• 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!

How do you young earthers know

Status
Not open for further replies.

matt wade

Well-Known Member
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female," Matthew 19:4


Is Jesus a liar?

Jesus tells us that if you don't believe the writings of Moses, you can't believe Him.

"But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female," Matthew 19:4


Is Jesus a liar?


But Jesus didn't say when the beginning was now did He.

"Jesus tells us that if you don't believe the writings of Moses, you can't believe Him.

"But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47

Well Matt... It doesn't say that comming to a different creation date than a literal (and highly suspect) six day creation means that one believes Jesus to be a liar.
It really seems that YOU hold to this opinion. If that's the case (which it's not) then there are some pretty saintly people who thought that Jesus was a liar.

Who would they be? Hmmm... Let's see!

Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Theophilus of Antioch
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (ibid., 3:28–29).

Irenaeus
"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).
"For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days" (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian
"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Victorinus
"God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).

Lactantius
"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

Basil The Great
"‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day" (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).

Ambrose of Milan
"Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).

continued...
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
continued...

Augustine
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).

Please stop trying the intellectually weak tactic of claiming that because one doesn't believe in "FILL IN THE BLANK", then one is by necessity calling Jesus a liar.

WM
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Perhaps... Yet isn't it odd how cosmological dating tends to support geological dating?

WM

Sorry I misunderstood I thought you were saying the evolution record was accurate. Since the carbon dating formula is C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth it is a little hard to givean exact true reading with this formula. Evolution would use the age of the earth as 4.5 to 5 billion years thus skewing the end result and calling it true.
 

WestminsterMan

New Member
Sorry I misunderstood I thought you were saying the evolution record was accurate. Since the carbon dating formula is C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth it is a little hard to givean exact true reading with this formula. Evolution would use the age of the earth as 4.5 to 5 billion years thus skewing the end result and calling it true.

I see evolution as a different topic (perhaps wrongly) from the young - old Earth question. I suppose these things get bundled together because of the Darwin versus Creationist debate.

Thanks,
WM
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
But Jesus didn't say when the beginning was now did He.

Yes he did! Note the definite article with the singular noun! Can you find any other creation spoken of by Jesus or any other "beginning" used in connection with creation of things (Jn. 1:1-3) or any context where Jesus claims to be the Creator of more than one "creation" or one "beginning" of all things (Jn. 1:1-3)! You don't have a single solitary statement by Christ that can be manipulated into teaching there was any other creation that Christ acted as Creator but ONE!

Furthermore, note that he places Gensis 1:27 "at the beginning" of creation rather than billions of years after creation. Your interpretation of Genesis one does not place Genesis 1:26-27 "at the beginning" but billions of years after the creation of the heavens and earth. His words simply deny the possibility of your interpretation of Genesis one.

There is no way you can interpret "at the beginning" for Geneis 1:27 while placing BILLIONS OF YEARS between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27.

You are just whistling in the dark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr. Walter

New Member
Again, how does your theories stand up against how INSPIRED men interpreted the repeated "And God Said" content of Genesis One?

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1:26-27 as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

David interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

Peter interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

God Himself interprets Genesis one as literal non-poetical historical narrative as the basis for the Fourth Commandment.



Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Literal statement or figuragive words:

And God said, - v. 1

And God said,- v. 6

And God said, - v. 9

And God said, - v. 11

And God said, - v. 14

And God said, - v. 20

And God said, - v. 24

And God said, - v. 26

And God said, - v. 29


Literal or Figurative:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Ex. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 FOR in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God Himself interprets these numerical days as non-poetical but literal historical narrrative and sets them forth as THE EXAMPLE for observing non-poetical but literal historical seven days in our own life. Poetical numbers involving billions of years would be ABSURD for such an example to follow.


FINAL NOTE: Jesus makes a direct reference to Genesis 1:26-27. We know this because Genesis 1:26-27 is the ONLY PLACE in the Genesis record where the words "male and female" are found and Jesus says:

Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The "poetical" theory is based upon the wording in Genesis 1:27 in order to use it as a lift off to interpret the repetitive words "the evening and morning were the first.....second....ect" as poetical, not to be literally understood but rather figuratively understood! Why? In order to make the Genesis record fit the BILLIONS OF YEARS evolution model.

However, it is this very text (Gen. 1:27) that Jesus lifts his very words "male and female" from and places the origin of man "AT the beginning" or "from the begining of Creation" rather than BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of the universe.

This "poetical" developmental argument interpretation makes Genesis 1:26-27 directly contradicts the TIME FRAME in which Jesus places the origin of man.

This is not an INTERPRETATION problem with Christ's words. You cannot HONESTLY interpret those words to mean the exact opposite. Search the use of the term "beginning" used by the New Testament writers in regard to creation and you cannot find any objective evidence to force Christ's words "at the beginning" and "from the beginning of creation" to mean BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of earth - can't be done HONESTLY!

Hence, by PRINCIPLE the evolutionary BILLIONS OF YEARS interpretation opposes Jesus Christ, His words and ultimately His own veracity and thus His character as the Son of God. If you deny His words are part of the inspired scriptures then you are taking a position that no other textual critic has advanced and provided any evidence to support. Hence, you are again in PRINCIPLE rejecting Christ as the Son of God because he regarded scriptures as inspired and so did those He taught.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Please stop trying the intellectually weak tactic of claiming that because one doesn't believe in "FILL IN THE BLANK", then one is by necessity calling Jesus a liar.

I've given specific Bible verses that show Jesus Himself taught that man was created in the beginning of the world. That instantly gets rid of evolution. That instantly validates the creation account.

You've given opinions located outside Scripture.

Yes, if you don't believe the creation account then you are calling Jesus a liar. Either he is telling the truth or he is a liar. It is simple. Why must you make it so difficult?

It's hilarious to me that those that hold to views that are jnot scriptural have to go through tons of gymnastics to get there. I simply read the Bible and believe what it says. I guess that makes me intellectually inferior to you. I can't quote 150 different people and ramble on and on like you. I simply read the Bible and believe.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
I never saw him once call Jesus a liar

You don't have to DIRECTLY call someone a lying, all you have to do is deny what they are saying is true.

Jesus is directly referring to Genesis 1:27 and saying this event occurred "AT THE BEGINNING" of creation not BILLIONS OF YEARS after creation.

The gentlman you are defending ridicules a literal 7 day creation and takes the position that BILLIONS OF YEARS occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27 and therefore Jesus is wrong in placing it "AT THE BEGINNING" of creation (Gen. 1:1) but rather it occurred billions of years AFTER creation.

That INTERPRETATION is an accusation that Christ lied whether or not the one holding that interpretation recognizes it, admits or denies it.
 

mandym

New Member
Here's an idea..let WM speak for himself. I also wasn't saying that WM specifically was a liar. I was talking in general terms.

Here is an idea....stop making over the top and uncredible accusations against a brother in Christ. Just behave yourself.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Here is an idea....stop making over the top and uncredible accusations against a brother in Christ. Just behave yourself.

Uncredible accusations? Behave myself? Get over yourself.

It is recorded in the Bible that Jesus said man was created at the beginning of creation. That undeniably confirms a young earth view. I'm sorry if it doesn't mesh with your personal beliefs, but it's what Jesus said. Either you can believe Him or not.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
Here is an idea....stop making over the top and uncredible accusations against a brother in Christ. Just behave yourself.

You do not know what you are talking about! The position taken by the person you are defending is contradicting what Jesus said and that is a fact that can be easily proven IF one is simply fair with the evidence presented.

As I understand this forum it is the moderator's job to rebuke those on this forum who are out of order in his estimation. Perhaps you should take your own advice and stop usurping the postion of the moderator?
 

mandym

New Member
You do not know what you are talking about! The position taken by the person you are defending is contradicting what Jesus said and that is a fact that can be easily proven IF one is simply fair with the evidence presented.

That may be but that is a far cry from calling Jesus a liar. the over the top rhetoric is childish. And everyone should rebuke it.
 

mandym

New Member
Uncredible accusations? Behave myself? Get over yourself.

It is recorded in the Bible that Jesus said man was created at the beginning of creation. That undeniably confirms a young earth view. I'm sorry if it doesn't mesh with your personal beliefs, but it's what Jesus said. Either you can believe Him or not.

I hold to a young earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe that any interpretation other than a literal one is a grave and serious error. But that does not justify your language.
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
It is recorded in the Bible that Jesus said man was created at the beginning of creation. That undeniably confirms a young earth view. I'm sorry if it doesn't mesh with your personal beliefs, but it's what Jesus said. Either you can believe Him or not.

You are precisely correct! If Jesus, as the Creator, actually believed that the earth was even millions, much less billions of years old, and that man was a developmental process according to the evolutionary principle or according to the Theistic evolutionary principle he could not have possibly utter the words "AT the beginning" when referring to what he said was "written" concerning "male and female" found only in Genesis 1:27 in the creation record.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a seminarian trained scholar to realize that his TIME statement for the origin of man is IMPOSSIBLE to harmonize with a GAP of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27.

For Christ words to harmonize with that TIME placement of Genesis 1:27 with either secular or theistic evloution of BILLIONS OF YEARS he would have to had to say "AFTER the beginning of Creation."
 

Dr. Walter

New Member
That may be but that is a far cry from calling Jesus a liar. the over the top rhetoric is childish. And everyone should rebuke it.

Pointing out that such a interpretation makes a liar out of Christ is ESSENTIAL to demonstrate the seriousness of this error BECAUSE that is a factual truth. Failure to point this out would be a great omission as it would not elevate the seriousness of this error in light of the TIME FRAME that Christ put on Genesis 1:27. The theory of Evolution is a direct charge that Christ is a liar, or deceived and thus not the Son of God.

The Son of God demands by his words that man was created "AT the BEGINNING of creation" not AFTER the beginning of creation as evolution necessarily demands. If evolution is correct then Christ lied. If Christ is correct then all who embrace evolution and interpetations to support evolution are calling Christ a liar whether they recognize it, admit, or deny it - it makes no difference because the facts are still facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mandym

New Member
Pointing out that such a interpretation makes a liar out of Christ is ESSENTIAL to demonstrate the seriousness of this error BECAUSE that is a factual truth. Failure to point this out would be a great omission as it would not elevate the seriousness of this error in light of the TIME FRAME that Christ put on Genesis 1:27.


No it doesnt
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
That may be but that is a far cry from calling Jesus a liar. the over the top rhetoric is childish. And everyone should rebuke it.

If you don't believe what someone is saying, then you are saying they are lying. Why mince words? Why should I make nicey-nice about it? Let's break it down into possible options for believe Jesus' statements.

1. You believe Him.
2. You don't believe Him, but think that He is simply misinformed.
3. You don't believe Him, but think that He is lying.

I'd like to hear you try and justify either 2 or 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top