It is contrary to the gospel because it places death and other things such as suffering before the fall of man. That alone denies it.Now you can call it steamrolling or whatever you want. But I never said that because it is an alternate view it is contrary to scripture. Those are your words. My position is that it is contrary to scripture because it places death prior to where God said it happened and to whom. That creates a theological crisis regarding the gospel.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In the Beginning....
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It is contrary to the gospel because it places death and other things such as suffering before the fall of man. That alone denies it.Now you can call it steamrolling or whatever you want. But I never said that because it is an alternate view it is contrary to scripture. Those are your words. My position is that it is contrary to scripture because it places death prior to where God said it happened and to whom. That creates a theological crisis regarding the gospel.
In my research, I will disagree.
He is presenting the different viewpoints - not that he believes this one viewpoint. It is under the heading a. "Old Earth" Theories of Creation; (1)Day-Age View. He also addresses the Literary Framework View as (2). So it is taken out of context as saying it is his own view, which it is not.
then Gruden is allowing for it and he is represented honestly by Hugh Ross. don't be so quick to dismiss reputable Christian leaders. That's not healthy for the body.
How do you know?
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
There is nothing in the actual context that demands super speed growth, you simply have to assume that based on a 24 hour period of time.
And that is reasonable. But there is nothing in that passage that allows for anything else.
Who said anything about evolution ?? [taunting smiley deleted]
Darren
So outside of evolution and a 24 hour day time period what alternative is there?
Luke 24:27 -
I asked this a few pages but it may have been lost in the amounts of responses and if you're like me, Sunday's are very busy.
You said that you arrived at your view of the days of Genesis 1 from your study of the original languages. And that science confirmed it.
My question is if science all pointed out that we have a young earth, would you go against science and say, "No, the Bible teaches that the earth is old."
I will always go with the Bible, Brother Tom. Always.
However, all truth is God's truth and therefore true science will never contradict the Scriptures.
Old Earth does not as many VERY reputable Christian scholars purport. Norman Geisler, for example, is a tremendously respected Southern Baptist Apologist and he believes that the Scriptures teach an old earth.
John Phillips believes this as well.
According to Dr. Walter Kaiser, one of the translators of the NKJV, the word for "day" in the hebrew, yom, is found in the Authorized version 508 times. Of those it is rendered 58 different ways.
Yom does not, by any means, denote a 24 hour day.
Therefore, it is actually the traditionalists who are forcing that upon the text in Genesis 1.
We have done this for centuries. The church gets used to a certain position that the Bible really does not teach, then science discovers that position is wrong (not that the Bible is wrong mind you but that the mistaken position is). Then thinking Christians go to the text and say, "Well, does the Scripture actually teach the traditional position?" They then find out that the traditional position is actually NOT taught in Scripture and they actually discover that science is not contradicting the Scripture but confirming it.
This was the case with the geocentric (earth centered) position, flat earth and others.
As we look into the Scriptures in light of these scientific discoveries we find to our amazement that indeed the Word of God was teaching that all along.
But that is not to say that even ancient Christians did not consider the possibility of an old earth. St. Augustine waffled back and forth on the idea finally taking a young earth position but allowing for the fair interpretation of Genesis 1 as an old earth. Many other Christians in church history held the Old Earth position as well. Isaac Newton, for example.
I will always go with the Bible, Brother Tom. Always.
However, all truth is God's truth and therefore true science will never contradict the Scriptures.
Old Earth does not as many VERY reputable Christian scholars purport. Norman Geisler, for example, is a tremendously respected Southern Baptist Apologist and he believes that the Scriptures teach an old earth.
John Phillips believes this as well.
According to Dr. Walter Kaiser, one of the translators of the NKJV, the word for "day" in the hebrew, yom, is found in the Authorized version 508 times. Of those it is rendered 58 different ways.
Yom does not, by any means, denote a 24 hour day.
Therefore, it is actually the traditionalists who are forcing that upon the text in Genesis 1.
We have done this for centuries. The church gets used to a certain position that the Bible really does not teach, then science discovers that position is wrong (not that the Bible is wrong mind you but that the mistaken position is). Then thinking Christians go to the text and say, "Well, does the Scripture actually teach the traditional position?" They then find out that the traditional position is actually NOT taught in Scripture and they actually discover that science is not contradicting the Scripture but confirming it.
This was the case with the geocentric (earth centered) position, flat earth and others.
As we look into the Scriptures in light of these scientific discoveries we find to our amazement that indeed the Word of God was teaching that all along.
But that is not to say that even ancient Christians did not consider the possibility of an old earth. St. Augustine waffled back and forth on the idea finally taking a young earth position but allowing for the fair interpretation of Genesis 1 as an old earth. Many other Christians in church history held the Old Earth position as well. Isaac Newton, for example.
So you do not have an argument other than someone else believes what you approve of?
How do you know?
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
There is nothing in the actual context that demands super speed growth, you simply have to assume that based on a 24 hour period of time.
Who said anything about evolution ?? :BangHead:
Darren
Yes, and as a matter of fact of the 36 who voted on this thread not a SINGLE ONE voted that he believes in evolution.
Every time they accuse someone of believing evolution they are attacking straw men.
Yes, and as a matter of fact of the 36 who voted on this thread not a SINGLE ONE voted that he believes in evolution.
Every time they accuse someone of believing evolution they are attacking straw men.
and the alternative is what?
So you do not have an argument other than someone else believes what you approve of?
I'll not dignify that comment with a direct response. All of us who have any sense are glad to lean partially upon the strength of great Christian scholars.
It is contrary to the gospel because it places death and other things such as suffering before the fall of man. That alone denies it.Now you can call it steamrolling or whatever you want. But I never said that because it is an alternate view it is contrary to scripture. Those are your words. My position is that it is contrary to scripture because it places death prior to where God said it happened and to whom. That creates a theological crisis regarding the gospel.
Why does it matter if things died before Adam?
This does not undermine any Christian doctrine.
Death did not enter the world of men until Adam's fall. But that animals and plants died before Adam does no damage to fundamentalism.
As a matter of fact according to Gen 1:12 there were plants that were growing and bearing seeds and dropping those seed and those seeds growing into new plants. Jesus said, "Except a corn of wheat fall to the ground and die it cannot bear fruit."
Plants were dying before Adam according to the record unless you press upon the text this sped up growth thing to maintain the totally unnecessary 24 hour day position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Earth does not as many VERY reputable Christian scholars purport. Norman Geisler, for example, is a tremendously respected Southern Baptist Apologist and he believes that the Scriptures teach an old earth.
John Phillips believes this as well.
According to Dr. Walter Kaiser, one of the translators of the NKJV, the word for "day" in the hebrew, yom, is found in the Authorized version 508 times. Of those it is rendered 58 different ways.
Yom does not, by any means, denote a 24 hour day.
Therefore, it is actually the traditionalists who are forcing that upon the text in Genesis 1.
You are 100% correct. Dr Franscis Schaeffer was also open to an older earth as well. This debate will not be won by greater claims of authority or acedemia or scholarship. There are geniune christian professionals on both sides of the camp.
What I DO notice is how obnoxious and rude young earthers can be. I watched the debate on YouTube just last night - Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross Debate on John Ankerberg Show from 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI
Kent Hovind continued to use statements like "cult", "the God that I serve"... He was downright rude to Hugh Ross even claiming that Hugh Ross was pushing heresy. To me that is just completely obnoxious.
Darren
Why does it matter if things died before Adam?
This does not undermine any Christian doctrine.
Death did not enter the world of men until Adam's fall. But that animals and plants died before Adam does no damage to fundamentalism.
Sure it does death is a result of corruption. No corruption entered creation until the fall of man. To say that it did is contrary to the effects of the fall and direct revelation.
You are 100% correct. Dr Franscis Schaeffer was also open to an older earth as well. This debate will not be won by greater claims of authority or acedemia or scholarship. There are geniune christian professionals on both sides of the camp.
What I DO notice is how obnoxious and rude young earthers can be. I watched the debate on YouTube just last night - Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross Debate on John Ankerberg Show from 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI
Kent Hovind continued to use statements like "cult", "the God that I serve"... He was downright rude to Hugh Ross even claiming that Hugh Ross was pushing heresy. To me that is just completely obnoxious.
Darren
I saw that debate as well.
As a side note, Kent Hovind is now in prison for fraud I believe. That does not mean anything against other young earthers, but it does say a lot about Hovind's arrogance.
Sure it does death is a result of corruption. No corruption entered creation until the fall of man. To say that it did is contrary to the effects of the fall and direct revelation.
Prove this Scripturally.
Death did not enter the world of men until Adam's fall. But that animals and plants died before Adam does no damage to fundamentalism..
An interesting side note is that young earthers teach that the law of entropy came in at the fall and not before. However the burning of the sun and many other laws of physics requires entropy in its process.
Darren
Last edited by a moderator:
then Gruden is allowing for it and he is represented honestly by Hugh Ross. don't be so quick to dismiss reputable Christian leaders. That's not healthy for the body.
No - Ross took what Grudem said out of context. THAT is not healthy for the body.
Prove this Scripturally.
Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
According to Dr. Walter Kaiser, one of the translators of the NKJV, the word for "day" in the hebrew, yom, is found in the Authorized version 508 times. Of those it is rendered 58 different ways.
Yom does not, by any means, denote a 24 hour day.
Yes, "yom" standing all alone COULD mean "age". However, it is not alone. It is with an ordinal number. We don't say "there was evening and there was morning, the first age". That makes no sense whatsoever, does it? How does an age have an evening and morning?
An interesting side note is that young earthers teach that the law of entropy came in at the fall and not before. However the burning of the sun and many other laws of physics requires entropy in its process.
Darren
this assumes that all things were then as they are now. Which we know to be false. Man did not die until sin nor was his body being corrupted. That has changed since the fall. Your assumption is not valid.
Why does it matter if things died before Adam?
This does not undermine any Christian doctrine.
Death did not enter the world of men until Adam's fall. But that animals and plants died before Adam does no damage to fundamentalism.
As a matter of fact according to Gen 1:12 there were plants that were growing and bearing seeds and dropping those seed and those seeds growing into new plants. Jesus said, "Except a corn of wheat fall to the ground and die it cannot bear fruit."
Plants were dying before Adam according to the record unless you press upon the text this sped up growth thing to maintain the totally unnecessary 24 hour day position.
Death entered by one man. Not that death entered the human race but death entered. Period. All creation groans, does it not? It did not groan before sin entered the world because....it was perfect.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.