I agree with Phil, above. Further, all sin is against God. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. Apart from God’s word, it is abundantly clear that one has sinned even if one has never read about the source of original sin. The point of Adam’s story is that a man, walking in communion with God, on a daily basis in paradise, with only one rule to follow will sin. If he will sin, so will EVERYONE else.
As Phil also says, I’m responsible for my sin and obtaining forgiveness. Not Adam.
Ever noticed that the story of Adam and Eve is a case study in passing the buck?
Nice!! (rimshot)
In Eve’s defense, I don’t think she passed the buck quite as badly or baldly as Adam. She said “the serpent tricked me,” which both points to the serpent and points back to herself. Not only does she admit to eating (as Adam does as well – they both might as well admit the obvious), she admits to being tricked, and her pointing to the serpent isn’t a passive-aggressive slam of God like Adam’s “the woman whom you gave to be with me.”
Now, if I were Eve, and if the traditional reading in which Eve is made after Adam were accurate, I would have said, “What, that fruit you told Adam not to eat? You mean I wasn’t supposed to eat it either? Why didn’t anybody tell me!”
I fully affirm God’s authority.
I affirm the Holy Scriptures as the canon by which all teaching must be judged.
I also affirm that when God commissioned mankind to tend the garden and to have dominion over the earth, that it is not because He needs our help. Rather, this work He gave us is for our own spiritual benefit. This work includes, but is not limited to, carpentry, agriculture, engineering, and science.
Do you disagree with anything I have said so far, @Ecerotops?
Thus I affirm the scientific findings that astronomers, geologists, and biologists have made.
I also affirm an exegesis of Genesis 1-3 that is faithful to the message it conveyed to its ancient audience in the cultural forms of its time and place. These passages were not read as journalism or as disquisitions on science. They conveyed God’s creativity, authority, and power with rich use of the symbolism of the time. In so doing, I affirm the non-literal hermeneutics of early Christian leaders such as Augustine and Origen.
Finally, I do affirm a literal Adam, Eve, and fall.
Best,
Chris
Thank you. I’m not sure that God meant that we are guilty of Adam’s sin–correct?
I agree that Ham means well. I don’t agree with him; but can agree that he has good intentions.
Passages of the Bible indicate the Sun orbits the earth, and that the Earth is stationary–it can not be moved (eg, the sun stood still). God used those images to come to us; they are erroneous. However, He knows that the Sun is still, and doesn’t stand still; and that the Earth goes around the Sun. When Copernicus and Galileo came along and turned over the ancient Biblical view, the church opposed them–both Luther and the Catholic Church did. Would you say that they were standing for God’s authority? Or were Copernicus and Galileo “experts” trying to help God out?
I believe sincerely you have good intentions, too; but believe me when I in earnest do put this question to you. Thank you, Brother.
Since I started the thread…
I affirm that God created everything.
I affirm that Adam is a historical person who sinned.
I affirm that we all sin.
I affirm that we need a savior, and Jesus is that savior.
I affirm God’s authority (one book I like that talks about that is Mind Your King by Doy Moyer)
So… I don’t see why it matters that I accept the evidence for old earth and evolution? They don’t affect any of the above things. At all.
Hello Ron,
OK. Do you know of a better way to counter those that seek to misuse the field of science to draw us away from the Bible?
If the statements made by AIG and other YECs (including myself) are only assertions, are we the only ones that do such? From my reading, I only know that most of what you spoke of above are derived from scientific data and in the case of the ark, study of animal history.
How do we know evolution is not an assersion? Exploration of the work of God in the natural leads to descriptive scientific laws behind it. You would have me whipped very well if you would only inform me of scientific laws that support amoeba to man evolution.
Hi Jim,
Why not extend to Ken Ham the same curtesy he extended to you? Who do you think inspired him to do so but God? Didn’t God graciously give you the ability? Would a deceiver likewise care about your soul? I know not Ken as a deceiver. Caution please!
If you are assuredly right with your stand, having the irrefutable truth on your side and thus confident to be adamont with it, what’s your concern? Is that the case? Are you sure that the person of Ken Ham is really your nemeses that’s troubling you? Ken on the other hand has long endured attacks against him because of his stand.
This takes us back to the question I ask as to why the division even though both sides were exposed to the same Biblical and scientific creation truth? I was not speaking of congregational division even though that too is unfortunately true. “Alternative” truth that requires compromise and invoke dislike consistently appears beside truth. What other reason can there be for two sides to alienate and blame the other for error?
But He does not expect us to “outgrow” our childlike humility before Him daily. As we go to Him and He speaks, we daily grow in maturity and understanding.
When God speaks to us personally through a Biblical passage, He does not require understanding of 100% of the Bible, but only the simple message the passage contains. When obeyed, God vastly opens understanding to more passages. even deeper understanding of many that were known already. No one understands 100% of the Bible but general understanding increases as time ripens. Biblical truth becomes complecated only with extraneous additions.
OK have your way. When you instruct your children in easily unstood simple terms, your instructions become absurd. You apparently favor your smarty-smarty child"
Biblical truth as properly read is in the light of the spirit that raises our understanding to the supernatural level. Did the scripture not inform us that the holy ghost shall lead us into all truth (John 14:17, John 16:13, John 14:26)? Mindless additions to the word of God scrambles this.
Earl
Good! I’m with you!
But the problem is not with you and me! It’s with the masses of people especially our children that don’t know God as well as we do that are deliberately led away from God by the error.
Earl
What is the error now again? Having scientific explanations for things?
Apart from a small cadre of militant atheist scientists such as Dawkins, most scientists are not engaged in some sinister quest to draw anyone away from the Bible. Scientists are largely motivated by curiosity, the urge to pry the lid off nature and have a look. Many are following a passion they have held since childhood, others are hooked on a subject in college. Theology, for the most part, is the last thing on their minds when conducting research.
The assertions of scientists are based on evidence. Organizations such as AiG openly presume the conclusion and dismiss any data to the contrary. The YEC assertions I referred to in my prior post, are not derived from scientific data, they are rather attempts to invalidate scientific data. These claims do not stand up to scrutiny and at times defy common sense.
Science can lead to a greater appreciation of what God has done in creation. It can actually draw you to God as you see the truth that He has revealed in nature. It can also draw you away from the fallible human interpretation you have made of scripture. This is a good thing and has actually been going on for a long time. Otherwise we would all believe we are standing on a flat earth, under a dome, with the sun and stars circling around us.
You ask if there is a better way to counter the science that you see as drawing people away from the Bible. As a solution, you put forth things that are not in the Bible and that are not scientifically supportable. Do you see the irony?
I have a better way… How about the truth? There are many of us who seek the physical truth that can be discovered through science and see the hand of God in it. Further, we know Jesus Christ as our Savior and believe that he was crucified, dead and buried and that God raised him up from the dead on the third day. It is through his forgiveness that we find salvation. No silliness or gymnastics… just the truth.
My children know God, and they’re being taught evolution (doing biology this year - woohoo!).
What leads children away from God is finding out that they’ve been taught lies about science in church. I know this from personal experience.
We don’t need to lie to our children to support belief in God. God created and maintains all the natural processes of the physical world. If it’s natural, it’s still God-created.
If you are going to Genesis 1 to see exactly how God created the universe and the earth, you’re asking the wrong question about those passages. And when you then make up scenarios for which there is no evidence or even any reason to suspect them (such as a change in radioactive decay rates or the speed of light), which are certainly not mentioned or implied in the Bible, THAT pushes people away from God’s word, and it makes people be suspect of anything else you say about the Bible. Again, personal experience here.
Now if someone says we didn’t need Jesus to die for us, THAT would be reason to step up and correct error. But someone accepting common descent? That, in and of itself, does not affect anything. Find the specific beliefs you are concerned about and approach those topics, instead of painting every TE/EC with a broad brush. There are much more concerning issues out there than this - such as seminaries teaching that many books of the Bible aren’t inspired, or many of the conclusions that come out of “minimalism” when looking at the history of the Old Testament.
Earl, do you or do you not believe that one must believe in a young earth in order to be saved? If you acknowledge that we can be saved while believing in an old earth and/or evolution, then why do you consider it to be grounds for concern about the salvation of my soul?
This takes me back to the original point in this thread, Earl. When someone claims that a rock formation is not fractured, despite having photographs on their own website clearly showing that it is, that is lying.
Once again, my concern is for honesty and factual accuracy in Christian apologetics. Telling flat-out, blatant lies does not uphold the Bible. On the contrary, it undermines it.
Exactly, and God clearly condemns lying in both the OT and the NT. It’s an abomination. I can’t fathom God approving of lying in order to defend the Bible.
Hello guys,
Even though true that it is not necessary to believe the young earth scenario in order to be saved (none of us are perfect), the concern is the potential danger of the sweet water of truth by which we are saved being mixed with the bitter water of untruth that may lead us and those that follow us into error that may greatly limit the miraculous effectiveness of the truth that we follow.
What I’m about to say is more to your defense than to Dr. Ham’s.
Whether the folded rocks are fractured or not is the least of any of my concerns. I don’t know about yours. Why so much heat from disagreements over rocks to the point of criminalizing opponents as blatant liars?
Is there any subtle issue lying under the surface? If it’s because the rocks are seen as evidence of the earth as mega-annum old, I only know that the fall of man is the result of direct disobedience to God’s obvious spoken word, not because of ignored evidence of any thing. Why didn’t it take millions of years for the punitive thorns and thistles to evolve into existence? Is God in any way glorified in these accusations?
Why allow Dr. Ham to slip light-years ahead of you when it comes to God’s grace because of Dr. Ham’s forgiving attitude toward you versus your determined effort to criminalize him and YECs as liars? Aren’t we all imperfect and dependent on grace? This brings home the danger of “alternative truth” I spoke of in the last posts that tend to wedge well meaning people against each other over the same revealed Biblical and scientific truth away from God’s perfect will. Aren’t we familiar with, “What goes around comes around?”
Even if I decide to believe that Dr. Ham and Dr. Snelling truly lied which I doubt, I would much rather believe their ”lies” about rocks than to believe that God departed from His character by playing crap games with molecules over billions of years instead of using the power of His spoken word to create the universe that includes us.
But, (pause) but, (pause) but, (pause) why do you support precepts of men added to the Bible? You know the men that I’m speaking of that I mentioned earlier (Charles Lyell, etc.).
You said,
The evolution that anti-God people love so well is the problem! (circular discussion?)
I will take a different rout by giving you SPE-cial answers below! Would you mind if I deliver what you sent around to us YECs back around to you OECs for you and Jim to see what the two of you delivered taste like? Here goes:
You said earlier that you mastered calculus easily-peasily. But do you know how to work literal equations? (This is not a stupid question) Your and other OEC’s tendency to ostracize us YECs for taking the Genesis six-day scenario literally forces the impression on me that you hate the word “literal” because working literal equations in math is extremely(!!!) hard to you! Your thinking of us YECs as cheaters and liars forces me to robotically conclude that you aced all of your math tests and earned 4.0 scores on the courses only by cheating. I know that you will not defend yourself about this because you believe in doing unto others (like Dr. Ham and Dr. Snelling) what you would like done unto you. That’s what justified what I said above.
I am back in my right mind now because I know you love the taste of what I said! Why condemn us (by condemning Ken Ham) even though we don’t condemn you?
Earl
I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. If it is not necessary to believe in YEC then how can it possibly “limit the miraculous effectiveness of the truth that we follow”? You are still saying it is required if you want the full truth.
Oh but you do. See the opening of your own post. And Ken Ham has said we are causing other people to turn from the Bible and not come to a saving knowledge of Christ. If that is not a condemnation I don’t know what is.
What are you talking about? The Bible does not state the age of the earth, nor does it state the specific method used to create life (God tells the earth to bring forth animals - no specific process mentioned, not even poofing into existence). If evolution is adding precepts to the Bible, then so is meteorology, because God clearly said He sends the rain.
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. That whole paragraph was completely incomprehensible.
(Also, you clearly have no idea what I believe about Genesis - you are arguing a strawman)
Snelling said the rock must have been folded while wet (Noah’s global flood) because there are no cracks. The rock does have cracks. Very obvious cracks. He, as a geologist who has seen the rock in person, knows it really does have cracks. He said in the article that the evidence was lack of cracks. I don’t know why you are excusing this?
If an evolutionary biologist claimed to have a cow that developed wings through natural evolutionary processes (brand new function! Macroevolution!), and he showed you a blurry picture with a fat guy standing in front of the cow where the wings would be, and you later found a picture of the same cow that clearly had no wings, would you not cry foul on that scientist? You should!
Anyway, I’m sorry you feel ostracized. I know that feeling, as I sit in church and hear “evolutionist” and “atheist” used interchangeably, as I watch a child sitting in front of me do a big thumbs down sign when “evolution” is mentioned in a sermon, as I sit in Bible class and hear evolutionary ideas mocked, or I go to a lecture with my brethren and hear that theistic evolutionists are “compromisers” and that accepting the old earth view is “following the crowd” and “dangerous”. I’m simply looking at the evidence God has placed in His creation and seeing what is true. My crowd is my church family, and it would be soooooooo much easier to hold the YEC view like they do. But it’s not truth. So I continue worshiping with them, and I talk to people when they make an insensitive comment. I do not try to convince them of my way. I do not make them feel bad for believing as they do. I keep the peace and endure the attitudes people have toward evolution. Yep, I know exactly how that ostracization feels.
Because lying is lying, Earl. This is not just some kind of subjective thing: there are objective, measurable criteria by which lying can be identified. When claims are made that clearly meet those criteria, it is only right and proper to respond to them by calling them lies, because that is precisely what they are. To dismiss such a response as mere “heat from disagreements” is to deny that the very concept of lying has any validity whatsoever. And that goes against just about everything that the Bible teaches.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.