Geocentrism and Heliocentrism...since our ancients got that wrong, that means by default any biblical interpretation that flies in the face of science is wrong. It means, we cannot be trusted to know what the bible says and what science to accept or dismiss.

When I read that Ligonier article, I see accommodation, I see a way to save face. I see the underlying argument "Christians should leave the real work of making declarations about the world to the secular and the humanist".

I see this as a Satanic ploy buried in theological cautionaries. For humility sake...don't say anything, for the bible sake believe what the professionals tell you.

I say "Get behind me Satan"...as silly, unsophisticated and naïve as that sounds...so be it.

I need to post this on the Ligonier site.

_________________
Marvin

Sorry Marvin but OEC has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection. Ain’t never met an OEC who denies the literal factual resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why are you using such straw men? Let s get real.

_________________
Todd

The Bible teacher I have listened to the most over the years and who has taught me the most about interpreting scripture happens to disagree with me on Genesis 1.

His position is that thus far there is not enough evidence to prove OEC and until that happens he must default to a literal reading.

But at least he uses the word “until” which means he is not blanketedly dogmatic about it. That means if sufficient proof is proffered he will have to change his position. That is all the Ligonier article is saying as well and is the only reasonable position.

I just think there already IS enough evidence but I certainly understand that is a matter of opinion.

Remember, thus far we have only talked about the earth but there are billions of other planets and stars and moons as well that were not subject to a flood of judgment, etc.

It’s pretty hard for me to believe that humans withstood numerous giant meteor impacts and supervolcanoes etc in the past 6000 years. Where is the biblical record of same? They say when the Yellowstone volcano last erupted 600,000 or so years ago it instantly buried bison many states distance away. And that’s just one volcano and says nothing about the extinction level meteor impacts (we can see the craters) over the earths history.

_________________
Todd

Hi Todd: Pardon the long post. I am dogmatic about it. But I am equally dogmatic about the resurrection, the Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, the perfections and love of God.
Since all of these are based upon Scripture and not upon Modern mans opinion, I am in good company with the Martyrs we love to extol and the ancient saints we love to read.

I view the scripture as a whole, I will not surrender Genesis then pretend that I am fully Christian believing "all the word of God".
They have failed where Christ passed the test.
Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".
These have rephrased their beliefs..."we live by every word of man that approves the word of God...this is our bread"

The reasoning is circular...Since modern man refuses the creation narrative as stated, I ask it to confirm the resurrection ( since I am giving credence to their opinions) but their opinions deny the resurrection; for them there is no miracle and no supernatural creating, therefore they can have no miracle of resurrection and no Divinity in Christ or salvation granted on Christ's merits. All of this cannot be factored, quantified, tested, reproduced so they are at a loss to grant me anything other than a closed system materialistic answer. What they offer me with one hand they take away with the other.

God is outside their system, God's miracles are what the world was started with, God's supernatural is how we are introduced to God, it is how we are to know God, the God of the supernatural-creating-loving-fellowshipping kind.

The materialist like the OEC can only offer a God that is non-supernatural, then when confronted with the issue of being branded a heretic by the faithful, they compartmentalize the 'creation' into a model (as the reasons.org website you pasted declared). That model as they clearly stated is called such because they have quantified, tested, reproduced and factored their materialistic explanations. This they have called "God's mode of creation". But it is not, it is merely the theory of man devoid of knowing the supernatural creating God.

Ask how many of those reformed believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts and the God who works in his people by powerful manifestations and supernatural answers to prayer. I dare say "there is scant evidence" for their subscription to the scriptures on that point either.

Show me a man who denies the supernatural in Genesis and I'll show you a man who denies it in practice in the New Testament. But, like many they sign their names to a statement of faith but have no prayer life or faith that demonstrates their belief.

Too harsh? Too dogmatic? Too mean spirited? Never, it's what a normal Christian does in the face of deception and unbelief. We have our own modern versions of denial of the faith, it starts with Denial of Genesis, it continues with Denial of the supernatural working in the believer and ends with Christianity that has made friends with the gods of this present age.

The gods of this present age want their piece of the pie, they want our loyalties to the science that gives them worship, it wants unspoken adherence to axioms and assumptions taught to us by the priests of Babylon (the philosophers of our age) There is a constant clamor for rebuking those who are 'overmuch righteous' and a praise for them who are not willing to die on any mountain of truth, all is relative, all is opinion, all is unsure, all is just a suspicious meta-narrative to be questioned and jettisoned.

I recognize all the aforementioned is the Prince and power of anti-christian human reasoning using theology, philosophy and academic achievement as a wedge to drive it between the believer and his adherence to the word of God.

Satan believes in the God that will damn him to an eternal lake of fire, we modern Christians do not even have a devils faith, we do not have faith in the supernatural (unless its a demonic movie) we do not have faith in the Character of God who cannot lie. Telling me that God made the world in 6 days, then telling me NO...Just kidding it was really millions of eons of days. That's an easy decision to make, I know God and I know if he wanted to tell me precisely what he did to make the earth, sun moon, stars etc he will simply do so. If he made it in eons of ages...I would be absolutely obliged to believe that testimony. Yet, the testimony is simple days and not eons.

I dont have an answer for supervolcanoes, but I dont have an answer for the reason an electing God chose to save a useless sinner like me...but without explanation he did. I can believe what he did based upon nothing but scripture testimony or I can submit my salvation, my election and my imperfect life to the quantification, testing, factoring and reproducing scientific method...what would they tell me?

I utterly refuse to compartmentalize Genesis or the resurrection or the Deity of Christ as if destroying one does nothing to the other. That my friend is the working lie of Satan upon God's people.

_________________
Marvin

Todd, you have fallen off the edge my friend, or perhaps the real Todd was hiding in the shadows? I think the latter. I'll stick with Moses and the Holy Spirit directing him in his writing and you can stick with your evidence of scientists who would refute what Moses wrote. I have studied the Old Testament in seminary and also Genesis. There were numerous Christian scientists that were required reading and they were wonderful. But I will let you stay within your higher critic ranks brother, you are really exposing yourself to the forum with your rejection of the Biblical flood account and your embracing of pagan versions such as the Gilgamesh epic. This, I believe, is part and parcel of the great falling away. What next? I believe that coming next is that "there are many paths to heaven."...............bro Frank

Hi Marvin,

You make some very valid points. However, consider the following.

Although there are many academics (e.g., scientists, professors, scholars, etc.) who don't want to appear "stupid" in front of others, I find that the most credible academics are willing to admit that there are things that they simply don't know. "I don't know" is a completely acceptable answer.

After all, the difference between an average college student seeking a degree and a more serious academic is the level of persuasion. What does that mean? Most undergraduate students read a few books and listen to lectures and either regurgitate it for professors on essays and tests OR they actually believe it.

The former is probably the most common. People simply memorize what they're told to memorize without truly understanding it. They only seek a passing grade. The latter is a terrible mistake and simply results in coercion and indoctrination. Such students place their faith in books and men. It is one thing to memorize that 12 x 12 = 144. It is better to understand the concept -- an observation -- that 12 sets of 12 can be combined and be counted and that count will total 144.

Sadly, the former rather than the latter has become the essence and norm for public school and much of undergraduate education. A book, Wikipedia article or a teacher's lesson should not be -- but most often is -- what convinces a student.

A post-graduate education is somewhat different. While there is plenty of "learning" from books and lectures, the emphasis in education focuses on research and observation. Instead of reading about history in a text written by a committee, the student is forced to look at first hand evidence and either prove what they've been taught OR come up with an alternative based upon their own research.

Consider how this works in the Church.

Some churches have become indoctrination centers. Instead of encouraging their flocks to prayerfully read the Word of God and understand it on their own, they are often told what to believe. Churches often set up an official "statement of faith" -- a list of "must believe" doctrines that all members are supposed to embrace. Some of the items on such lists often meander from the indisputable truths of the Word of God into sectarian dogma. Rather than uniting the Body of Christ, such things often tend to divide believers along divisive doctrinal grounds.

Consequently, Sunday school lessons and many teaching sermons in such congregations become no different than the types of educational setting as a college or public school. It often lacks the honest hesitation and real study needed and, rather, results in individuals being led to believe something that they've read (aside from the Word of God) or something that they've been instructed to believe.

Christians should be better than this! As I Thessalonians 5:21 instructs, we should prove (or "test") everything! Our faith cannot be in apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Our faith cannot be based upon books that we read or the "statements of faith" that we've not prayerfully verified through study of God's Word. The Word of God must be our only valid authority in matters of doctrine. After all, this was the basis behind the admonition that the Apostle Paul offered in Galatians 1:6-10. It is also the very thing for which the Bereans were commended for in Acts 17:10-12.

At the same time, there are things that can be understood through observation. There are scientific "laws" in the universe -- derived through observation and proving -- that have led to conclusions. Many of those conclusions are used to contribute to things that are a part of life.

For instance, we are typing on keyboards (physical or touch screens) and looking at words that appear on monitors that are powered by processors that are, in turn, powered by electricity. There are many laws of physics and chemistry that were used in the design of these computer tools. These "laws" aren't contained within the Word of God (at least on the surface).

My wife and I returned on Saturday from a short camping trip to a place near Mt. Shasta. We were excited to spend a few days out in nature and "rough it." During the drive, I was thinking about just how we weren't really "roughing" anything.

We were driving in a modern SUV guided by our GPS. We had a cooler with ice that contained our food. We slept in a tent that was designed to withstand wind and rain. We slept in sleeping bags made from materials that kept us warm during evenings when the temperatures dipped into the 40's. We relied upon our cell phones for communication and weather forecasts (which, in turn, utilized satellite technology). We had powerful flashlights powered by lithium-ion batteries. We even had bathrooms in the park that included hot-water showers!

All of these things owe their development from understood science and physical observation. Moreover, the principles that led to their development aren't found in the Word of God (at least not via direct indication).

What does this have to do with the Genesis account of creation?

Regardless of whether people believe in a literal account or not, the Genesis account doesn't dabble in specifics. For most of human history, such specifics about creation didn't matter anyway. For most of human history, there wasn't much need for any sort of understanding of the observable "laws" of physics.

Over the last few centuries, curiosity peaked in many people. It began with observation of the stars and planets and acceptance of apparent Newtonian laws. This led to academies where men teaching other men in the search for understanding the observable universe.

This leads me back to the topic at hand.

There are reasons why scientists believe in an "old" universe. It is about observation. Over the last century, scientists have determined the speed of light. With that speed in mind (and through observation), they triangulated the movement of entities in the universe. These things allowed them to determine distance. Since that distance is measure in light years (the distance that light would travel in a year), then they determined that observable light had traveled from stars for millions and even billions of years.

Einstein (and others) helped determine the relativity and relationship of things like light, mass, space and time. Their observations -- seemingly verified via many, many experiments -- resulted in discoveries and even inventions before they're invented. For instance, the concept of the atomic bomb was realized long before one was ever tested. This is because scientific law seemed to indicate what would happen by "splitting the atom."

This understanding of the speed of light and how light from extremely distant celestial bodies (so many millions and billions of miles away) has already reached the Earth ultimately led physicists to perceive an incredibly ancient universe. This happened to coincide with what chemists observed regarding the rate of decay and half-life of atoms. It also coincided with what geologists observed in regard to formations that seemingly told the Earth's geological age.

Does this mean that science is right and the Bible is wrong? No.

In fact, let me clearly state that I believe in the literal Biblical account of creation. I don't believe that it is mere hyperbole. I don't believe that it is mere figurative rhetoric. The Word of God -- and the account of Adam and Eve -- was cited by our Lord when he walked the Earth. I believe in the flood of Noah. I believe in every miracle mentioned in the Word of God. After all, I believe in the absolute infallibility of the Word of God.

That said: I also understand WHY scientists have difficulty with believing in the Biblical account of creation. Their observations (and centuries of experimentation) seemingly contradicts it. However, I am also aware of the limitations and "tunnel vision" that often tends to afflict academics.

In my previous post, I mentioned how it doesn't have to be an "either-or" scenario. I believe in a literal six day creation mentioned in Genesis. However, I also believe that it is possible that the account of each "day" in the Bible is relative from the position of the Biblical narrative (the observer) in space-time at Creation -- when all mass of the universe was contained in smaller area and expanding (or fleeing) from God's spoken word. That "day" would be 24 hours from one position in space but billions of years simultaneously from a different position. This is the very thing that "relativity" indicates. So, billions of years could pass by with each day (and much more so for the first day and less for each subsequent day).

Of course, even this is just a theory -- a mere capitulation that combines what I've learned through observable science (and engineering) and the fact that I know that the Bible is absolute truth. It's very possible that this isn't necessarily the case. There are other theories that can explain the apparent discrepancies between the Biblical account of a young Earth and the physical, chemical and geological observation of a much more ancient universe and world. Those things aren't outside of the realm of possibility for me either.

I simply think that it is important to understand why scientists believe as they do. At the same time, I think that it is important to note that -- first and foremost -- the Bible is truth.

_________________
Christopher

"...the church never interpreted the “corners of the earth” to mean that the earth is flat. It is a myth that the church ever believed in a flat earth. As historian Jeffrey Russell shows, that was the view of only a very few odd individuals scattered throughout the last twenty centuries. We use similar figures of speech today. If we say that something is scattered “to the four corners of the earth” we mean “all over the earth.” The convention has always been to talk of four directions, or four compass points—north, south, east and west. Neither we nor the ancients ever took this to mean that there are only four directions in which one can travel. In our modern world we still speak of the “four winds.”

From Answers In Genesis

Read he full article here:
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/are-biblical-creationists-cornered/

_________________
Nigel Holland

//your embracing of pagan versions such as the Gilgamesh epic. //

That’s an outright lie; show me where I have “embraced” the Gilgamesh epic over scripture. I simply pointed out that there are flood stories written prior to Genesis. So what? If there are, there are. Pointing out this fact does not mean those stories are “embraced.”

Why all the slanderous aspersions? There are lots of Christians who believe in an ancient universe. Big deal- get over it. I believe all scripture is true.

_________________
Todd

Chris: What a well written and thought out post, it was beautiful. I very much appreciate your candor and graciousness.

I had read your previous post explaining the old vs young appearances...it's thought provoking.

Thank you for expressing your view it was a blessing to me.

I in fact love science and wanted to be a scientist in my younger years, I didn't have what it takes.

I hear what you are saying about the world using scientific finds in a good way...and I acknowledged that earlier, I simply refuse the philosophy behind a science that requires me to believe them over God.

Great post brother.

_________________
Marvin

Hi Todd, you did not just point out that there were other stories, you used the fact that there were other stories ( even although these have been explained to you as mere ridiculous derivatives of the original, which Moses, by the power of the Holy Spirit wrote down) to suggest one doubt the Biblical account of the flood, that has been your suggestion all the way through.You call it curiosity, I would call it something different...........your quotes below.........bro Frank

This suggests Gilgamesh was alive very soon after the flood ended. Why would his story be so different? I am not disagreeing that the Bible version is the correct one I am just curious how these other things fit in

Because if the flood wiped out everyone except Noah’s family and the story was passed down through them how did these flood stories, disparate but similar in many respects, come to be?

I am not sure how to explain other flood accounts that predated Genesis like the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are other very ancient flood stories in various cultures.

I pretty much believe the Genesis account

If there is life on Mars or elsewhere God put it there for His purposes.

Well I am no advocate for advanced alien life but it seems microbes are just as problematic because life is life. If nothing else it would affirm the Bible does not tell us everything, but we already know that.

What y’all going to do when they announce they’ve found life or signs of life? Might not be today but it’s coming in the not too far distant future.(speaking of life on other planets)


Folks who insist that the earth must be young because they are afraid that an old earth supports evolution always sound a little panicky to me.