Several people (at least four, including me) who have served and specialized in Bible translation have frequented this forum as EC-leaning participants.
Bible translators certainly lean on the Holy Spirit! But they are not inspired in the same way as the writers of scripture, dear friend.
@neil, thanks for your discussion. Can you clarify what assumptions it takes to count tree rings or varves as years? Thanks.
Yes, it is based on assumptions. You humbly admitted this. Thank you.
How are you going to understand what I am talking about and how are you going know if my facts are straight?
I believe the Bible tells us that God spoke the stars into existence in one, 24 hour day.
Hello, Neal, thanks for your willingness to engage in this topic. Iâm curious, what facts do you have that support a 6000 year old earth? Also, how would you suggest implementing YEC science in the classroom? What evidence would you propose that should be included in addition to the facts that support an earth that is billions of years old?
Evidence is observable, assumptions are without proof. Cosmology will ALWAYS be based on assumptions and presuppositions. At its core, it is a theological argument. Scientists in cosmology will ALWAYS make assumptions from the heart.
Every conclusion is based on some premises. But I think the premises that trees and ice varves grow a ring a year are based on observable facts. Do you have a problem with the assumption that we can make correct observations about reality and accurately determine facts? If you wonât grant that assumption, Iâd say that is being unreasonable.
The word of God.
I would suggest that everyone repent of their sins and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Then we would all know the complete facts of how God made the Heavens and the Earth!
There is no evidence, because there are only presuppositions. Instead, I would have questions to that question as to where you get the facts that the earth is billions of years old. I donât want to hear, God spoke the elements into existence BANG, and the elements clung together to form clusters, that transformed into stars. In turn, these stars collided with other stars, and then formed galaxies, and then the solar systems formed like our own, âŚno one was there to observe what happened 6000 years ago, let alone 13.7 billion years ago. The only historical evidance we have is that the Earth was formed on day 3, and the stars and galaxies, and our own Sun was formed on the 4th day. These were what we all know to be 24 hour days, like today, not 1000 year days, or anything like that.
Hi Neil,
Itâs overwhelming getting ganged up on like this! I applaud you for keeping up, even if it is getting a little heated. Feel free to pace yourself; unlike most Forums, folks here can enjoy a slower pace and still respond, most often. Iâve been other places online where if you donât respond within 24 hours, the conversation has completely moved on and you get ignored. Itâs not like that here, generally.
Do you really mean what youâre saying here? Is there a verse that supports this position, my friend? It seems like youâre suggesting that conversion magically bestows exhaustive scientific knowledge on the new believer. I donât know anyone (YEC friends included) that teaches thisâŚ
Blessings,
Andrew
And @NeilN, thanks for reminding me that the most important commonality here is that we all affirm Jesus is Lord,in addition to earnestly searching for the truth. We rejoice with you in that. If you want to talk about something else, great. The folks here are really nice. Maybe you can tell us more about yourself sometime, or what made you interested in science in the first place. Iâm not a scientist, but like to hang out here. My parents were missionaries in Muslim NorthWest Africaâa terrific place to grow up.
You are committing a fallacy to my argument. You are placing a circular reasoning to my argument that many assumptions have to be in place for you to make a conclusion on tree rings and ice varves that do not square to 6000 years old.
I replied, âIt takes a lot of assumptions though. If you disagree, you are not being reasonable.â
You can disagree and say that it does not take assumptions, which is unreasonable, or you can agree and say, yes it does take assumptions. When you say âspecial understandingâ, you are placing this as âwith beyond a reasonable doubtââŚthatâs not right. It DOES take special understand that I would call ASSUMPTIONS.
Neil,
If you are going to say that something is based on assumptions, you need to say precisely what these assumptions are and precisely what physical evidence you have that they could be unreliable or misleading.
It is simply not sufficient to just cry âassumptionsâ and âpresuppositionsâ like that. That kind of response is just vacuous, and it wastes everybodyâs time.
In the sense that I would love to see ALL come to the grace and mercy of the Lord, then He can sit down and answer all our Creation questions. I guess you could call it a personal wish. Which , yes, is not in scriptureâŚother than in context I suppose with 2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slack ness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Is your implication that people just need to repent in order to see the truth as you do? As you are probably aware on some level, a very high percentage of us on this forum have indeed recognized our sin and our hopeless eternity without God. We have acknowledged our need for a Savior in the person of Jesus Christ, and have accepted His sacrificial death and victorious resurrection. I donât think this is as easy a resolution as you suggest.
How would you propose teaching this in a science class with a complete absence of supporting scientific evidence? As others have said, this would be reasonable in a theology or philosophy class, but science classes works best when there is evidence to teach.
You did not ask the question, sir. It was not directed to you. I do feel that one who adheres to a YEC is not welcomed here because it is required of me in this case to give definitions to the âassumptionsâ when OEC and EC can freeley use words like INVISIBLE Dark Matter and the INVISIBLE Oort Cloud as if we YECâs must assume they exist. Please.
Thank you for the kind words. Some proverbs are giving me a reminder. In particular, PROVERBS 13:3. I should heed them.
I was answering a question in mind that I was hoping everyone, not to specifically everyone in here, would come to repentance. So that one day we can all sit down and listen to how God made everything without us fallen creatures chiming inâŚthats all I was saying. I apologize if I caused confusion.
I was on this line⌠2 Peter3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slack ness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Proverbs 13:3 3Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
Good one. Thanks! My sonâs favorite passage is Psalm 119:99-100 99
âI have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.â
Now, if my 10 year old and I can work on the humility one (pride comes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction), weâll be fine 
Just kidding. That was my favorite as a kid, too.
KJV-only, eh? Now I understand a bit more about your mistaken understanding of the Holy Spiritâs role in Bible translation.
I suppose if everyone on earth fully repented, then perhaps the Lord would return, and then we would be able to ask Him in person. Iâm assuming thatâs what you must mean.
Iâm not sure how that responds to Curtisâs question âhow would you suggest implementing YEC science in the classroom?â but anyway, Iâll leave that between you two.
A good verse for all of us, to be sure!
I know when I try to reply quickly to a bunch of people at once, itâs hard to really consider what each of them is saying. I also tend to reply hot-headedly when Iâm replying quickly. Sometimes if I step away and come back, my response can be a bit calmer and more winsome. This is just my own experience. I donât mean to project it on you.
Have a nice evening!
Andrew
Neil, this is an open forum. Anyone can respond to anyone else.
No, you just have to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, and that you are willing to listen to other people explain why they do not see things the same way as you do, especially when they tell you that you arenât getting your facts straight. You donât have to agree with the rest of us, but it isnât helpful for you to ignore, misrepresent or quote mine what we are saying to you, or to jump to conclusions about where we are coming from that are simply factually untrue.
Wrong assumption. I am not KJV only. (sigh) I am sad, though. I have to go. I will pray that I become more understanding and seek to understand a position better before commenting. I hope you all see that I love the Lord and that I do love you all. I know it is hard to articulate words sometimes and I am really working on this, but my heart is to seek the Lord and love Him before all else. Please understand.
I am sorry if I seemed short, I really am not. God bless you all!
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.