The Video That Ended a Career

[Alive in Christ]

"It's sad that the professor was fired for expressing his opinion - which by the way is backed by the sciences, particularly astronomy and geology. I don't believe that the earth is literally 6000 years old. I believe that the earth and the universe are millions of years old, and God had his creative hand in the formation of the world.

This earth and universe are approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

God spoke the universe, and all that exists, into existence. We KNOW that to be so by way of Gods written revelation to us.

Evolution is a COMPLETE...100%...ridiculous...(((FAIRY TALE.))), Peggy!

Right up there with Puff the magic dragon and the tooth fairy.

It is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Fish turning into rabbits. Rabbits turning into horses. Horses turing into chimps. Chimps turning into humans. :laugh:

Pure absurdity

People will fall for anything.

 

[HAMel]

I personally don't have a problem whether our world is 6 - 10,000 years old, or 160 million years old.

To me, this is one of those areas that we can only speculate about. If the universe was created a million years ago and the world we know is according to Scripture, then so be it!

I tend to believe the Word of our Lord and accept it at that. One day I'm sure we'll find out for sure but until then...,

I think these folks who emphatically declare the world is 90 billion years old are merely attempting to discount the Word of God. What a waste.

 

[Peggy]

First of all, how sad that people judge one's faith or salvation on whether or not one believes in a literal creation or not. You don't even know me... how can you judge whether I am saved or not. For shame. At the Last Judgement, is Jesus going to have a pop quiz on theology or whether or not you believe in a literal Creation account? (Matt. 25: 31-46)

This earth and universe are approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

The sciences, particularly astronomy and geology, say that the earth is millions of years old. This can be proven. When you say the earth is only 6000-10000 you cannot prove it. It is merely an interpretation of the Creation story. The Creation story is not meant to be taken literally... it was how God explained the beginnings of the world to primitive cultures.

God spoke the universe, and all that exists, into existence. We KNOW that to be so by way of Gods written revelation to us.

Yes... millions if not billions of years ago.

Evolution is a COMPLETE...100%...ridiculous...(((FAIRY TALE.))), Peggy!

No, the Creation account is a "fairy tale".

It is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

The Creation myth is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Fish turning into rabbits. Rabbits turning into horses. Horses turing into chimps. Chimps turning into humans.

That is not evolution. God created and molded creatures "after their kind". But what we call "Horse" did not magically appear overnight, neither did the mountains or the stars. The mountains were formed over eons; the stars burst into existence by God's command billions of years ago. We are only just now seeing the light from the farthest stars. And life forms as we know them did not appear overnight, but were formed gradually by God's creative hand. The fossil records confirm that.

Pure absurdity

That's your unscientific opinion

People will fall for anything.

I agree.

I grew up in a Fundamentalist church that taught a literal, six-day creation. I now feel cheated out of not learning the truth. I feel cheated because I did not learn about geology or astronomy as sciences, but was given nonsensical interpretations that did not conform to the reality that I saw with my own eyes. I feel cheated because I would have enjoyed studying geology and especially astronomy, but was steered away from that by my Fundamentalist teachers. When they said that God created the earth with "an appearance of age", I thought, "why would God want to fool us?" So I have complete respect for this professor who does not wish to propagate a literal six-day Creation story that completely contradicts reason. Reason and true science will not contradict faith. My faith in God is even more firm when I think of His creative hand and presence forming the universe over such a vast amount of time that I cannot even comprehend it. We believe that God is eternal, with no beginning and end. Surely the thought that He created the universe billions of years ago does not contradict this statement, but enhances it. What a God, who had us in mind when He created the world billions of years ago! It boggles the mind.

 

[Amy.G]

The Creation story is not meant to be taken literally... it was how God explained the beginnings of the world to primitive cultures.

So I guess the 10 commandments weren't meant to be taken literally?
Exodus 20:11 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.

That's as clear as God can make it.

No, the Creation account is a "fairy tale".

What?????? God doesn't write fairy tales. I can't believe I just read this!

The Creation myth is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Again, I can't believe I just read this. This is what my atheist family members say. Not saying you're an atheist. Maybe just a very confused and deceived Christian?

That is not evolution. God created and molded creatures "after their kind". But what we call "Horse" did not magically appear overnight, neither did the mountains or the stars.

You're right. Nothing appeared "magically". God created all things and spoke them into existence just the way He purposed to and just the way scripture plainly tells.

Colossians 1:16 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 principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

That's your unscientific opinion

:laugh:
No. That's yours.




HERE is a very interesting presentation that would be well worth your time.

 

[saturneptune]

This earth and universe are approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

God spoke the universe, and all that exists, into existence. We KNOW that to be so by way of Gods written revelation to us.

Evolution is a COMPLETE...100%...ridiculous...(((FAIRY TALE.))), Peggy!

Right up there with Puff the magic dragon and the tooth fairy.

It is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Fish turning into rabbits. Rabbits turning into horses. Horses turing into chimps. Chimps turning into humans. :laugh:

Pure absurdity

People will fall for anything.

There is only one exception to your post. Most Baptist preachers turn their mid section into frog bellies after several years of raiding pot lucks.

 

[Amy.G]

There is only one exception to your post. Most Baptist preachers turn their mid section into frog bellies after several years of raiding pot lucks.

HA!!!! :laugh:

 

[Alive in Christ]

"Most Baptist preachers turn their mid section into frog bellies after several years of raiding potlucks"

Yep. :laugh:

And even though I am not a pastor, I was evolving into a frog belly a while back.

But I came to my senses and have de-evolved back to my good and slim 190 pound self! :wavey:

 

[matt wade]

First of all, how sad that people judge one's faith or salvation on whether or not one believes in a literal creation or not. You don't even know me... how can you judge whether I am saved or not. For shame. At the Last Judgement, is Jesus going to have a pop quiz on theology or whether or not you believe in a literal Creation account? (Matt. 25: 31-46)

I never judged your salvation. I just said you didn't have faith. If you don't believe God's word, then you don't have faith in it or what He said.

The sciences, particularly astronomy and geology, say that the earth is millions of years old. This can be proven. When you say the earth is only 6000-10000 you cannot prove it. It is merely an interpretation of the Creation story. The Creation story is not meant to be taken literally... it was how God explained the beginnings of the world to primitive cultures.

By this line of reasoning, the sciences say that someone can't be dead for three days and then be brought back to life. Will you now tell me that the resurrection is not meant to be taken literally? Science will also tell us that it's impossible for someone to walk on water. Will you now tell me that Jesus walking on water was a myth?

No, the Creation account is a "fairy tale".

The Creation myth is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Pitiful....

Yes, once again I have faith, you don't. You've just illustrated my earlier point.

That is not evolution. God created and molded creatures "after their kind". But what we call "Horse" did not magically appear overnight, neither did the mountains or the stars. The mountains were formed over eons; the stars burst into existence by God's command billions of years ago. We are only just now seeing the light from the farthest stars. And life forms as we know them did not appear overnight, but were formed gradually by God's creative hand. The fossil records confirm that.

Wait a second now! The sciences will tell us that it is impossible that their exists a God to command the stars into existence. By your earlier line of reasoning you must also believe that God is a myth.

 

[uhdum]

This is fascinating; we don't have any evolutionary creationists (that I know of) down here in ol' western Kentucky... I have to read about 'em on the world wide interwebs!

Although I believe in a literal 6-day creation like I believe His word says, Peggy, what is one thing that led you to this particular belief?

 

[J.D.]

Peggy said, "God created and molded creatures "after their kind". But what we call "Horse" did not magically appear overnight, neither did the mountains or the stars. The mountains were formed over eons; the stars burst into existence by God's command billions of years ago. We are only just now seeing the light from the farthest stars. And life forms as we know them did not appear overnight, but were formed gradually by God's creative hand. The fossil records confirm that."

Question: How do the fossil records, which apparently is your source of truth, confirm that "God created..."?

 

[rbell]

No, the Creation account is a "fairy tale".


The Creation myth is held to by its believers by absolutely NOTHING other than faith. Wishfull thinking.

Let me get this straight...you're a staunch defender of the Shroud of Turin...but you call the creation account a "myth," a "fairy tale," and question the intelligence of those who believe it?

You seem pretty mixed-up to me.

 

[Benjamin]

I would presume that Peggy is speaking of a “a literal six day creation/ Young Earth creation interpretation” and this is what she is referring to as “myth” and “fairy tale” and not “creation” in general. Possibly the mix up is that she left out this clarification and is falling prey here to semantics? Just a guess…

 

[uhdum]

Possibly the mix up is that she left out this clarification and is falling prey here to semantics? Just a guess…

We can only hope...

 

[Peggy]

I would presume that Peggy is speaking of a “a literal six day creation/ Young Earth creation interpretation” and this is what she is referring to as “myth” and “fairy tale” and not “creation” in general. Possibly the mix up is that she left out this clarification and is falling prey here to semantics? Just a guess…

I believe I was clear in saying that I believe that the Creation story was written down to explain to primitive cultures the hand of God in creation. It is not, nor was it meant to be, a scientific explanation of the beginnings of the universe. Did God create the universe? Yes. Did He do it in six literal days? No. Did I say that I question the intelligence of those who believe in a literal six day creation? No.

I'm not sure if anyone actually read my post. You question my faith because I don't believe in a literal six day creation, yet I said that belief in a universe that God spoke into existence and took billions of years to emerge strengthens my belief in Him.

I believe The Shroud of Turin is genuine... although I don't want to go down that rabbit trail and get off subject.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm not sure if anyone actually read my post. You question my faith because I don't believe in a literal six day creation,...

Just to be clear after reading the above post, since you quoted me, and then went on to say, "You question my faith"...FTR, I did no such thing, I simply pointed out that some clarification might be needed, on/for your behalf.

 

[Michaelt]

I believe I was clear in saying that I believe that the Creation story was written down to explain to primitive cultures the hand of God in creation. It is not, nor was it meant to be, a scientific explanation of the beginnings of the universe. Did God create the universe? Yes. Did He do it in six literal days? No. Did I say that I question the intelligence of those who believe in a literal six day creation? No.

I'm not sure if anyone actually read my post. You question my faith because I don't believe in a literal six day creation, yet I said that belief in a universe that God spoke into existence and took billions of years to emerge strengthens my belief in Him.

Curious question ma'am? How are the six days interpreted then in Genesis, and again in Exodus? Aren't all the other uses of the word translated for day used in the same way through scripture, especially when given a numerical along with it?

And a second curious query? Is there anything that you read in scripture that could provide a basis for a non literal six day creation?

I don't want to jump on the bashing bandwagon so I won't, but those two questions came to mind so I thought I'd ask?

 

[Deacon]

Dr. Bruce Waltke’s Statement of Clarification:

“I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context:

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.

4. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

5. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

6. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

7. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.


8. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.


9. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).”

 

[Deacon]

Aren't all the other uses of the word translated for day used in the same way through scripture, especially when given a numerical along with it?

And a second curious query? Is there anything that you read in scripture that could provide a basis for a non literal six day creation?

Most of these points have been exhaustively disputed ad nauseam on a multitude of websites (including this one) If you're really curious do a search of this site.

Simple Observations Regarding the Word “day” in Genesis 1-2: ​

1) A problem that was noticed thousands of years ago concerns how long a day might be or how there might be an “evening and morning” before the sun was made on day four.

2) If we are to translate “day” consistently literal mean a “24-hour day” then there’s a problem with Genesis 2:17 (“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17 ESV).

3) Day six seems to have more activities than could be accomplished in a normal 24-hour day.

4) Genesis 2:4 shows yet another reason the word “day” can mean something other than 24 hours.

Additionally there is New Testament support for the broader interpretation of the Genesis day based upon the text of Hebrews 4: 1-13.

Rob

 

[Michaelt]

Most of these points have been exhaustively disputed ad nauseam on a multitude of websites (including this one) If you're really curious do a search of this site.

Simple Observations Regarding the Word “day” in Genesis 1-2: ​

1) A problem that was noticed thousands of years ago concerns how long a day might be or how there might be an “evening and morning” before the sun was made on day four.

2) If we are to translate “day” consistently literal mean a “24-hour day” then there’s a problem with Genesis 2:17 (“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17 ESV).

3) Day six seems to have more activities than could be accomplished in a normal 24-hour day.

4) Genesis 2:4 shows yet another reason the word “day” can mean something other than 24 hours.

Additionally there is New Testament support for the broader interpretation of the Genesis day based upon the text of Hebrews 4: 1-13.

Rob

Good points, but in the context, and there are some 400+ instances where the word day is used in conjunction with a number to specify "a day", as in a 24 hour period.

Granted it's understandable if you use the term without a number with it, then it can be any period of time.

I wouldn't see any problem with Gen 2:4, the "day" usage there enveloping the time frame of the six days of creation that were described earlier in Genesis? So I agree it "can" mean something other than a 24 hour day, and I would say that in many instances it "does"; but I think calling the first day, second day, third day, etc....I think that gives a little more narrow scope of what the context of the word was.

Day six seems to have more activities than could be accomplished in a normal 24 hour day? We are still talking about God here yes? The creator of all things? Certainly God could do any number of activities in one 24 hour day, could He not? I mean, He could have created the entire galaxy and all life in an instant if He chose, could He not?

 

[Timsings]

. . .People will fall for anything.

This is the most true statement that you have made. However, it cuts both ways.

Tim Reynolds