Evidence for God from Science

You're right that I don't feel the need to press a YEC case--here or anywhere. I don't even engage in creation apologetics (I stick the the moral argument and Jesus' resurrection, and that seems to suffice in real evangelism). As you say, it's not an issue that relates to salvation, and there are far more interesting things worth discussing here, I think. As far as the issue itself goes, obviously, I'm not convinced by the OEC arguments, but I won't say it isn't a valid interpretation. I respect it as a possibility. My problem with it is that I think Genesis 1:29-30 positively teaches that all animals were herbivores before the Fall. I think that Romans 5:12 teaches there was no death of any kind before the Fall. I question the warrant for translating yom as "age," but that's lesser issue.

I am still studying this subject, and trying to see different sides while trying to be honest about what I see. With saying that, YECs believe in no death before Adam's fall. I cannot honestly see how anyone can read "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN, BECAUSE ALL SINNED" and use that as a basis to believe in no possible animal death before Adam sinned. Is my translation wrong? I read"death came to all men, because all sinned". Is my bible leaving out the part about death coming to all living things because all sinned? This is a fundamental difference between YECs and OECs. Romans 5:12 is clearly talking about human death, clarified by "death came to all men, because all sinned" Animals don't sin, and don't need redemption from sin. If I'm not reading the obvious translation of this verse, please set me straight!

I am still studying this subject, and trying to see different sides while trying to be honest about what I see. With saying that, YECs believe in no death before Adam's fall. I cannot honestly see how anyone can read "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN, BECAUSE ALL SINNED" and use that as a basis to believe in no possible animal death before Adam sinned. Is my translation wrong? I read"death came to all men, because all sinned". Is my bible leaving out the part about death coming to all living things because all sinned? This is a fundamental difference between YECs and OECs. Romans 5:12 is clearly talking about human death, clarified by "death came to all men, because all sinned" Animals don't sin, and don't need redemption from sin. If I'm not reading the obvious translation of this verse, please set me straight!

Your translation isn't wrong, but it does miss a play on words in the Greek text. The word for "entered" is eiselthenl; the word for "came to" is dielthen. A better translation of the second would be "spread to." The first pictures entering into something (hence the prefix eis, meaning "into"); the second pictures spreading throughout something (hence the prefix dia, meaning "through").

So look at the verse:
one man sinned, and through his sin, death entered the world
we all sin, and through our sins, death spreads to us

By the way, the fact that this parallel is intended is highlighted by the fact that Paul uses the word hosper ("just as").

So there is a comparison to entering the world and spreading to men. You can't make the two phrases mean the same thing, which is what OEC has to do. "World" doesn't refer to mankind anymore than "entering" is the same thing as "spreading". Rather, the "world" is just what it almost always refers to in Paul's writings: the creation. Now that death is a part of creation, it spreads to all men in the same way it first entered; or individual sins.

Note also that chapter five begins a unit on sanctification that concludes at the end of chapter eight. Paul prefaces this entire thing in 5:1-11 by discussing the fact that even though we are justified, we still suffer tribulation. Why? Because there is still sin and death in the world. Thus, he presents the need for sanctification (the subject of 5-8). Not surprisingly, he concludes in Rom 8:19-21:

• The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

This marks an inclusio of sorts for the discussion that began in 5:12. The same themes there are found here--the creation is subjected to a curse, to death and to decay, and longs to be delivered, which will happen at our glorification (cf. Rom. 5:13-21).

Bottom line: "the world" in 5:12 contextually refers to the creation, not mankind. That means that there was no death in the world generally prior to the Fall. By the way, that view was the standard view of the rabbis during Paul's day. We have lots of examples of that theology in the circles Paul would have walked in, which gives us further external support for that understanding.

Hope that helps.

So look at the verse:
one man sinned, and through his sin, death entered the world
we all sin, and through our sins, death spreads to us


I just looked up "world" in strong's concordance #2889 The #5 translation is the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family. So, to translate what you wrote above, could possibly be "one man sinned, and through sin, death entered the human family, we all sin, and through our sins, death spreads to us". Is that a possible translation? Thanks

I just looked up "world" in strong's concordance #2889 The #5 translation is the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family. So, to translate what you wrote above, could possibly be "one man sinned, and through sin, death entered the human family, we all sin, and through our sins, death spreads to us". Is that a possible translation? Thanks

Grammatically, yes. Contextually, I don't think so. There are two ways to view the verse.

1. The manner in which death entered the human experience is the same manner death spreads to all men: sin.
2. The manner in which death entered the creation is the same manner that death spread to all men: sin.

As you can see, there is much agreement. The question is whether or not, contextually, Paul has only mankind in view or the whole of creation. I would suggest to you the latter. See Rom. 1:20. There, Paul sets up his discussion on the universal need for sin, and the whole of creation is in view. Rom. 3:6, 19 both have a broader view than humanity in mind (it at least includes angels, and the rest of the NT clearly states that God's judgment will fall on EVERYTHING). As stated before, chapters 5-8 deal with the issue of sanctification, which concludes by talking about the entire creation--CLEARLY referring to the non-human world--being under bondage and longing for our glorification. Again, the entirety of creation is in view in this section, which is the context we are dealing with.

So it seems to me that Paul is arguing that the creation as a whole was once without sin--without death. But one man changed that with his sin. Now there is sin and death in the world, and we die in just the same way Adam did, not by HIS sin, but by our own. Thus, the need for personal sanctification and ultimate glorification--not for ourselves only, but for the sake of the entire creation.

The first view just seems entirely too narrow to me. I would ask, on what basis should we accept it? We have the whole theology of Romans, the reality of the curse on nature that goes back to Gen 3 (which Paul clearly has in mind--the chapter, I mean--throughout this book), and context of this particular unit to weigh in favor of the second view. Further, the reading of "world" as "humanity," though it is POSSIBLE, is not the NORMAL meaning of the word, which means if we ARE going to take it that way, we should have particularly good evidence. I don't see any in the context. In fact, I see much that supports the more natural reading. Do you?

Here's a site with a huge amount of exegetical resources and reference for Romans 5:12. You'll see there quite a large number that do indeed see it as "mankind". It's a highly disputed point.

http://preceptaustin.org/romans_513-21.htm

For me this may be a good illustration of what some systematic approaches to the Bible do. When you have to form a theological premise based upon the cross examination of two passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the authors, to come up with a concept that neither passage by itself presents and which is not present in another passage on it's own, then any conclusions drawn are extremely tenuous at best.

First, Bart, I never said nobody sees "mankind" as a possibility. Rich does, which I have already referenced.

Second, I'm not sure what "systematic approach" you are talking about. Are you under the impression that because of my YEC beliefs I had to interpret these passages this way? I have said repeatedly exactly the OPPOSITE happened. Further, I have argued long and hard on these boards that theology is informed by the text and NEVER vice-versa.

Third, are you of the belief that the "no death before the Fall" doctrine is based only on these two verses? Or that these are the only two verses that bear on the matter? I believe you said that you used to be YEC. If so, you should know that while these two verses are commonly used, they are far from the only basis for the doctrine. I only mentioned then because those are the two that Rich takes issue with.,

Fourth, whether or not there are other verses, if EITHER of these passages say what I claim they do--that all animals were vegetarians at creation OR that there was no death in the creation prior to Adam's sin--is that not sufficient to say that the Bible teaches that there was no death before the Fall? If so, then the evidence I put forward is what is important, not how many other verses do or don't deal with this issue.

Fifth, it should also be noted that while YEC does NOT have to embrace the "no death before the Fall" doctrine to stand, OEC DOES. As a result, while it is logically impossible to argue that YECs are using their systematic theology and reading it into the text, it is certainly very possible that OECs are doing just that, especially in the case of Gen. 1:29-30.

Sixth, I'd be very careful about saying that any "theological premise based upon the cross examination of two passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the authors, to come up with a concept that neither passage by itself presents and which is not present in another passage on it's own" is "extremely tenuous at best." After all, can you show me a single verse where the Trinity is taught? Is that doctrine not "based upon the cross examination of [multiple] passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the author"? Is there any case in which the Trinity is "present in another passage on it's own"?

In any case, for OECs to say YEC "denigrates" and "maligns the character of God" and "make God a sinner" (all three statements from Rich's article) is over the top, simple ad hominems. The problems I have here are manifold. There are theological, exegetical, and just plain moral problems with this entire debate. This is also, by the way, why I don't have these discussions. What is the use of putting forward a rational exegesis just to be told that you are only reading your theology into the text and then your entire point dismissed as "extremely tenuous"?

Again, I fully acknowledge there is heavy debate. At worst, that only means that the arguments from both sides are worth careful consideration, not out of hand dismissal.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Here's a site with a huge amount of exegetical resources and reference for Romans 5:12. You'll see there quite a large number that do indeed see it as "mankind". It's a highly disputed point.

http://preceptaustin.org/romans_513-21.htm

For me this may be a good illustration of what some systematic approaches to the Bible do. When you have to form a theological premise based upon the cross examination of two passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the authors, to come up with a concept that neither passage by itself presents and which is not present in another passage on it's own, then any conclusions drawn are extremely tenuous at best.

Thanks for the link Canuckster. I'll be sure to drink a 5 hour energy before I delve into that one. I'm a simple guy, and cannot come to any conclusion except Romans 5 is talking about death through Adam, and life through Christ. Are we talking about animals that died because of Adam, also being made alive in Christ? I can't picture a koala on fire for Christ.

First, Bart, I never said nobody sees "mankind" as a possibility. Rich does, which I have already referenced.

I did not say you did. I simply pointed to a site with multiple instances of exegeters and commentators who disagree with the conclusion you've come too.

Second, I'm not sure what "systematic approach" you are talking about. Are you under the impression that because of my YEC beliefs I had to interpret these passages this way? I have said repeatedly exactly the OPPOSITE happened. Further, I have argued long and hard on these boards that theology is informed by the text and NEVER vice-versa.

It had nothing to do with you personally. I simply addressed the interpretation you rendered and noted the tying of these two verses separated by thousands of years to come to a conclusion that is not independently present in either verse by itself.

Third, are you of the belief that the "no death before the Fall" doctrine is based only on these two verses? Or that these are the only two verses that bear on the matter? I believe you said that you used to be YEC. If so, you should know that while these two verses are commonly used, they are far from the only basis for the doctrine. I only mentioned then because those are the two that Rich takes issue with.,

They were the verses you were addressing and so I responded to them. It's not my responsibility to introduce other elements into the conversation that were not be addressing.

Fourth, whether or not there are other verses, if EITHER of these passages say what I claim they do--that all animals were vegetarians at creation OR that there was no death in the creation prior to Adam's sin--is that not sufficient to say that the Bible teaches that there was no death before the Fall? If so, then the evidence I put forward is what is important, not how many other verses do or don't deal with this issue.

That begs the question, why then are those verses so commonly tied together in this manner by YEC proponents if the independent verses are sufficient to draw that conclusion?

Fifth, it should also be noted that while YEC does NOT have to embrace the "no death before the Fall" doctrine to stand, OEC DOES. As a result, while it is logically impossible to argue that YECs are using their systematic theology and reading it into the text, it is certainly very possible that OECs are doing just that, especially in the case of Gen. 1:29-30.

I've not stated that OEC doesn't have similar issues in places. I hold by the general hermeneutical principle I stated in either context as something to be very wary of, regardless of how that impacts either "camp."

Sixth, I'd be very careful about saying that any "theological premise based upon the cross examination of two passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the authors, to come up with a concept that neither passage by itself presents and which is not present in another passage on it's own" is "extremely tenuous at best." After all, can you show me a single verse where the Trinity is taught? Is that doctrine not "based upon the cross examination of [multiple] passages which are hugely separated in time, context and the author"? Is there any case in which the Trinity is "present in another passage on it's own"?

The Trinity draws on more than two verses and there are indeed multiple passages within the NT and OT where all three persons of the Trinity are noted as present and it is much more clearly derived by a preponderance of multiple passages than the assertion here which is based upon the two noted.

In any case, for OECs to say YEC "denigrates" and "maligns the character of God" and "make God a sinner" (all three statements from Rich's article) is over the top, simple ad hominems. The problems I have here are manifold. There are theological, exegetical, and just plain moral problems with this entire debate. This is also, by the way, why I don't have these discussions. What is the use of putting forward a rational exegesis just to be told that you are only reading your theology into the text and then your entire point dismissed as "extremely tenuous"?

It's a fine line but I've found Rich's writings to be pretty careful in addressing the issues and the fact that that leads to a negative conclusion as to a YEC position is not by definition an ad hominem. I'd have to look at the specific writings you're pointing to and introducing newly to this conversation. Feel free to link to them if you'd like me to examine your assertions.

Again, I fully acknowledge there is heavy debate. At worst, that only means that the arguments from both sides are worth careful consideration, not out of hand dismissal.

I simply pointed to a source for others to examine to come to their own conclusions and I noted my concern over the use of those two verses in the manner that they are used to draw a conclusion as needing care. I stand by that. That points is as worthy of careful consideration as anything you said and I fail to see where I was disrespectful or rejecting anything out of hand. I simply disagreed with your position. Jac. It's not cause to read anything more into it.

bart

Well....since you asked...

Background - How I Lost my Faith…and Found it Again

I was baptized when I was a young teen. But not long after…sometime in early high school…I stumbled. I lost my faith. Dogmatic believers and fundamental theology didn't have credibility with me. Fear and damnation did not ring true for me.

I have been an avid reader since about the 3rd grade and in my early teens read a biography of the lawyer Clarence Darrow. Maybe I had learned of him from the movie “Inherit the Wind” (Scopes monkey trial on evolution), I can't remember. I was into reading biographies at the time. Darrow was an agnostic (not an atheist) and a quote attributed to him struck a chord with me. Darrow professed: “I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure”. This was the death blow for my faith. It stuck to me like glue. I soon discovered that many great thinkers were agnostic. Mark Twain was an agnostic. Agnosticism was an easily defensible position for me. And then there was the Paradox of Epicurus:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted my faith back. But I wanted to get there through intellect, and I didn't want to get there because of fear of damnation. I wanted to love God genuinely. Try as I might, it took about 35 years before this prodigal son found his way back.

My first college degree is B.S. Biology. Entomology was my field of choice. I got a good dose of philosophy and evolution, which I accepted. Not realizing the faith it took to fill in the gaps. Entomology turned out to be a limited job market in the late 70s and it was going to take a Ph.D. and 5 years experience to get meaningful employment in the field. Instead, I pursued an engineering degree.

I received my second degree, a B.S. Engineering (Mechanical) and went to work in the space program as a NASA contractor. Not as a rocket scientist. Instead, I worked as a payload developer supporting the scientists that perform microgravity research on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. Our engineering group has flown payloads on more than 50 Shuttle missions.

My wife was the spiritual leader of our family as I half heartedly supported her with my irregular church attendance. Finally, at the midpoint of my life the message of grace reached me. I surrendered…and with just a mustard seed of faith, things slowly began to be revealed to me. As more was revealed, my faith grew. I found little things in the Word were being illuminated to me. I could see God working in my life. Slowly, my prayers were being answered.

Good Faith-Good Science

Nearly a half a century later here I am working at a university with my new found faith. My family joined one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the nation with a congregation of around 10,000 members. While I was participating daily in “21 Days of Prayer “ with the church, I began to pray for God to protect my new faith from associations at the university that might once again lead me away from the path of light. I'm talking about scientists, brilliant scientists familiar with Einstein's theories, astrophysics, and biology. I didn't want to isolate myself from them. One Saturday morning in this prayer period, I asked that God would help me reconcile my faith with my science and the scientists that I work with. But most importantly…protect my young faith.

Answers to my prayer began immediately, and have continued like a flood for the last 2 months. I've been “drinking through a fire hose”. Let me explain. On Tuesday of the following week, I got an email from a Christian co-worker who knew of my new found faith, but hadn't known of my personal prayer the Saturday before. In the email, he wrote: “you have to watch this”… and had a link to Louie Giglio's “How Great is God” videos on YouTube. In the videos Louie beautifully illustrates the enormity and beauty of God's creation, the universe. He also tells of the protein laminin, “the protein that holds us together”. I forgot to tell you, that most of our work in space has been with protein crystal growth. So this really hit home.

In a church the size of ours, Small Groups of worship during the week are a way to build relationships and to enjoy common pursuits. As new members of the church, my wife and I had never participated in a small group. But I began to pray that the new semester would have a group of scientist/believers like ourselves and that we could encourage each other as we reconciled our understanding of the Word and creation.

We found a small group titled: Creation, Evolution, and Science….I didn't know what it meant at the time, but the group intended to visit the Creation Museum at the end of the semester. I called the leader before we joined and shared with him that we had science backgrounds. He said that is great, because they didn't have any scientists in the group. His daughter had told him she believed the Earth was 4.5 Million years old. I told him, I was inclined to agree with her, and he said we definitely needed to join the group.

At the first meeting we watched the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) DVD “Already Gone” by Ken Ham. My wife and I were incredulous, but polite. We shared that this was all new to us. We had never believed that the creation account represented 6 literal days. We were told that if we didn't believe these things, then we couldn't believe the rest of the bible. My wife and I lay in bed at night scratching our heads over the new things we learned. We believed the rest of the bible, but the YEC theology and dinosaurs on the ark troubled us.

Well, at the second meeting of the small group we watched a DVD by another YEC, Kent Hovind. By this time, my wife and I were reeling. Did my new found faith require rejecting everything I understood about science? Einstein was wrong and so were all of the astrophysicists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, and even some renowned Christian leaders! We were told that 99% of scientists are atheists. My faith was under attack again…by the same dogmatic fundamental ideology as before.

I think Ronald Regan said “trust, but verify”. We had some verifying to do before next week's meeting. We searched on the internet and followed every thread we could. God answered our efforts when we found the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg show. Hugh explained clearly, how good faith and good science complement each other and that a better understanding of science actually builds the case for God. We gained an understanding of biblical examples that support the old earth creationist model. We came to understand how God who transcends all space, matter, energy, and time is the creator of the universe and the cause of the big bang. From that point to this day two months later, my wife and I have spent about 20 hours a week learning as much as we can and enjoying the pursuit of good faith and good science.

At the third small group meeting we watched another DVD by Ken Ham. We began to share our research and doubts about the YEC model with the group, but did not debate. I didn't feel properly equipped to address each pseudoscience claim point by point. There were so many claims, it was just overwhelming. My filters were saturated, and I'm afraid debate would have led to relationship issues. Besides we all agreed, these are not salvation issues. We occasionally “tested the waters”, but much like in the debate between Hovind and Ross the literal word of the bible was a primary rebuttal…or “God can do anything”.

Between the third and fourth small group meeting, my wife sought counsel from our church pastors. She requested a meeting saying it was critical, her husband's faith was at risk. We really needed to hear whether we were pursuing something contrary to church doctrine. We met and asked what we should do. Would we get kicked out of the church if we studied the old earth creation model? The pastor laughed and said no. In fact he encouraged us to free ourselves from that worry and said we weren't expected to continue with the small group. How refreshing and encouraging! My faith was safe. In fact it continues to grow. We graciously parted ways at the next small group meeting explaining that we just didn't find Hovind and Ham credible. Instead, we found them a distraction to our pursuit of good faith-good science. We were just weary of filtering the pseudoscience from science.

tgmore1 wrote:Well....since you asked...

Background - How I Lost my Faith…and Found it Again

I was baptized when I was a young teen. But not long after…sometime in early high school…I stumbled. I lost my faith. Dogmatic believers and fundamental theology didn't have credibility with me. Fear and damnation did not ring true for me.

I have been an avid reader since about the 3rd grade and in my early teens read a biography of the lawyer Clarence Darrow. Maybe I had learned of him from the movie “Inherit the Wind” (Scopes monkey trial on evolution), I can't remember. I was into reading biographies at the time. Darrow was an agnostic (not an atheist) and a quote attributed to him struck a chord with me. Darrow professed: “I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure”. This was the death blow for my faith. It stuck to me like glue. I soon discovered that many great thinkers were agnostic. Mark Twain was an agnostic. Agnosticism was an easily defensible position for me. And then there was the Paradox of Epicurus:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted my faith back. But I wanted to get there through intellect, and I didn't want to get there because of fear of damnation. I wanted to love God genuinely. Try as I might, it took about 35 years before this prodigal son found his way back.

My first college degree is B.S. Biology. Entomology was my field of choice. I got a good dose of philosophy and evolution, which I accepted. Not realizing the faith it took to fill in the gaps. Entomology turned out to be a limited job market in the late 70s and it was going to take a Ph.D. and 5 years experience to get meaningful employment in the field. Instead, I pursued an engineering degree.

I received my second degree, a B.S. Engineering (Mechanical) and went to work in the space program as a NASA contractor. Not as a rocket scientist. Instead, I worked as a payload developer supporting the scientists that perform microgravity research on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. Our engineering group has flown payloads on more than 50 Shuttle missions.

My wife was the spiritual leader of our family as I half heartedly supported her with my irregular church attendance. Finally, at the midpoint of my life the message of grace reached me. I surrendered…and with just a mustard seed of faith, things slowly began to be revealed to me. As more was revealed, my faith grew. I found little things in the Word were being illuminated to me. I could see God working in my life. Slowly, my prayers were being answered.

Good Faith-Good Science

Nearly a half a century later here I am working at a university with my new found faith. My family joined one of the largest and fastest growing churches in the nation with a congregation of around 10,000 members. While I was participating daily in “21 Days of Prayer “ with the church, I began to pray for God to protect my new faith from associations at the university that might once again lead me away from the path of light. I'm talking about scientists, brilliant scientists familiar with Einstein's theories, astrophysics, and biology. I didn't want to isolate myself from them. One Saturday morning in this prayer period, I asked that God would help me reconcile my faith with my science and the scientists that I work with. But most importantly…protect my young faith.

Answers to my prayer began immediately, and have continued like a flood for the last 2 months. I've been “drinking through a fire hose”. Let me explain. On Tuesday of the following week, I got an email from a Christian co-worker who knew of my new found faith, but hadn't known of my personal prayer the Saturday before. In the email, he wrote: “you have to watch this”… and had a link to Louie Giglio's “How Great is God” videos on YouTube. In the videos Louie beautifully illustrates the enormity and beauty of God's creation, the universe. He also tells of the protein laminin, “the protein that holds us together”. I forgot to tell you, that most of our work in space has been with protein crystal growth. So this really hit home.

In a church the size of ours, Small Groups of worship during the week are a way to build relationships and to enjoy common pursuits. As new members of the church, my wife and I had never participated in a small group. But I began to pray that the new semester would have a group of scientist/believers like ourselves and that we could encourage each other as we reconciled our understanding of the Word and creation.

We found a small group titled: Creation, Evolution, and Science….I didn't know what it meant at the time, but the group intended to visit the Creation Museum at the end of the semester. I called the leader before we joined and shared with him that we had science backgrounds. He said that is great, because they didn't have any scientists in the group. His daughter had told him she believed the Earth was 4.5 Million years old. I told him, I was inclined to agree with her, and he said we definitely needed to join the group.

At the first meeting we watched the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) DVD “Already Gone” by Ken Ham. My wife and I were incredulous, but polite. We shared that this was all new to us. We had never believed that the creation account represented 6 literal days. We were told that if we didn't believe these things, then we couldn't believe the rest of the bible. My wife and I lay in bed at night scratching our heads over the new things we learned. We believed the rest of the bible, but the YEC theology and dinosaurs on the ark troubled us.

Well, at the second meeting of the small group we watched a DVD by another YEC, Kent Hovind. By this time, my wife and I were reeling. Did my new found faith require rejecting everything I understood about science? Einstein was wrong and so were all of the astrophysicists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, and even some renowned Christian leaders! We were told that 99% of scientists are atheists. My faith was under attack again…by the same dogmatic fundamental ideology as before.

I think Ronald Regan said “trust, but verify”. We had some verifying to do before next week's meeting. We searched on the internet and followed every thread we could. God answered our efforts when we found the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg show. Hugh explained clearly, how good faith and good science complement each other and that a better understanding of science actually builds the case for God. We gained an understanding of biblical examples that support the old earth creationist model. We came to understand how God who transcends all space, matter, energy, and time is the creator of the universe and the cause of the big bang. From that point to this day two months later, my wife and I have spent about 20 hours a week learning as much as we can and enjoying the pursuit of good faith and good science.

At the third small group meeting we watched another DVD by Ken Ham. We began to share our research and doubts about the YEC model with the group, but did not debate. I didn't feel properly equipped to address each pseudoscience claim point by point. There were so many claims, it was just overwhelming. My filters were saturated, and I'm afraid debate would have led to relationship issues. Besides we all agreed, these are not salvation issues. We occasionally “tested the waters”, but much like in the debate between Hovind and Ross the literal word of the bible was a primary rebuttal…or “God can do anything”.

Between the third and fourth small group meeting, my wife sought counsel from our church pastors. She requested a meeting saying it was critical, her husband's faith was at risk. We really needed to hear whether we were pursuing something contrary to church doctrine. We met and asked what we should do. Would we get kicked out of the church if we studied the old earth creation model? The pastor laughed and said no. In fact he encouraged us to free ourselves from that worry and said we weren't expected to continue with the small group. How refreshing and encouraging! My faith was safe. In fact it continues to grow. We graciously parted ways at the next small group meeting explaining that we just didn't find Hovind and Ham credible. Instead, we found them a distraction to our pursuit of good faith-good science. We were just weary of filtering the pseudoscience from science.

Thank you. That was a great story, and I'm glad you were praying for God's guidance beforehand.Edit I'm very shocked to learn that you didn't come to the conclusion of 6 24-hour days by reading your Bible. You do realize that Ham says that you CANNOT come to any other translation besides 24-hour days by simply reading the text. So, you, Hugh Ross, and the Grandmother in Ross' book were the only 3 to come to a long period of time interpretation. It's good to hear of someone else that believed in long days.

Welcome tgmore! I really appreciate what you've written above. It resonates with me on many, many levels. The church I was attending a few years ago did a Sunday School quarter on YEC vs OEC, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. I was a part of it as a representative OEC. That particular church denomination has a statement that YEC and OEC are both recognized positions and accepted as possible literal interpretations of Genesis. In practice however, there are some within the church who are YEC and tolerate that OECs are recognized, but still advance their position aggressively suggesting at times that OEC in fact is not a viable position.

I've been out of institutional churches for the past year or so, and may be looking to find another church with my family. I'm somewhat apprehensive even as an attender as to what the reception will be as many of the churches I've looked up and checked their Doctrinal Statements appear to have language there that strongly suggests that and OEC position is not welcome.

To this point, I've not found any churches that clearly state they are OEC or in any way implying that YECs are not welcome. I'm told they exist and they might, but at least in my immediate area I see no sign of that at least in the statements of faith I've reviewed.

Anyway, your words encourage me and I'm glad you're here. I hope you'll stick around and become more involved!

blessing to you and again welcome,

bart

Thanks for the replies (Rick and Canukster). I know it was a long read, but believe it or not...that's a "readers digest" version. I wish I could've captured on paper the entanglements of God's work that I'm blessed enough to recognize. It inspires me and builds my faith when I recognize a thread of his purpose unfold.
“How amazing are the deeds of the LORD! All who delight in him should ponder them.” (Psalm 111:2)

tgmore1 wrote:Thanks for the replies (Rick and Canukster). I know it was a long read, but believe it or not...that's a "readers digest" version. I wish I could've captured on paper the entanglements of God's work that I'm blessed enough to recognize. It inspires me and builds my faith when I recognize a thread of his purpose unfold.
“How amazing are the deeds of the LORD! All who delight in him should ponder them.” (Psalm 111:2)

The Lord started speaking to me about this all because of a simple word...yom, and a Rabbi's response to a Christian saying it had to mean 24 hours.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Welcome tgmore! I really appreciate what you've written above. It resonates with me on many, many levels. The church I was attending a few years ago did a Sunday School quarter on YEC vs OEC, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. I was a part of it as a representative OEC. That particular church denomination has a statement that YEC and OEC are both recognized positions and accepted as possible literal interpretations of Genesis. In practice however, there are some within the church who are YEC and tolerate that OECs are recognized, but still advance their position aggressively suggesting at times that OEC in fact is not a viable position.

I've been out of institutional churches for the past year or so, and may be looking to find another church with my family. I'm somewhat apprehensive even as an attender as to what the reception will be as many of the churches I've looked up and checked their Doctrinal Statements appear to have language there that strongly suggests that and OEC position is not welcome.

To this point, I've not found any churches that clearly state they are OEC or in any way implying that YECs are not welcome. I'm told they exist and they might, but at least in my immediate area I see no sign of that at least in the statements of faith I've reviewed.

Anyway, your words encourage me and I'm glad you're here. I hope you'll stick around and become more involved!

blessing to you and again welcome,

bart

Bart, if you find any churches that aren't opposed to OEC, please post them so I can check them out. Thanks

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Welcome tgmore! I really appreciate what you've written above. It resonates with me on many, many levels. The church I was attending a few years ago did a Sunday School quarter on YEC vs OEC, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. I was a part of it as a representative OEC. That particular church denomination has a statement that YEC and OEC are both recognized positions and accepted as possible literal interpretations of Genesis. In practice however, there are some within the church who are YEC and tolerate that OECs are recognized, but still advance their position aggressively suggesting at times that OEC in fact is not a viable position.

I've been out of institutional churches for the past year or so, and may be looking to find another church with my family. I'm somewhat apprehensive even as an attender as to what the reception will be as many of the churches I've looked up and checked their Doctrinal Statements appear to have language there that strongly suggests that and OEC position is not welcome.

To this point, I've not found any churches that clearly state they are OEC or in any way implying that YECs are not welcome. I'm told they exist and they might, but at least in my immediate area I see no sign of that at least in the statements of faith I've reviewed.

Anyway, your words encourage me and I'm glad you're here. I hope you'll stick around and become more involved!

blessing to you and again welcome,

bart

Bart, if you find any churches that aren't opposed to OEC, please post them so I can check them out. Thanks

I know of one .