The Earth is 6000 years old?

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I actually don't know any YECs who make YEC a condition for salvation. Not even Ken Ham holds that view (in fact, it the debate with Nye, he expressly said it was NOT a matter of salvation). I'm not saying that NO YEC would make such a claim. I'm just saying that in all my years of studying and discussing this issue (and for what it is worth, I have three theological degrees and so have met a LOT of students and professors along the way), not one single YEC advocate I've met has ever made that claim. As such, I've been forced to conclude that the "bashing" argument is little more than a straw man.

Ahem...Kent Hovind...ahem

And actually, Ken Ham used to believe that. But he has changed his mind.

[YoungApolegist]

Maybe I am interpreting things incorrectly. Sorry, I have been bullied so much in the past that many things that are "bashing" to me. However, I have seen YECs that fit the description I hav mentioned.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
1. YECs regard OEC as a compromise of biblical authority. And if we are right, it is (and I would say that even if we are wrong, it still is). That offends you, because you, as a conservative, Bible believing Christian, know that you need to uphold the authority of Scripture above all. So when you are told that you are compromising on that issue, it strikes at the very heart of your faith. And when that happens, you take it personally, and thus there is division.

Jac,

I've yet to be convinced by anyone including you, that my Progressive Creation beliefs compromise biblical authority. Since you've helped me understand other topics, Divine Simplicity notwithstanding , maybe you could try to show me how PC is a compromise to biblical authority/the atonement of Christ.

I know you like challenges, so what do you say?

[Jac3510]

Jac wrote:
1. YECs regard OEC as a compromise of biblical authority. And if we are right, it is (and I would say that even if we are wrong, it still is). That offends you, because you, as a conservative, Bible believing Christian, know that you need to uphold the authority of Scripture above all. So when you are told that you are compromising on that issue, it strikes at the very heart of your faith. And when that happens, you take it personally, and thus there is division.

Jac,

I've yet to be convinced by anyone including you, that my Progressive Creation beliefs compromise biblical authority. Since you've helped me understand other topics, Divine Simplicity notwithstanding , maybe you could try to show me how PC is a compromise to biblical authority/the atonement of Christ.

I know you like challenges, so what do you say?

I've got too much to do right now to engage in a long discussion, not the least of which is finish the Simplicity booklet. But I'll offer this for your own consideration, and you can do with it what you will.

Nature is God's other revelation and it should tie up with his Word. How do we find out about his natural revelation - Science.

But we look like a fool because of Christ, not because we ignore the obvious, that the earth is not 6-10 thousand years old.

Notice these are hardly cherry picked quotes, since they come out of this very thread, and are very recent additions to it, no less. What they show is that there is a tendency among OEC advocates, and I think within the method itself, to subject Scripture to what science "obviously" teaches. That's just standard eisogesis, which is the very essence of compromising on biblical authority.

Again, do with it what you will. Just food for thought.

edit:

btw, to the best of my knowledge, Ken Ham never said that belief in YEC is a prerequisite for or condition of salvation, so he hasn't changed his mind. You OECs have just been slandering him and building a strawman you could easily attack for years. I can't speak for Hovind, but bluntly, I don't believe you that he said as much either. Frankly, unless you are willing and able to provide direct, documented quotes, you ought not make such accusations. It comes off as just lying against a brother in Christ . . . I'm certainly not saying you have to praise him or even that you have to appreciate his tone. He's obviously a harsh critic of OEC. He calls it compromising on biblical authority, too. But you don't get to invent accusations where there is no justification for it. Beyond the moral problems with it, there's also the rational problem . . . that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

edit2:

I don't know how far you want to go back, btw, but here's something Ken wrote in 2010, so four years ago.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

You all REALLY need to drop this absurd charge about YECs equating one's theology of creation with the gospel. It's a straw man and a red herring and I think you know it.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
btw, to the best of my knowledge, Ken Ham never said that belief in YEC is a prerequisite for or condition of salvation, so he hasn't changed his mind. You OECs have just been slandering him and building a strawman you could easily attack for years. I can't speak for Hovind, but bluntly, I don't believe you that he said as much either. Frankly, unless you are willing and able to provide direct, documented quotes, you ought not make such accusations. It comes off as just lying against a brother in Christ . . . I'm certainly not saying you have to praise him or even that you have to appreciate his tone. He's obviously a harsh critic of OEC. He calls it compromising on biblical authority, too. But you don't get to invent accusations where there is no justification for it. Beyond the moral problems with it, there's also the rational problem . . . that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Jac,
You want proof? Here you go.
Here's the link:
http://www.ldolphin.org/hovind-ross.html

And here's Hovind's quotes which thankfully are at the beginning of the link, so you won't have to read through and see what a real straw man is:

Kent Hovind wrote:
Many people have argued that Hugh Ross is such a nice man and remains calm in the face of criticism. Based on my brief experience with him I would agree, and these are great qualities to have, however, I would like to point out that being a nice man has nothing to do with having correct doctrine. Many "nice people" have founded cults and were reported to be humble, considerate and intelligent yet they had wrong doctrine. Many mean spirited people such as Elijah who slew the prophets of Baal had right doctrine. It is important to constantly keep in mind, "thus sayeth the Lord" in this debate and not be swayed by a person being "nice" or sounding "intellectual".

Some have asked why I would debate Hugh Ross since he is a fellow Bible believing Christian. I know he claims to be a Bible believing Christian but his doctrine does not match the scriptures. Isaac of old was deceived because he went by the feelings (the wool on the hands of Jacob) and not the word (the voice of Esau). Many today fall for the same trap. It is always right to oppose error even if found in a brother.

Having read much of Dr. Ross's material, I must join many others in their observation that he may have only a head knowledge of Christianity having accepted the Bible intellectually but has not come through the door of repentance. See. John 10:1-14. Paul (Saul) had many "Christian" qualities but was lost. Phil. 3:4 "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."

Jac wrote:
I don't know how far you want to go back, btw, but here's something Ken wrote in 2010, so four years ago.

It goes back to the debate on the Ankerberg show. I haven't had a chance to find it yet.

You all REALLY need to drop this absurd charge about YECs equating one's theology of creation with the gospel. It's a straw man and a red herring and I think you know it.

I think the link I posted speaks for itself. Absurd charge, straw man, red herring?


Jac,
Should I be expecting an apology from you? Or, do you want me to show you the same "grace" that you showed B. W. when he misrepresented you? You basically called me a liar by saying you didn't believe me. And accused me wrongly of lying against a brother.

Should I expect more personal attacks from you if I continue disagreeing with you?

A little humility goes a long way Jac.

[Jac3510]

The only reason I'm going to press this is your concerns about my own fairness, and that fair enough, I suppose. So to the point . . .

Hovind does say YEC is a condition for salvation. Yes, he says he doesn't think Ross has come to repentance. He does not, however, say that belief in YEC is prerequisite for salvation. And as far as the Ankerburg debate, I've watched it, and Ham never says a person needs to accept YEC to be saved. In fact, I've pointed out that in that very debate, he says the exact opposite.

I'm all for humility and grace, Rick. I don't abide slander, which is what B.W. did to me and is what you are doing to Christian brothers. Granted yours isn't nearly as mean spirited as his was. Moreover, I've not called you a liar. I said your comments come off as lying against a brother in Christ, and forgive me if that sounds like splitting hairs, but words are important to me, as you know. What I did say, and what I d say, is when you put words in people's mouths that not only have they not said but that they have expressly repudiated, you are slandering them. You are saying about them what is not true.

My best guess is that you are merely misinformed, but that you harbor enough resentment for Ham that you are inclined to believe the worst about him. And, as such, you've repeated the straw man and red herring as if it is truth.

Again, unless and until you can back up your claim with documented evidence, you should stop with it, and you, as a moderator, should not permit it. It's unbecoming, to put it mildly. It's little more than poisoning the well. Given that, I simply let my challenge stand: you claim Ham used to hold that YEC was a matter of salvation. Show the quotes, because I don't believe you. I don't think you've ever heard him say that, although I think you might think you did, or perhaps you are trusting other people who swore that they have. So show the quotes, and if you can't, retract.

edit:

I'll add, by the way, that while I don't think Hovind ever said what you are accusing him of, at the same time, I've never paid him any attention. I saw a video where he tried to prove creationism and intelligent design by how easily a banana fit in the human hand and decided he was a loon back then. All that is to say, while I would be surprised to see such language coming from Hovind, it wouldn't be completely out of bounds--although, again, I insist that I would need to see the actual words. But I also make a distinction between Hovind and Ham/AiG. And part of my concern is that Ham and Hovind are so often put in the same category, and that is something I have trouble with, too. Guilt by association. More straw man. More red herrings. More poisoning the well. All disturbing.

[Philip]

I've not called you a liar. I said your comments come off as lying against a brother in Christ, and forgive me if that sounds like splitting hairs, but words are important to me, as you know.

GIVE ME A BREAK! Jac, you called him a liar - that much is clear - you should at least admit it!

Yes, he says he doesn't think Ross has come to repentance. He does not, however, say that belief in YEC is prerequisite for salvation.

But the implication is clear, he's implying that no OEC is truly saved - that only those with YEC views ARE - even though he may not believe or state that such YEC views are a salvation pre-requisite. And how dare he question another man's salvation based upon the fact that that man believes in OEC - as opposed to YEC. What an idiot to say such a terrible thing, that he thinks he knows a person's mind and heart. Anyone who would say that about another person and imply, merely based upon their views about the AGE of the Creation, that they are not saved - ALL credibility has left him. And he should publicly repent of such an evil statement. Fortunately, most with YEC views don't make such statements or even believe such garbage!

[Danieltwotwenty]

I see the emotions are running high, so I am going bow out. So sick of both sides misrepresenting each other and the riddicule, mocking and accusations. Why can we just put this dead horse topic to bed, nothing good comes from it, infact it is just a distraction from the real truth which is the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Anyway I a m done with this pointless distraction, I think we all should talk a damn hard look at ourselves and ask if we are reflecting the love of Jesus. Pretty sure Jesus would put us all in the legalist camp.

[Jac3510]

GIVE ME A BREAK! Jac, you called him a liar - that much is clear - you should at least admit it!

I did NOT call him a liar. I said that when he makes those claims, it COMES OFF AS lying about someone else. I said repeatedly that I think that comes out of being fundamentally misinformed and, perhaps more maliciously, out of an uncharitable willingness to assume the worst in someone with whom he has strong disagreements. If I called him a liar I would have said, "You have lied, Rick." And if you look elsewhere on these boards, you'll find that I've not been shy about calling people liars when I think that they are.

But the implication is clear, he's implying that no OEC is truly saved - that only those with YEC views ARE - even though he may not believe or state that such YEC views are a salvation pre-requisite. And how dare he question another man's salvation based upon the fact that that man believes in OEC - as opposed to YEC. What an idiot to say such a terrible thing, that he thinks he knows a person's mind and heart. Anyone who would say that about another person and imply, merely based upon their views about the AGE of the Creation, that they are not saved - ALL credibility has left him. And he should publicly repent of such an evil statement. Fortunately, most with YEC views don't make such statements or even believe such garbage!

No, the implication is NOT clear. Perhaps you suffer from the same lack of charity. It is clear that he believes that Ross is unrepentant. It is not clear that he believes that Ross' acceptance of OEC is identical to his rejection of the gospel. It actually seems to me that Hovind is accusing Ross of being unsaved precisely because Ross has chosen to reject the gospel. Now, I think Hovind is wrong here, and not because I think Ross has believed the gospel (I actually don't know; I haven't looked into Ross' soteriology), but because Hovind seems pretty bent on Lordship Salvation. But that's unrelated to the YEC/OEC debate.

So, again, I don't think that Hovind IS questioning Ross' salvation based on his views about the age of creation. As blunt as Hovind is--blunt to the point of extreme--if that is what he had meant, I take it he would have said that directly.

edit:

Actually, Daniel, my emotions aren't all that high in this thread. They were very high in the one where B.W. pulled his stunt, but not here. Some seem to be, though, and I will give you that. And that goes to Rick's question earlier--why is this so divisive? Well, to be blunt, I think it is divisive because OECs just can't live with the fact that YECs view them as compromising the authority of Scripture. And we do view you that way. And because of that, the offense comes. It's perfectly natural, and I don't blame you in feeling as you do. But for me, it's a non-issue in terms of my own emotions. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

[RickD]

Actually I was wrong about Ham. I confused the Ham/Ross debate with the older Hovind/Ross debate. It was Hovind who questioned Ross' salvation, not Ham. I don't know how I forgot that because I actually defended ham in this thread when others accused him of questioning Ross' salvation.

So I apologize for accusing ham. But obviously Hovind is another story.

[RickD]

jac wrote:
Actually, Daniel, my emotions aren't all that high in this thread. They were very high in the one where B.W. pulled his stunt, but not here. Some seem to be, though, and I will give you that. And that goes to Rick's question earlier--why is this so divisive? Well, to be blunt, I think it is divisive because OECs just can't live with the fact that YECs view them as compromising the authority of Scripture. And we do view you that way. And because of that, the offense comes. It's perfectly natural, and I don't blame you in feeling as you do. But for me, it's a non-issue in terms of my own emotions. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Jac,

It's divisive because YECs accuse OECs of taking fallible man's interpretation over scripture. And OECs accuse YECs of calling their interpretation of scripture, equal to scripture. The same fallibility in man that interprets scientific evidence, also interprets scripture.

And like I said, nobody has shown me any way that I compromise scripture by my belief in OEC. So, it offends me that I'm accused of compromising, without good reason.

Jac wrote:
No, the implication is NOT clear. Perhaps you suffer from the same lack of charity. It is clear that he believes that Ross is unrepentant. It is not clear that he believes that Ross' acceptance of OEC is identical to his rejection of the gospel. It actually seems to me that Hovind is accusing Ross of being unsaved precisely because Ross has chosen to reject the gospel.

Then I suggest you reread the quotes from Hovind that I posted. It ain't because Ross has rejected the gospel. See his beliefs here.(click on the "learn more about our beliefs" at the bottom.)

[Jac3510]

Then I suggest you reread the quotes from Hovind that I posted. It ain't because Ross has rejected the gospel. See his beliefs here.(click on the "learn more about our beliefs" at the bottom.)

I looked, and that's good enough for me!

I'm certainly not going to defend Hovind. I'm in no position to because, as I said, I've never paid him any attention. I'm just automatically suspicious of claims that any YEC makes it a matter of salvation because I've never heard ANYONE say that, and on the flip side, I hear the accusation fly ALL THE TIME--and often on this board, as you yourself know, Rick. Maybe Hovind is the rare bird. I just haven't seen it.

Anyway, on a personal note, I hope you do see that I've not called you a liar. I've repeatedly said why I understand this issue to be so divisive. I get your side of the argument. I disagree with it, and that's fine. I do think you are compromising on the authority of Scripture insofar as you are reading science into the text. That's just unacceptable, hermeneutically speaking. But, as I've also said, it's nothing worth getting your (by "your" I mean "my") hair up over. I think that there are some pretty serious potential theological implications that come from allowing eisogesis, but I figure we can take them as they come. No reason to die on this particular hill.

[RickD]

Ok, it's not so much the compromising scripture accusation that I have a problem with. I'd expect if you and I disagree about something in scripture, we'd probably say the other is compromising scripture.

I guess it's the compromising the gospel, or atonement of Christ accusation that bothers me. Because I can and do disagree with people about their interpretations of scripture, without believing they compromise the gospel.

As much as I disagree with your YEC interpretation, I definitely don't think you compromise the gospel. Like I said, it's a secondary issue to me.

But I do think you may be compromising certain opportunities to witness to certain people, by saying science doesn't matter. Because, to someone you are witnessing to, science may matter.

And, right back at you.

[SeekingSanctuary]

Now that that's settled, I got a question (as always), this might be worth an entire thread but since it's mostly just aimed at YECers I don't know if it's worth it or not:

How do Young Earth Creationists Interpret Genesis 2:4, specifically the use of the the world "Toledoth"? Am I misunderstanding it or doesn't that mean several years (Biblegateway says its literal translation is generations)? I mean, OECers have already explained away the seven days of Creation soo...

[Danieltwotwenty]

Actually, Daniel, my emotions aren't all that high in this thread. They were very high in the one where B.W. pulled his stunt, but not here. Some seem to be, though, and I will give you that. And that goes to Rick's question earlier--why is this so divisive? Well, to be blunt, I think it is divisive because OECs just can't live with the fact that YECs view them as compromising the authority of Scripture. And we do view you that way. And because of that, the offense comes. It's perfectly natural, and I don't blame you in feeling as you do. But for me, it's a non-issue in terms of my own emotions. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

You know what's funny is that you view us as compromisers and because of that I (and probably others) view you as modern day legalists.

I don't actually take offence anymore, I have spoken with God so many times on this issue and he has answered me so many times in so many different ways that it does not matter one bit, so when I hear people such as yourself making it a big issue I know that it is just thinly veiled legalism. The Pharisees would have told the person caught helping someone on the sabbath that they were compromising with scripture and I see no difference when you say it.

These sorts of false accusations are the very same tactics that satan uses against us, he accusses us of things which just are not true, trying to make us ashamed or guilty, trying to pit ourselves against ourselves so that we lose our focus on God, that is the catagory I put these sorts of accusations in, they are not of God and if they are not of him then....... well you know.................satan is a great deceiver.

Edit. If anything it just makes me sad that Christians treat each other in this manner, I think it is very unlike Christ.