Evidence for God from Science

"Sorry zstep, only saw this now.

Before we carry on, I want to understand how you define theistic evolution, since there a few schools of thought on it. The primary ones are:
1. God created the basic building blocks at the very beginning, and everything, including the origin of life, followed from those building blocks.
2. God created the basic building blocks and also created the first life, and from there it developed by itself.
3. The same as 2, but also includes that God intervenes in the process from time to time to steer it.
The bottom line is that all of these involve some line of thinking that God used natural processes as His method of creation. Adam's body was the result of natural processes, and God completed the creation of man by giving Adam an immortal soul.

Would that reflect what you believe it to be?"

Yes, from what I know of it, that would be right. I'm not using the idea of theistic evolution objectively, because I don't necessarily know. I'm just trying to get at possibilities.

zstep14 wrote:"Sorry zstep, only saw this now.

Before we carry on, I want to understand how you define theistic evolution, since there a few schools of thought on it. The primary ones are:
1. God created the basic building blocks at the very beginning, and everything, including the origin of life, followed from those building blocks.
2. God created the basic building blocks and also created the first life, and from there it developed by itself.
3. The same as 2, but also includes that God intervenes in the process from time to time to steer it.
The bottom line is that all of these involve some line of thinking that God used natural processes as His method of creation. Adam's body was the result of natural processes, and God completed the creation of man by giving Adam an immortal soul.

Would that reflect what you believe it to be?"

Yes, from what I know of it, that would be right. I'm not using the idea of theistic evolution objectively, because I don't necessarily know. I'm just trying to get at possibilities.

Which one of the 3 options would you consider most likely in view of Scripture and science?

Number 3

August wrote:if God started evolution and decreed that through natural processes there will be a predetermined and specific outcome, why is that not intelligent design?

It is "design" or "intelligent design" without the capitals. "Intelligent Design" requires that evidence of the designer be present*; "intelligent design" does not. To us a watch is evidently made by man; a ruby made by man can be indistinguishable from a natural gemstone. Yet both are the products of intelligent design.

*[ http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause ...]

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen the bacterial flagellum, and yet have believed.

I don't really appreciate you equating this with Jesus, it is unneccessary and blasphemous. Debate and ridicule me, but not Jesus.

sandy_mcd wrote: 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen the bacterial flagellum, and yet have believed.

Your contention is thoroughly scripturally unsound. God, in the Bible, tells us that all of it is evidence, who are you, or anyone else, to assert otherwise?

Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power, not one is missing.

Isa 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

Psa 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Psa 136:5 to him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures forever;

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:19 I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in vain.' I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Psa 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
Psa 135:7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.

Rom 1:20 For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

We can clearly discern that all was created by God, by the ultimate authority. If you want to continue to offer excuses to those who say otherwise, it's your prerogative, but you are supporting those who through a lack of understanding is doomed to eternal damnation.

I read the site you sent me too. It may sound silly to you , but to base your whole thesis on a conjuctive "And" seems very very slim.

The word and is not used in the Hebrew.

Please read the following with the same open eyes you wanted me to read your site..Thank you

A young Earth—it's not the issue!
By Ken Ham

First published in:
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day).

Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word. Once this 'door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

A 'young-Earth' view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' Compared to what God knows, we know 'next door to nothing!' This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God's Word.

It's also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that 'knowledge puffeth up.' Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

I read the site you sent me too. It may sound silly to you , but to base your whole thesis on a conjuctive "And" seems very very slim.

The word and is not used in the Hebrew.

Please read the following with the same open eyes you wanted me to read your site..Thank you

That's all you have to say? No interaction with the material?

I'll do better than that for the material you have below.

A young Earth—it's not the issue!
By Ken Ham

First published in:
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter

Thanks for the source citation. It may seem petty, but its very important to reveal sources.

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

Much of this is a straw-man argument and one which seeks to frame the question by creating an association between his opposition, in this case Old Earth Creationists with "anti-God evolutionists" and then marginalizing those who disagree with him as not as "Christian" as he is. Old Earth Creationism has been around as long as Young Earth Creationism has. Both were around before the advent of modern Science. Neither one of the popular positions today were framed then as they are now, including Young Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism does not necessarily accept Evolution.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Again, another straw-man argument. Ham seeks to frame the argument as one of defense of the infallible Word of God. In doing so, he in effect equates his interpretation of Genesis and related passages as parallel with the Scriptures themselves. Ham and other YEC proponents may not like or agree with an OEC interpretation of Scripture. He goes beyond dealing with this issue however and seeks to paint his opponents as somehow attacking or diminishing the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. This not only a Straw-man argument, it is ad-hominem in that it attacks the integrity of his detractors rather than dealing with the issue.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

Really? Who was this world-class Hebrew Scholar? Which associate sat down with him? Why not name both the parties involved? Could it be that Ham prefers to infer from this un-named paragon of Scholarly virtue that anyone who disagrees with this interpretation is not "world-class?"

This is another shallow argument and very poorly documented.

Here's a link to some prominent Old Earth proponents and their credentials.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ndex.shtml

Let's be honest.

Great. That would be a wonderful thing to start doing. (Cheap shot .... sorry, I couldn't resist)

Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

You certainly don't find the words there. Old Earth Creationists from Augustine on certainly found the concept of old there. This is another vapid and shallow argument. Scripture was never intended to be a 21st century science book and use its terminology.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

Another straw man. In fact, the field is starting to get a little crowded with them.

There no doubt are Old Earth creationists who have started with the question of how to reconcile scientific understanding in this arena with what is found in Scripture. This infers that this in the only way that someone could come to this position. That is categorically not true. Long before modern science contributed its understanding in terms of measurement that were previously lacking, there were many who reject 6 literal days as untenable based solely on the Scriptures. Ham is seeking here to build a framework that does not represent reality and again he does so in general terms without naming the individuals or stating why we should accept any such names as representative of the whole.

When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

Apparently he doesn't like being stereotyped by others. It's a shame he's begun this article by doing the same thing to those who hold to scriptural infallibility and inerrancy.

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator

So do I.

and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting.

Agreed.

I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!

True, as far as it goes. There are certainly many instances where productive illustration and further understanding can come from sources outside of Scripture. Scripture was never intended to stand alone as the only source of Knowledge in every field of knowledge except that of salvation and the nature of God, though perhaps others could be named.

I certainly hope he isn't going to do impose his own ideas from the outside onto Scripture, since he obviously sees this as a wrong approach.

When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel.

Oopsy! I was so hoping he wasn't going to do that .....

Here's an article addressing this type of thinking, which is decidedly influenced and derived from thinking imposed upon the Scriptures, not taken from them.

Physical death in the creation itself is not referenced in this manner in the Gospel. There certainly is the introduction of spiritual death and death to humanity there however.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day).

It makes no sense at all. Most of the fossil record is marine animals. Does he think they drowned? Stratification is differentiated. Does he believe this happened in a matter of months? Why would he even offer a scientific explanation as support for his interpretation of Scripture? I thought he just finished saying only Scripture should interpret Scripture?

Scripture is specific revelation given first and foremost for the purpose of revealing God to man and pointing the way to Christ and salvation.

All Scripture is true, but not all Truth is exclusive to Scripture. Within Scripture itself, it is proclaimed that God reveals Himself through nature as well. Certainly not as clearly or directly, but it is there none-the-less.

Truth found in nature is no less from God than Scripture. The Bible and Nature are in perfect agreement as both find their source in God.

So why do we have an argument? Because Man sees the Bible through his own lens of interpretation (theology) and Man sees Nature through a similar lens (Science).

Can science and theology be wrong? Sure. Happens all the time. The problem, in my opinion here, is that expositors like Ham lack the humility to see that their interpretation can be wrong and the Bible still true. They are so certain of their Young Earth Creationism that they are willing to stake every truth in the Bible on it and relegate the 95% of the scientific community that sees the revelation of age in creation and in effect claim everyone else are fools and that God intentionally deceives in his creation.

I'll stop there, before I get angry.

Please proceed, Mr. Hamm.

Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Really? Thanks for clearing that up. Please refer to the prior list for many who disagree and if needed you may consult these links for a differing view.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

It's a shame he can't see that his ideas about the Bible are more suspect. Science can certainly be wrong and often is.

Maybe when Ham arrives in heaven (and I have no reason to doubt he would not, which hopefully is more gracious than what I'm observing from him here) he'll have a chat with Galileo and compare notes as to what can happen when one declares allegiance to their point of view and makes it equal to Scripture to the point where they are prepared to declare all science wrong.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Ham again makes the error of assuming the his interpretation of Scripture cannot be based upon fallible assumptions. Scripture is not wrong. Ham is.

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

I have a question too. Why would any Christian want to take Ken Ham's fallible Scriptural interpretation and use it to impose an idea on the infallible word of God and discount the majority of both Scriptural and Natural revelation? Christians who accept a young earth are in essence saying that Ken Ham and those like him are infallible but God's Word and the evidence found within Creation itself is fallible.

(Boy. That sounds pretty mean doesn't it? I'd probably not go that far on my own, but it seems only fair to frame Ham's question back at him in the same manner and lack of civility that he has displayed. Sorry Ken.)

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word. Once this 'door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

And there we have it. This is what Ham has been aiming at from the start. Disagree with Ken Ham and you are disagreeing with the Bible. Paint your opposition as in league with the "godless" evolutionists and imply they don't really care about what the Bible says.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Thanks Ken. Now those who disagree with you are not only against the Bible but their willing accomplices to destroying the basis of morality. Note the prominence of the faulty straw man premise laid out in the introduction that Old Earth Creationists could not possibly start first with the Bible.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

My Bible says the the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Apparently those carbon and radiometric tests are powerful little suckers.

So, the issue is not 'young Earth' versus 'old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

No. So why do Young Earth creationists presume that authority to equate their interpretation of these verses as equal to the Word of God itself?

A 'young-Earth' view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' Compared to what God knows, we know 'next door to nothing!' This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God's Word.

Right back at you Ken.

It's also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that 'knowledge puffeth up.' Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

I'll pass on both the fallible academics and your presentation here Ken.

________________________________________

There you go Moriah.

I spent considerable time going through your article for you and I'd now like to see you engage with it without posting up more. Let's stay focused upon this and follow it through.

I enjoyed my discussion with Mr Ham.

Now I'd like to speak with you.

I hope you'll accept my invitation.

Please interact with my response and let's hold off introducing new material until you've digested and responded to this.

Bart

'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

You can't study the Bible effectively with yourself alone. It's done in a community.

However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

That so-called "science" is what you use everyday (Science in general). The reason I believe the Eath is billions of years old is because I don't think God would necessarily want to point us in the wrong direction with scientific discoveries. Science is always growing, as is theology.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

I don't even say how the author could come to that conclusion. It's not "reinterpreting" God's Word. It's trying to intepret God's word correctly.

You can't study the Bible effectively with yourself alone. It's done in a community

You can only study the Bible with the Holy Spirit, community has nothing to do with it.
You can start with the Bible alone. A couple of Examples:
For years and years, it was taught and believed because the major scientists at the time taught it, that the world was flat.
If someone had read the Bible alone, they would have found, God himself says the world is round.
Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

During the black plague, people kept dieing and the disease kept spreading and spreading, until read from the bible how to dispose of bodies, how to wash in running water. The minute that was done the disease stopped spreading.

These are just two examples of reading the Bible first is most important. Daniel read Jerimiah to be able to know that the 70 years was almost over for Isreal and that is when Daniel started praying for his country. When the prophets of old wanted to learn, they read the bible and took it literally.

The Holy Spirit needs to be with you when you are reading the Bible, you dont need peoples word

Moriah,

How familiar are you with the Protestant Reformation?

Moriah wrote:

You can't study the Bible effectively with yourself alone. It's done in a community

You can only study the Bible with the Holy Spirit, community has nothing to do with it.

Scripture to this end please. Please also address these thoughts.

Why are parents admonished in many places, but let's just refer to to Deut 11:19 to teach their children from and about the Scriptures? Why shouldn't they just lock them into a room with the Bible and pray the Holy Spirit to show them the truth?

Why are Christians admonished to not forsake assembling regularly with one another? Do you believe there is any intention in God's plan for the Christian community to be involved with one another for worship, admonition, ministering to one anothers needs and perhaps even teaching? One can and should study the Scriptures alone but you seem to be implying that it is either/or. Does not the Scripture intend both?

How do you suggest false teaching be addressed? What if you come to an understanding of a passage that has been understood by a majority of the Church in one way for 2000 years and you, in your reading and reliance on the Holy Spirit come to a position that has serious implications on a major teaching of Scripture? Are you stating the community of faith has no role in correcting you?

THe Holy Spirit has breathed infallibility into the Scriptures. Are you, or your interpretation of Scriptures, guided by the Holy Spirit infallible? How do you know what is the Holy Spirit and what is you? Go beyond the theory here and tell me in practise how you understand this please.

You can start with the Bible alone. A couple of Examples:
For years and years, it was taught and believed because the major scientists at the time taught it, that the world was flat.
If someone had read the Bible alone, they would have found, God himself says the world is round.
Isaiah 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

You seem to be implying that this wrong concept of a flat earth did not start and perpetuate with an individual. Do you think wrong teaching is only a result of a community?

I love this example by the way. What if your understanding of a Young Earth is wrong just like the flat earthers and the geocentric (earth centered) people were in the past, even when that was the majority opinion?

I'll state up front my Old Earth understanding can be wrong as well.

The concepts for a flat earth and for an earth centered Solar System were defended vehemently for a long time by using what? SCRIPTURE.

Was Scripture wrong? Both you and I would say no. The Christians using them out of context and interpreting them wrongly were at fault, Correct?

Geocentric teaching died hard. The proponents made statements asking whether they should believe the "Bible" or men, remember?

Does that argument sound familiar?

During the black plague, people kept dieing and the disease kept spreading and spreading, until read from the bible how to dispose of bodies, how to wash in running water. The minute that was done the disease stopped spreading.

That certainly helped and you're right to an extent. The Bible had a lot to say in that instance in terms of basic hygiene and the Old Testament laws of regulating sanitation and human contact (primarily aimed then at situations such as leprosy and trichinosis, by the way, but obviously the principle still held in the middle ages and still does today.)

Sanitation controlled the spread and eliminated the pandemic. It did not stop it from spreading however as there was more at work than just the sanitation issues by themselves.

How did the Black Plague spread however? It spread from fleas carried by rats. The Bible does not teach that. How did we learn it? Science, perhaps? Improved sanitation is indeed a HUGE reason for the reduction of disease and a major reason among many others for the incredible increase in population on this earth in just the past 100 years or so.

The Bible had and still has important, inspired truths in that regard. Scientific truth about this is no less true and has had a tremendous impact on our world and people.

These are just two examples of reading the Bible first is most important. Daniel read Jerimiah to be able to know that the 70 years was almost over for Isreal and that is when Daniel started praying for his country. When the prophets of old wanted to learn, they read the bible and took it literally.

Yes they did.

There's literal and then there's literal.

Tell me for instance,

In Matt 23:37 when Jesus cries out to Jerusalem and longs to gather her to himself, like a hen gathers her chicks. Is Jesus a chicken?

We both know that is ridiculous and further we both know that that is a metaphor designed to paint a picture of Jesus' love and care.

Yet, what if someone argued with you that Jesus as a Chicken is the more literal rendering of the passage and that you must not believe in the Bible if you take it any other way?

What would your answer be?

I'm serious. Please tell me.

Then think about the passage where if your eye causes you to sin you should gouge it out and see if your explanation holds there too.

The Holy Spirit needs to be with you when you are reading the Bible, you dont need peoples word

There certainly is an element of the Spirit leading and guiding God's people into all truth. God however, often chooses to use people and fellow Christians to train us, lead us and instruct us.

If we have to make a choice do we follow our conscience and understanding of God's Word first and foremost? Absolutely.

You had better be prepared however to listen to what others in the faith have to say, the testimony of the Church throughout the ages and make sure what you are hearing is the Holy Spirit and not just you elevating your own thinking above everything else. That is pride and arrogance.

Last I checked, pride and arrogance are not looked upon favorably in the Scriptures.

Truth is the realm of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. It is not the exclusive realm of all truth however. The Bible is not and was never intended to be a manual for building kites, teaching math or understanding every issue there is. It does address the most important issues however. Who is God and what is the path to know him and experience salvation. John 14:6

God gave us one another too to challenge and hone our faith, thinking and beliefs and only an unwise person rejects all the resources that God provides.

I'm a YEarther, ie. about 6000 years.

I base my view strictly upon what can be found in God's Word.

For example,

The Bible says in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. This one day of rest in seven days is maintained throughout the entire Word of God.

How long is this day of rest?

24 hours, not billions or even millions of years.

Therefore, God created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days.

From that we can use the geneologies from Adam down to Christ as renumerated in the Gospels and detailed in the Old Testament and verified/confirmed by Jesus Christ, the Creator, Himself.

Hence, the heavens and the earth are 'young,' about six thousand years, not billions.

Kerux wrote:I'm a YEarther, ie. about 6000 years.

I base my view strictly upon what can be found in God's Word.

For example,

The Bible says in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. This one day of rest in seven days is maintained throughout the entire Word of God.

How long is this day of rest?

24 hours, not billions or even millions of years.

Therefore, God created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days.

From that we can use the geneologies from Adam down to Christ as renumerated in the Gospels and detailed in the Old Testament and verified/confirmed by Jesus Christ, the Creator, Himself.

Hence, the heavens and the earth are 'young,' about six thousand years, not billions.

Hi Kerux, welcome to the board.

There is much more to this debate than trying to make it as simple as you try and make it sound.

For example, you state that the 7th day is 24 hours long. Yet we read in Hebrews that God is still in His rest after creation, making the 7th day much longer than that:
Heb 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
Heb 4:5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."

You also have to show from the original Scriptures that the Hebrew word for day necessarily and always means 24 hours.

Sorry, don't see the conection between a one (24 hour day) in seven day principle of rest, and believers entering into God's eternal rest.

Surely, you're not saying God has been resting since the creation of the world, in light of the fact, He sent His son to 'finish' his work?

"It is finished."

The work was indeed finished from the foundation of the world, but only in God's mind or purpose. The actual work was not done until Calvary.

I think you are confusing God's rest after Creation, (24 hours) and God's eternal rest after the finished work of Christ at Calvary, into which believers enter. God doesn't need to rest, per se, and 24 hours ie one day, was for our benefit, not God's.

Kerux wrote:Sorry, don't see the conection between a one (24 hour day) in seven day principle of rest, and believers entering into God's eternal rest.

Surely, you're not saying God has been resting since the creation of the world, in light of the fact, He sent His son to 'finish' his work?

"It is finished."

The work was indeed finished from the foundation of the world, but only in God's mind or purpose. The actual work was not done until Calvary.

I think you are confusing God's rest after Creation, (24 hours) and God's eternal rest after the finished work of Christ at Calvary, into which believers enter. God doesn't need to rest, per se, and 24 hours ie one day, was for our benefit, not God's.

Explain how there was a 24 hour day and night on days 1 -3 before the creation of the sun.