Obviously you are going to believe what you want. I will just say this, A hermeneutic principle is you NEVER find a verse in order to contradict another verse. No different than a prosperity preacher who sees Jesus say, “the son of man has no place to lay his head”, but then finds other verses that have words i.e. bread, riches, harvest, children of the king, little gods etc… That is what you are doing. Actually it is worse, because you are negating entire chapters in the book of Genesis. Be careful
So, Wookin, where in Scripture does it tell us that God created evidence for events that never happened?
1 Like
That is a loaded question.
I guess the only thing I can answer that, is your concept of “evidence” is merely your presupposition of the way things happened. I wasn’t there so I rely on the word of God to tell me what God did. That is not science. That is God’s word of truth to me. If God said nothing of creating the earth in 6 days, and explained it rather lengthy. This would not be an issue today. And there lies the only difference between you and I. I trust scripture and you trust men. The question isn’t whether I have a presupposition, because I do. The question, is whether my presupposition is the correct one to have. And since, jettisoning 1-11 is basically unraveling the foundation of scripture. My default position in scriptural authority, is to take all of Genesis as literal historical truth, my friend God bless 
No Wookin, presupposition has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s measurement and basic mathematics, it’s as simple as that. And on the subject of measurement, the Bible is abundantly clear and completely uncompromising. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 says this:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
It is simply not possible to interpret the evidence for the age of the earth as indicating anything other than 4.5 billion years without violating that clear instruction of Scripture. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you, or doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about.
2 Likes
Genesis is not salvation; on the contrary, Jesus is! He is my Lord and Savior.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree, but what is your point here?
Never said it was
And this measurement and mathematics can explain the creation of the universe? Please explain the science in the creation of the world from a scientific view. Explain to me spontaneous generation as opposed to gradual spontaneous generation. It’s not a matter of measurement and mathematics. It was a supernatural event which occurred, and no amount of science can explain it, but we do have scripture.
What is clear and completely uncompromising is your misapplication of that verse. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 is explaining fairness and no cheating of others will make the land prosperous.
It is simply not possible to interpret the evidence for the age of the earth as indicating anything other than 4.5 billion years without violating that clear instruction of Scripture
I never said that. One can not conclude the age of the earth from looking at scripture. I said the book of Genesis when taken in it’s proper hermeneautical context does in no way support long ages, let alone 4.5 billion years. What violates scripture is theistic evolutionists and OEC(s) egregious misapplication of verses. i.e. 2 Peter 3:8
It would be better to just say, I do not accept the book of Genesis as truth, instead of giving it lip service as I believe it to be true in the sense that it teaches what God is telling me etc… In a nutshell, trust in Jesus, but we do not have to trust what he believed; even though he is God, he was a man in ancient times and only understood what he could observe, therefore he did not fully grasp science, which led him to make unscientific statements.
You’re confusing several different concepts here Wookin. Measurement and mathematics doesn’t give a complete picture of how the universe was created, but it does give a completely unambiguous and insistent verdict about when – a verdict that simply cannot be dismissed as “presupposition.”
This being the case, insisting that the Bible and long ages are incompatible is tantamount to denying the Bible.
Do you realise what you’re saying here Wookin? It’s tantamount to saying that lying is okay if money isn’t involved. Do you really believe that?
In any case, given that the measurements we’re talking about are used to sell books claiming that the earth is six thousand years old and that Noah had dinosaurs on board the Ark, I think that money very definitely is involved, and therefore that this verse very much does apply whichever way you look at it.
2 Likes
I am not confusing anything. I am infusing that no amount of mathematics and measurements can give a complete picture of a super natural event, unless the beginning of the planet was not included in the creation of the universe
This being the case, insisting that the Bible and long ages are incompatible is tantamount to denying the Bible.
No, it doesn’t. The bible actually indicates only thousands of years of history. One would have to play fast and loose with scripture to even see billions of years in scripture. You can believe in long ages but there is nothing in scripture to support that
Do you realise what you’re saying here Wookin? It’s tantamount to saying that lying is okay if money isn’t involved. Do you really believe that?
What I am saying, is that you misapplied scripture to fit your argument. One could see where you are going, but it is too much of an interpretive stretch to reach where you want me to be.
And what I am saying is that I didn’t.
The only way I could have been “misapplying Scripture to fit my argument” is if it were Biblically acceptable to tell lies in marketing but not in sales.
Wookin, where I want you to be is the same as with everyone in the debate. Make sure you know what you are talking about, and make sure your facts are straight. What’s too much of an interpretive stretch about that?
1 Like
I do not understand your statement here. You should be careful judging fellow Christians. In any case, I have given a good exegesis of scripture and will stand behind it. I am now leaving this topic to move on to something else. You write about me being bias. I have said enough on this topic. You do not seem to be willing to consider other views. God bless you in your attempt to find truth.
I have no clue what you are talking about. I was always taught, what is the point of the passage? You are conflating people who believe in another creation model as intentionally lying or misleading, because that is what that passage is talking about, INTENTIONALLY misleading others, and I can assure you that is not the case, which is why it brings us back to presuppositions. I look at creation through a green lense therefore I only see green. You look at creation through an orange lense therefore you see the world in orange. Something has to be outside our scope of lens to be the deciding factor. Science is not outside of that lense, but scripture is. Now, I know that you will argue that scriptural interpretation is merely someone else’s lens, and this could be the case, which is why they created hermeutical principles. You say that scripture supports your belief, then by all means show it.
Wookin, where I want you to be is the same as with everyone in the debate. Make sure you know what you are talking about, and make sure your facts are straight. What’s too much of an interpretive stretch about that?
That it is not what that verse is saying. This passage is the “laws of moral holiness”. They are laws to protect the poor, because the poor unlike the rich have no protection, and that those who become rich in a dishonest manner especially when that manner is the exploitation of the poor is an abomination to God and will be cursed. Take care of the poor and you will be blessed.
Sorry my friend. No, you haven’t. You gave an eisegesis. You should be more careful in how you handle the word of God.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)
“16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
No, Wookin, you know exactly what I’m talking about.
I don’t know how I could make this clearer to you.
- The age of the earth is determined by measuring things.
- There are strict rules that must be followed both in making and interpreting measurements. Any interpretation that does not follow these rules is not being honest.
- These rules have nothing whatsoever to do with worldview or presuppositions.
- Deuteronomy 25:13-16 tells us that we must be honest in how we handle measurements.
- Every claim of scientific evidence for a young earth that I have ever seen breaks these rules.
What are the rules? Start here:
2 Likes
I have used it correctly. You are mistaken. Again, You and I have discussed the topic enough. We are never going to agree on this side of heaven. When we get there (John 14:1-4), Jesus can tell us. Surely, he will.
Why does everyone who quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17 always, and I mean always, leave off verse 15?
NASB
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Wisdom for salvation and everyone says the age of the earth isn’t a salvation issue. So we know why the Bible doesn’t directly address the age of the earth. Sorry but misapplying genealogy doesn’t count (sorry for the pun).
3 Likes
Actually, I’ve seen plenty examples of young earth claims that are intentionally misleading. Here are just a few examples:
- Dividing the rate at which ocean sediment is deposited on the continental shelf by the amount that’s found on the ocean floor to give a meaningless result
- Claiming that bent rock layers are not fractured when photos exist that clearly show that they are
- Exaggerating and misrepresenting the state of preservation of soft tissue remnants in fossils
- Fudging the amount of helium found in radioactive rocks
- Claiming that processing samples for carbon dating eliminates contamination when in reality it introduces it
- Claiming that a minority of discrepancies of just 20-30% justify claims that all results must be consistently out by a factor of a million
- Claiming that cross-checks make assumptions when in reality they test them
- Claiming that oil exploration does not rely on the age of the deposits when in reality it does
No, Wookin. It is what the verse is saying. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 is about dishonesty. By trying to insist that it’s about exploiting the poor, you’re implying that dishonesty is acceptable in other situations.
Seriously, I think you’ve gotten so focused on the context here that you’ve lost sight of the significance of the text itself.
2 Likes
Perhaps you should be more careful how you handle the Word of God and judge other people. You need to realize that there are differences of opinion and thought. I accept the Bible and the Creeds (I believe) of the Holy Christian Church. “Credo” means “I believe.” That is why I have it above in this paragraph. I am orthodox in my theology. I would like to know what you are. Do you believe that Benjamin B. Warfield, granduncle of Wallis Warfield Simpson Windsor, would belong to my camp of theology? Do you believe that the earth is only six thousand years old? Also, my exegesis is correct. The earth is much older than 6000 years. May God bless you in your quest for truth.
Edward Miller, MA in Religion, Liberty University School of Divinity
Southern Baptist Convention