Look at they you were convinced of an old age of the Earth. Not because of the Bible. [content removed by moderator] How do you interpret Genesis 1:5 then? Each day consists of evening and morning. Not millions of years.
Hi Matthew,
Iâd just like to reiterate my caution to you here that Iâve explained to @GhostlyFigure02. Youâre trying to tackle a complex technical subject and in that respect you need to make sure you know what you are talking about first. Because if you just rush into the debate with all guns blazing, copying and pasting arguments from creation.com and flinging Bible verses around, youâre going to quickly find yourself waaaaaaaaay out of your depth. Taking that approach doesnât uphold the Bible; on the contrary, it discredits it.
8 Likes
I just pointed out why the poster changed his interpretation of Genesis. Not because of the Bible. Do you know what sola Scriptura is about? Science didnât start with Darwin. What do you mean by guns blazing? Tell me what Genesis 1:5 means.
Bu the way how many people have been converted by BioLogos? By evolution? Evolution has ruined the faith of millions.
No, Matthew. Itâs not evolution itself that has ruined the faith of millions. Itâs finding out that what their churches were teaching them about it was simply not true. Pastors and church leaders are in a position of trust, and teaching things that arenât true is a breach of that trust. It is that breach of trust, and not evolution itself, that undermines young Christiansâ faith. This is why you need to know what you are talking about before you try to challenge complex technical subjects.
As for BioLogos, they constantly get testimonies from Christians who have managed to hold onto, restabilise and re-establish their faith after having ended up in such a situation.
12 Likes
BioLogos is not an evangelistic or Christian apologetics organization and does not set out to âconvertâ anyone. The mission is to help the church see the harmony between science and faith.
5 Likes
Really? Why did the Holy Spirit remain silent about evolution for thousands of years if its so true? Moses did not need Darwin to inform him of what he wrote. Are you really saying that the church was in error til BioLogos arrived on the scene? I follow the Holy Spirit, not BL.
Science didnât begin with Darwin. You cannot prove that yec is nonscience. YEC studies the handiwork of God.
Evolution has killed the faith of millions. It spawned Communism. The Commies killed my grandfather.
I probably canât prove it to you. Thatâs fine. Go in grace and serve the Lord. 
7 Likes
Really? Why did the Holy Spirit remain silent about quantum mechanics for thousands of years if itâs so true?
Moses wrote this:
š³Do not have two differing weights in your bag â one heavy, one light. šâ´Do not have two differing measures in your house â one large, one small. šâľYou must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lá´Ęá´ your God is giving you. šâśFor the Lá´Ęá´ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey those verses. Do your challenges to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution obey those verses?
I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
Iâm sorry to hear that. My condolences. I fully agree that communism is evil, whether Darwin inspired it or not.
1 Like
The Bible is not why I believe in evolution. The Bible plays essentially no role in my scientific understanding and is only used a a guide for my morality and ethics when it comes to science.
The literary clues of genesis 1-2 lets me see that itâs probably not meant to be understood literally.
So thst allows me to see genesis 1-2 as not opposing to science anymore than their concept on weather.
3 Likes
Glad you brought up demon meteorology. We know from the Bible that God controls the weather. To try to find the origin of weather change in barometric changes, heat and cold differentials and satellite imagery is to diminish the role and power of God. The desire of man to predict the weather was spoke of with condemnation by Jesus:
Matthew 16
Red sky in the morning,
cloudy and storming.â
You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, yet you canât interpret the signs of the times?[a] 4 An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.â
7 Likes
Iâm starting to wonder lol. The current meteorologist we have sometimes I think heâs outside and when itâs raining he says itâs raining and when itâs not he just says 10% chance lol. I know they must have it hard honestly On the gulf coast of Mexico. Storms develop and disappear in moments. Must be much harder I think for them on islands with the influence of the ocean vs somewhere mid america where itâs probably stable.
I just wish the Bible talked about bodily functions like peeing so we could at least have some kind of idea whatâs happening xd.
1 Like
Just make sure you go outside the camp to do it. Thatâs all you need to know.
You wonât find any mention of toilets anywhere in scriptures. They are 100% secular, and so as the atheistic thrones they must be, just play it safe and stay away from them.
8 Likes
The closest I know of offhand are I Kings 14:10 and Mark 7:19.
2 Likes
Or electromagnetic radiation, chemistry, cellular biology, paleontology, etc.
It seems somewhat as if enlightening us about the physical world is not Godâs top priority.
3 Likes
There are at least three main reasons to oppose YEC. One is that the current version is dangerously bad theology. As Paul points out in Galatians, any adding to the gospel becomes a legalistic false gospel. Claims like âthe doctrine of creation is essential to evangelismâ or claiming that the age of the earth is a salvation issue substitute believing young-earth claims about science for trust in Jesus. Likewise, âtestimoniesâ that say âI was an evolutionist but now Iâm a creationistâ conspicuously lack Jesus or repentance. The willingness of young-earthers to cooperate with non-Christians who will support their science claims shows that promoting Christianity is not their top priority. Of course, it is perfectly fine for Christians to work together with others who share a common interest; what is wrong is claiming that one is doing Christian apologetics while doing so. Sadly, the evangelical church has often replied to criticism of the theology of young-earth and ID sources by saying âtheyâre just scientistsâ while responding to criticism of their science by saying âbut itâs such good theologyâ. The Raelians, in the ID movement, unquestionably have both bad theology and bad science.
Another serious theological error that pervades young-earth and ID arguments is the god of the gaps. Scientific explanations are presented by atheists and by young-earthers as taking God out of the picture. But this is wrong. God is at work in things that happen by natural laws and in things that happen miraculously.
Another reason to oppose YEC is that is scientifically ridiculous and incoherent. By 1775, it was unambiguously clear that science supported a very old earth, with most of that time pre-human; over the next few decades it became increasingly clear that we could understand what the earth was like at various times in the past and that most deposits formed quite slowly. [This meant that âEnlightenmentâ ideas of earth and humans continuing through endless cycles were wrong; as most geologists of the first half of the 1800âs recognized, this fits rather well with the biblical concept of history as having a beginning and an end.] Modern creation science attempts to attack the consistent results of the past 300+ years of geology, along with plenty of biology, astronomy, and anything else that happens to seem inconvenient. Rather than seriously attempting to develop a reasonable scientific model, the approach of creation science overwhelmingly is to throw whatever attacks and claims seem like they might support a young earth. There is no concern for whether one claim is compatible with another, or whether the claim is true, in most young-earth sources. As a result, people who have been taught that the Bible teaches a young earth frequently run into trouble when they find out that young earth teachings are completely untrue. Itâs not the case that the evidence could reasonably interpreted as fitting either an old or a young earth, nor is it true that objective observers have ever found scientific arguments against an old earth to be good. The evidence clearly and unambiguously points to a vast age for the earth. Anyone trying to find natural resources such as oil or ore uses old earth models. Young earth models donât even tell you to look in the wrong place; they do not tell you where to look. Every time you use gasoline, plastic, polyester, metals, or other geological resources, you are seeing that old-earth models work. Teaching people that they have to reject well-supported science is a recipe for apostasy.
Another reason to oppose YEC is that it is typically arrogantly combative. There is very little listening or thinking and much accusation in the approach typically taken. This drives seekers away from the church.
If we are not merely fooling ourselves, we must always be asking âis this a good argumentâ before we ask âdoes it support what I think?â
8 Likes
âReally? Why did the Holy Spirit remain silent about quantum mechanics for thousands of years if itâs so true?â
The Holy Spirit was not silent about origins, thatâs the problem here. You have no right whatsoever to contradict the thousand year old teaching of the Holy Spirit.
š³Do not have two differing weights in your bag â one heavy, one light. šâ´Do not have two differing measures in your house â one large, one small. šâľYou must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lá´Ęá´ your God is giving you. šâśFor the Lá´Ęá´ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
This has nothing to do with origins. What you are quoting is a part of Mosesâ law about not dealing dishonestly in your business dealings, meaning that do not falsify your measurements for illicit gain. Furthermore, data points are data points. Measurements are measurements. A DNA sequence is the same both for an evolutionist as for a YEC. We merely interpret the same measurement differently.
Do your challenges to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution obey those verses?
The scientific consensus on the age of the earth means nothing when I interpret the Bible. You also have no basis for reading in evolution into your interpretation of Genesis. Evolutionary theory is only 150 years old. Thus, theistic evolution is an eisegetic novelty. Your Bible interpretation has no warrant whatsoever.
I think this was Mervâs allusion: