about the last thing you should do when someone is wondering what science reveals. If you know much about the current state of debate, then you should know that atheistic scientists have virtually no scientific argument left to counter creation.

They wave their hands and grasp at metaphysical straws, and the chance to win the easy argument—the age of the earth and the universe. They claim that by scientific standards, they look billions of years old. And so they do. But the real question is where they came from, and for this they have no reasonable answers, and their case keeps growing worse. Whenever it was, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There’s no such thing as a reasonable
skeptic. See Rom. 1 starting at v. 18. God has shown them the truth and they suppress it. Since God has not ceded the point, neither should we. The trustworthiness of inspired Scripture is a hill to die on.

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away, and they may be right to avoid such as you. Note you twisted my words, deliberately or not.

Skepticism is a healthy way to approach any new ideas. The Bereans were skeptical and rightly demanded more proof. They did not remain unbelieving, but in being skeptical their faith was thus properly anchored.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There’s no such thing as a reasonable
skeptic. See Rom. 1 starting at v. 18. God has shown them the truth and they suppress it. Since God has not ceded the point, neither should we. The trustworthiness of inspired Scripture is a hill to die on.

Also, you sound confused here. You cannot establish the trustworthiness of Scripture via appearance of age. If the universe appears billions of years old, yet the Bible states otherwise, then there is no support for the trustworthiness of Scripture in that. It would have to be established some other way. The point is that you are futilely trying to work it backward.

 

[37818]

If science says a rock that is 6000 years old is 2 billion years old, science is technically still wrong.

On what basis is that said rock known to be actually only 6,000 years old?

 

[37818]

What do you men by, “ we now see”? We can only see billions of years by ASSUMING that God did not recently and miraculously create. If we assume what is not true, then who is really the liar?

Just that. Galaxies we can in our present time can see here from on our Earth.

"If we assume what is not true, . . ." Who in one's right mind would assume what is true is not true?

Most things we accept as true is based on the witness of others.

Those galaxies are images in photographes taken by others.

 

[Reynolds]

On what basis is that said rock known to be actually only 6,000 years old?

Genesis

 

[37818]

Genesis

Summerize how you derive the 6,000 years for an age of a rock using Genesis.

 

[Reynolds]

Summerize how you derive the 6,000 years for an age of a rock using Genesis.

The same way other YEC creationists derive the age.

 

[37818]

The same way other YEC creationists derive the age.

So YEC are wrong, while the Genesis account is true.

 

[Reynolds]

So YEC are wrong, while the Genesis account is true.

YEC is the only possible correct interpretation if you take the text literally.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Just that. Galaxies we can in our present time can see here from on our Earth.

"If we assume what is not true, . . ." Who in one's right mind would assume what is true is not true?

Most things we accept as true is based on the witness of others.

Those galaxies are images in photographes taken by others.

Rom. 1:18-21 tells us that God bears witness to all men through His created world that He is the eternal, supernatural Creator. Such truth may be suppressed, incurring the wrath of Heaven, but all men know in their hearts that it is true--not based on the witness of others but based on the witness of God. Therefore, if anyone begins his inquiry into origins already assuming that the world and all its current conditions originated and arrived at its current state strictly by means of natural causes, then they have "assumed what is not true"--and have assumed it in contradiction to what they know to be true at their deepest level but have chosen to reject it.

There is no reason to think that God did not create the light between the stars and the earth simultaneously with the stars themselves. He did not create Adam and Eve as infants and wait for them to develop, but created them already mature and suitable for His purposes. He had no need to create the earth with a molten crust and wait for it to cool, or create the stars and wait for their light to reach earth.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

An understandable response, but using unprovable assertions. However, we do know that when Naaman was healed of leprosy in the OT, his healed skin did not look his age. And the wine Jesus made was surprisingly better than the best of the wedding. There is no proof that post-miracle what a scientist might find upon examination would look like your run-of-the-mill subject after the miracle.

But regardless of these appearances, arguing about the age of the earth or universe is about the last thing you should do when someone is wondering what science reveals. If you know much about the current state of debate, then you should know that atheistic scientists have virtually no scientific argument left to counter creation.

They wave their hands and grasp at metaphysical straws, and the chance to win the easy argument—the age of the earth and the universe. They claim that by scientific standards, they look billions of years old. And so they do. But the real question is where they came from, and for this they have no reasonable answers, and their case keeps growing worse. Whenever it was, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I think you've misunderstood me. This apologetic is not something with which to lead off in evangelizing someone. Rather, it is an answer to those who claim that they cannot believe because they are convinced by the evolutionists' arguments and cannot reconcile them with Scripture's obvious and plain-sense meaning in Genesis 1. This apologetic is only intended to be used in the face of such an objection. "IF you must believe in a very old cosmos, or in evolution, then understand that none of that precludes a recent creation by miraculous divine command, since God could have created the world in whatever state (and with whatever fossils, etc.) that He decided to create it with." The fact and chronology of creation are revealed truths of inspired Scripture; but the condition and virtual age extrapolated from assumptions of natural origins at the time of creation are not revealed.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away, and they may be right to avoid such as you. Note you twisted my words, deliberately or not.

Skepticism is a healthy way to approach any new ideas. The Bereans were skeptical and rightly demanded more proof. They did not remain unbelieving, but in being skeptical their faith was thus properly anchored.

The Bereans were never skeptics against the revealed truths of Scripture. Scripture was their standard. Not at all a fair comparison to skeptics who weigh the plain-sense meaning of Scripture against so-called natural evidence.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Also, you sound confused here. You cannot establish the trustworthiness of Scripture via appearance of age. If the universe appears billions of years old, yet the Bible states otherwise, then there is no support for the trustworthiness of Scripture in that. It would have to be established some other way. The point is that you are futilely trying to work it backward.

The trustworthiness of Scripture is established by the witness of the Holy Spirit to its truth. Nothing else is needed. Arguments from physical evidence are irrelevant as to whether or not a miracle has taken place. Therefore, the attack on the trustworthiness of Scripture by those who think the physical evidence is relevant is refuted by establishing that a miraculous origin need not leave any evidence.

 

[37818]

There is no reason to think that God did not create the light between the stars and the earth simultaneously with the stars themselves.

There is no reason to believe that nonsense explanation. Light reveals what is actual and true. The Son of God is the true light (John 1:9-10), He is truth personified (John 14:6). He is God's glory Hebrews, 1:3.

 

[37818]

The same way other YEC creationists derive the age.

The false assumption of totally errless geneologies. Luke 3:36, ". . . Who was of Cainan, . . ." That extra name is not in our the Hebrew copies at that location.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think you've misunderstood me. This apologetic is not something with which to lead off in evangelizing someone. Rather, it is an answer to those who claim that they cannot believe because they are convinced by the evolutionists' arguments and cannot reconcile them with Scripture's obvious and plain-sense meaning in Genesis 1. This apologetic is only intended to be used in the face of such an objection. "IF you must believe in a very old cosmos, or in evolution, then understand that none of that precludes a recent creation by miraculous divine command, since God could have created the world in whatever state (and with whatever fossils, etc.) that He decided to create it with." The fact and chronology of creation are revealed truths of inspired Scripture; but the condition and virtual age extrapolated from assumptions of natural origins at the time of creation are not revealed.

I wonder if you really understood what I said to begin with. The point was to simply cede agreement that the earth and universe appear to be billions of years old. You needn't agree they are. The point is that this is not a good point to argue. In fact, it's a very bad one. Skip it.
…

Him: "Scientists say science shows the universe is billions of years old."

You: "Yes, I agree that God's creation appears to be billions of years old."

If he insists on arguing the age of the universe, then first make sure he agrees God created it, the Bible is God's word, and Jesus is the Word whom we all need to listen to and the Savior whom we all need to be saved.

You: "So then, you agree God exists and created the heavens and the earth?"

Him: "There is no God."

You: "And yet there is God's creation."

Him: "Nothing was created." (Or "the Universe created itself." Etc.)

You: "And why in the world would you think that?"

Him: "Because scientists say science says so."

You: "Really? And you just believe them?"

Him: "How can you question scientists and their science?"

You: "Let's say I've learned it's wise to be skeptical."​

Of course, it isn't all scientists but atheistic scientists. And the problem is not their science, but their worldview. Not everything scientists say are statements of science. They also invoke their authority in science to make unsupportable philosophical and metaphysical assertions.