Perhaps you’ll learn about your pain threshold.
Many theologians hold true…name many theologians who hold to the old earth theology please…the vast, and I say vast majority of theologians I am aware of completely disagree with old earth.
White, Wallace, Brown…just to point out 3 very well known ones who also happen to be biblical textual criticism and historical experts.
Do I really need to answer that? Is your only source of academic knowledge a science textbook written by humanistic individuals and yet any genuine Christian science you immediately discount? Also, what about non scientific sources of knowledge (non scientific textbook), are they not also a vital part of learning?
Is secular science your only authority? If so, then you are a fool and the creators of this forum a cult leadership (and I know this forum is no cult)
Actually I have science textbooks written by Christians that totally support an old earth and evolution. There are many such books available. The YEC literature I have read is laughable.
Why did you address this to me? What is genuine Christian science? Is it YECism?
Yes God can hear you from His heaven.
We are talking about Heaven, not the supernatural aspects of our life here on Earth. Care to share a scripture that supports this spiritual world is actually Heaven? The picture of Heaven in Revelation pretty much precludes it from being present here on Earth, at least until the Second Coming.
J. I. Packer
Donald Arthur Carson
Edward Joseph Young
I could go all day listing names, but that would be just a make work project. The Scofield Reference Bible supported the gap theory. When I was in Bible college the entire faculty held to either the gap theory or day age. None thought the earth to be young. AiG complains that at Christian colleges, more theologians than science faculty hold to an old earth.
How can anyone who tries to demonstrate that the biblical scheme of creation is well-founded make God look like a liar? It is not good to put into someone’s mouth what he has not said. What differentiates us in this debate is the fact of someone who demonstrates that the biblical scheme of creation is well-founded and those who want it to remain as it is. But, it has nothing to do with the faith we have in God and it’s okay if we don’t touch that side. What I write is not like someone who describes the computer by looking at it in a picture. I have entered the computer (biblical diagram of creation) and I bring you back what I have discovered. If you want to throw stones at me like the Jews did when Jesus said that “Before Abraham was, I was” you can still do it. Know that humanity has 8 billion people and that we are not all born with the same wisdom, nor with the same abilities. And, the intelligence that God offers to each of us, we will have to spread it to complete also that of the others.
It certainly isn’t Old Earthism
You are right. In fact, in the biblical scheme of creation, the Bible shows us the big picture, but it’s science that brings us the details. But when you try to show where those details are, the first to fight back are theologians, not scientists. That’s what amazes me. I understand why it was the teachers of the law who influenced Jesus to be put on the cross, instead of the political leaders. For them, Jesus was just a blasphemer who contradicted everything Moses had said. In the field of religion, although we must keep our faith in God intact, our knowledge can always be enriched through new studies and discoveries.
There are many disciplines in the world. Each has its limits. Where the knowledge of one is limited, it must be supplemented by others. One cannot maintain an argument by one’s own conviction while another brings you contrary evidence. In principle, it is not evidence to the contrary, but you should know the context of the argument you are defending.
For me, saying that the earth is old cannot even be debated anymore. Besides, these debates only take place among theologians. I think that when Jesus said “blessed are those who believe without having seen”, it has nothing to do with the knowledge that is growing for ever and ever.
When we speak of the spiritual world, we mean all its non-physical spheres, in particular: the kingdom of heaven, paradise and hell. It is not only in Christianity that we find these words. It is in all religions. All religions teach that there is a sphere where spirits reside. It is the generality of all these spheres that we call the spiritual world, just as the physical world represents the whole universe.
There is no “genuine Christian science.” There is simply science. Seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. E.g. if someone is suffering from seizures, we look for epilepsy and prescribe medication, we don’t look for demon possession.
If plague breaks out we we look for a pathogen instead of blaming it on Jews.
Are some flasks and test tubes Christian and others heathen? Are there sanctified spectrographs? Is the James Webb Telescope humanistic or genuinely Christian? How is math different?
Can a non-Christian take your blood pressure and prescribe medication? What ever will you do in a medical emergency? What if the ambulance driver and his team aren’t believers? Do you wave them away and request somebody else?
No that’s science.
I think this is a gross oversimplification of the issues at stake.
Here is the problem…
Theistic Evolution claims to be Theism combined with Evolution. It cannot simply ignore the pre eminance of Theism doctrine and place Evolution in front of that doctrine. It must (I believe) genuinely attempt to marry the two.
I put this to you Beagle Lady…
to use one of your own TEism arguments against you…“would you change your view if a YEC Scientist was able to prove your theories had problems and that in fact the YEC interpretation of the science was right?”
Before you answer that question I suggest that you consider:
Michael Behe’s studies
Dell Hackets videos with quite a number of scientists on a whole range of topics from the fossil record to the study of the rock formations in the Grand Canyon
Stephen Myers work
Textual Criticism experts Dr James White, Dan Wallace
Even Bart Erhmans work on the historical Jesus (strange I should cite a nonchristian but believe it or not Barts expertise adds enormous relevance to this debate)
When one puts together the correct understanding of biblical history and theology from the likes of White, Wallace, Erhman…and marries this with YEC scientists such as Myer, Behe, Hackett and many others…honestly, the doctrine that Biologos puts forward is simply unworkable and indeed very obviously false.
Now what happens is that the TEist ingores and indeed even scoffs at anything that is contrary to any Humanistic interpretation of the Science. How can you in all good conscience as a Christian laugh at Christian Scientific interpretations simply because Humanistic Scientific interpretation is apparently more credible? Honestly, is a Christian really going to favour Humanistic theory and theology? That is a contradiction that I for one simply do not understand…particularly when I see the extremely poor theology that goes with. TEists have some of the worst theology I think I have ever seen…its a woeful reading of the text at best!
What TEists are left with is a single argument…(Collins has used this very one himself in defense of this doctrine)…in order to try to stem the flow of Christians exiting the faith who could not reconcile the apparent problems with evolution theory, he essentially had no choice but to find a solution. This [biologos] is that solution.
Unfortunately, the solution being put forward here is an awful trashing of sound theology and it is not even a good interpretation of the science (as secular scientists laugh at this philsophy as well).
What we now see is a compromise that is neither good science or sound theology…instead a boggy mess of the two such that neither of the extreme sides can stomach it. Now what we have is a confused group of individuals who are neither hot nor cold but luke warm. I would really question whether or not Theistic Evolution actually accepts the model of salvation that the Bible clearly offers. One cannot accept salvation when one cannot accept one needs saving because of the death that sin brought into this world.
It is completely ridiculous to make the claim that the death that Adam and Eve were to experience was a spiritual one. If so, why then did they eventually die…and from that point forward, all mankind, animals, plants, has died. How does one call that a spiritual death exactly?
Lets also consider this, if the death by which Adam and Eve were to experience was only a spiritual one, why on earth did Jesus need to come and die a physical death on the Cross? (being tortured and ridiculed publicly in the process?)
When Jesus prophesied to his disciples that in the future they would experience suffering and persecution…none of these were spiritual events…it is very clear that the persecution of the early Christian church was a literal real bloody murdering raping and pillaging of thousands and thousands of men, women and children! None of these events were spiritual.
It is not a consistent reading of the text to attempt to claim such a stupid doctrine as that of a spiritual death of Adam in Gensis 3. The Old Testament starting at Genesis 3, points to the coming messiah…that is no allegory as is evidenced by the subsequent consistency of the genesis narrative in the gospels!
Theism is just poetry apart from the actual rational possibility that God instantiates nature, partakes of it, zens with it, transcends it.
I think you really need to read Bart Erhmans book on the Historical Jesus! If you truly read that book in its entirety, and then move on to textual experts such as White and Wallace, then genuinely and honestly restudy the propositions that Answer in Genesis and many other YEC movements put forward, it is actually far easier, both theologically and scientifically, to believe in YEC than TEism. The YEC view has far more consistency across both areas and this is because it does not require explaining away of very obvious and very self evident bible doctrines in order to maintain its position.