Donations for the month of September


We have received a total of $0 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 48
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,685
Posts51,431
Members928
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,513
Tom 3,525
chestnutmare 2,920
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,769
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 16
Pilgrim 16
Meta4 2
Johan 2
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Guilt or Innocence Does it Matter?
by Tom. Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:55 PM
Big Thank You!
by Tom. Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:19 PM
Same Sex Atraction
by Pilgrim. Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:33 AM
What will it like to live in Heaven
by Pilgrim. Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:32 PM
Bill 89 taking children from Christian homes
by Tom. Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:10 PM
Pay Taxes
by Tom. Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Paul on a Young Earth #54627
Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:03 AM
Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:03 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Quite some time ago, I read a quote from someone at Biologos; which is supposedly a Christian organization that supports theistic evolution. Unfortunately I did not copy the quote for another time. The quote went something like; “Undoubtedly Paul believed in a young earth; but Paul was clearly wrong.” That probably is not an exact quote; but I think it represents what was said properly.
I believe the same person also mentioned that Paul was also probably wrong when it comes to Adam and Eve being the sole mother and father of all humans.
This quote of course shows the person’s view of the Bible. It is obvious that the person does not believe in biblical inerrancy; among other things. Which is really all I really need to know about the organization.
However, I have a question related to the quotes from Biologos; that I have been trying to find out more by studying Paul’s writing.
I am looking mainly at the writing of Paul, to show that he did indeed believe in a young earth and a real historical view of Genesis one and two. In the later case, some of what comes to mind is Romans 5 – Sin and death infecting the entire human race through Adam. Which is why Christ had to come, if Adam and Eve were not actual historical people; then I see no reason why writers like Paul would write in this manner. In 1 Cor.15, Christ the last Adam; Paul uses the creation narrative.
I am still looking for information that shows definitely that Paul wrote about a Young Earth.
The reason why I am asking this is if I find it, it could be helpful in showing what Paul and other writers taught on the issue.
Thank you
Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54628
Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:03 PM
Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:03 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Paul doesn't address the historicity of the earth didactically. Yes, in Rom 5:12-18 and 1 Cor 15:21,22 Paul references that the entire human race fell in Adam. But this doesn't state that Adam was the first and only man God created and Eve the only woman God created from whom the entire race came. Of course, the passage in Romans does state that Adam was the federal head of the entire race and which was negatively effected by his transgression, i.e., Original Sin; imputed guilt and inherited corruption of nature. The specifics of the creation are to be found in Genesis 1-3, but even there no mention is given as to the time it was created. The creation narrative does strongly state that God created the earth "mature" and thereafter Adam and Eve were created thus disallowing the Theistic Evolution view. Some, e.g., Archbishop Ussher used the chronologies of the OT to determine the age of the earth in his book The Annals of the Old Testament (1650).
Quote
The date forever tied to Bishop Ussher appears in the first paragraph of the first page of The Annals. Ussher wrote: “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, which beginning of time, according to this chronology, occurred at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October in the year 710 of the Julian period.” In the right margin of the page, Ussher computes the date in “Christian” time as 4004 B.C.

Personally, methinks that the case can be made for a young earth although I would be hesitant to state an exact age of the earth's creation because I am not sure if the chronologies given in the OT are 100% complete. Whatever the exact date that God created the earth and Adam it surely wasn't 100,000+ years ago or some ridiculous period spanning billions or even millions of years ago as some prognosticate. Nor did the creation evolve from one micro organism as Evolution postulates.

Sooooo, the bottom line in regard to finding proof for a young earth in Paul I believe is an exercise in futility since I find nothing to support that venture. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and therefore "proof" for any doctrine or view must be based upon the entire teaching of Scripture, aka: The Analogy of Faith. grin:


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54631
Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:45 PM
Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:45 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Thanks, that is my take as well. The basic reason I asked this was because the person did concede that point. He probably did so, because he became convinced of it. Yet, because of his view of Scripture he had no problem saying Paul was wrong.
I think if we could show people that Paul believed in a young earth, it would shut a lot of mouths who have a high view of Scripture.
Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54633
Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:06 PM
Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:06 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Tom
I think if we could show people that Paul believed in a young earth, it would shut a lot of mouths who have a high view of Scripture.
Tom

I guess I'm at a loss to understand why it is important that Paul believed in a young earth which he didn't state anywhere in Scripture that I am aware of. I have no doubt whatsoever that Paul understood Genesis 1-3 as a real historical narrative and thus he believed that God created the heavens and earth in the span of 6 24-hour days. Although sheer speculation on my part, I would think that since Paul was personally taught by the LORD Christ Himself over a period of 3 years and since the Son of God dwelt in Christ and made all things (Jh 1:1-3; Col 1:16,17; Heb 1:1-3,10-12; 3:3,4; Rev 4:11), it seems reasonable to me that Paul was told how He, the incarnate Son created the heavens and the earth exactly as the Spirit moved Moses to write the same in Gen 1-3. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54655
Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:42 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:42 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
I agree with Pilgrim in that a literal Adam & Eve is more important than YEC.... I think Ken Hamm's ministry is noble but an unfortunate place to remain wholly fixed..... That said, all evidence points to perfect design....

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Anthony C.] #54656
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:19 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Just to make myself perfectly clear..... I firmly believe that Scripture teaches a "young earth". I'm just not 100% convinced that Ussher's date of 4004 B.C. is absolutely correct. He might have been off by a 1000 years, for example due to what I wrote above regarding whether the OT chronologies are to be taken as complete vs. parts were deliberately not included if for no other reason than the fascination which some men have for calculating dates and times as we all know is done on the matter of Christ's second coming. rolleyes2 However, Ussher may have been correct. But no matter to me personally whether the earth was created and prepared for the habitation of man Adam at 4004 B.C. What is not negotiable for me is the actual time frame within which God created the heavens and the earth, i.e., 6 24-hour solar days and on the 7th day, He rested; ceased from any further ex nihilo creative work.

I simply don't want anyone to misconstrue something I wrote above and conclude that I would accept a view that postulates that the earth is 75,000 years old or 50,000 years old, etc. I seriously doubt that the age of the earth is more than 10,000 years old +/- and it just might be considerably less than that. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54657
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:45 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:45 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Biologos is very orthodox..... About naturalism!!!
Quote
those who do know the science are more likely to reject ID not on scientific but on theological or philosophical grounds. That is rich with implications.

Currently at the theistic evolutionary website BioLogos, Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer helps clarify this. BioLogos published a series of critical reviews of Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt, and graciously invited him to reply. Dr. Meyer writes:

I have especially appreciated how the reviews in this recent series have unexpectedly clarified the nature of disagreement between proponents of the theory of intelligent design (ID) and the proponents of theistic evolution (or evolutionary creation) associated with BioLogos. I — and many others — have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological.

In particular, the reviews have revealed that the central issue dividing the BioLogos writers from intelligent design (ID) theorists concerns a principle known as methodological naturalism (MN). MN asserts that scientists must explain all events and phenomena by reference to strictly naturalistic or materialistic causes. The principle forbids postulating the actions of personal agency, mind, or intelligent causation in scientific explanations and thus limits the explanatory toolkit of science to strictly material processes or physical causes. The principle of methodological naturalism is, of course, not a scientific theory nor an empirical finding, but an allegedly normative methodological rule, against which I have argued in depth, both in Darwin’s Doubt (see Chapter 19) and in my earlier book, Signature in the Cell (see Chapters 18 and 19). My colleagues have also argued against MN in their responses to some of the BioLogos reviews of Darwin’s Doubt (see, for example, here and here).

Recall that Darwin’s Doubt argues that intelligent design provides the best explanation for the origin of the genetic (and epigenetic) information necessary to produce the novel forms of animal life that arose in the Cambrian period. In making this case, I show first that neither the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations, nor more recently-proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change (species selection, self-organization, neutral evolution, natural genetic evolution, etc. — see Darwin’s Doubt Chapters 15-16) are sufficient to generate the biological information that arises in the Cambrian period. Instead, I show — based upon our uniform and repeated experience — that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to generate the kind of functional information that is present in biological systems (and that arises with the Cambrian animals). Thus, I conclude that the action of a designing intelligence provides the best ("most causally adequate") explanation for the origin of that information.

Now, one might have expected that Ralph Stearley, a paleontologist, and Darrel Falk, a geneticist, both of whom have extensive knowledge of evolutionary theory, would have critiqued the main scientific argument of Darwin’s Doubt on scientific grounds. In particular, one might have expected that they would have argued that either the neo-Darwinian mechanism, or some other evolutionary mechanism, does have the creative power to produce the information necessary to build new forms of animal life. Instead, except for raising a few minor objections about incidental scientific matters, both acknowledged that evolutionary theory has left the problem of the Cambrian explosion unsolved — i.e., that the mutation/natural selection mechanism lacks the creative power to account for macro-evolutionary innovations in the history of life.

As Stephen Meyer notes, the difference between ID and theistic evolution, as articulated by theistic evolutionists who are also scientists or philosophers of science, centers on an issue apart from the science:

Of the three reviewers, Wheaton College philosopher of science Robert Bishop was the least persuaded by DD‘s arguments — but, interestingly, he was also the most explicitly committed to the principle of methodological naturalism. Indeed, he objected to the thesis of the book precisely because it openly rejects (and violates) the principle of methodological naturalism.

Consequently, his four-part critique, by far the longest in the BioLogos series, said very little about my scientific arguments. (He did argue that I was wrong to claim that newer models of evolutionary theory represent significant deviations from neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. Yet, notably, biologist Darrel Falk’s review affirmed my assessment of these newer theories over and against Bishop’s.) In any case, Bishop focused his critique on what he called my "rhetorical strategies," giving particular attention to philosophical issues concerning the legitimacy of design inferences in biology.

In Bishop’s judgment, intelligent design flagrantly violates the rule of methodological naturalism — a rule that he regards as normative for the practice of all natural science because he believes (incorrectly, as it turns out) that "methodological naturalism is the way scientific investigation has been done since before the time of the Scientific Revolution." Indeed, as my colleague Paul Nelson pointed out in his response to Bishop’s critique, Bishop badly misreads the history of science. The design arguments developed by Isaac Newton — in the Opticks and the Principia, for instance �– alone contradict Bishop’s claims.

You sense that between the view of Stephen Meyer and Robert Bishop there is room for a fascinating and profound discussion — not so much about the science, though, as about philosophy"

Last edited by Anthony C.; Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:46 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Pilgrim] #54658
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:07 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:07 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Of course..... you don't don't need to wave the flag for YEC to believe the earth and man's existence upon it came about exactly as written in the Word within a relative time frame.... But biologos cares more about seeming academic..... At least IDers poke the multitude of holes in ToE and ultimately TE

* I just think we can get too weighed down by this discussion..... These folks don't want to submit to the full authority and reliability of scriptures.... This is the true issue at hand and the crux of the matter

Last edited by Anthony C.; Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:12 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Anthony C.] #54659
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:12 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Just a quick note regarding "Intelligent Design" theories. None of the various morphs that are being promoted are to be understood as being synonymous with biblical Christianity nor even totally compatible with biblical Christianity. Deism, for example, certainly allows for "intelligent Design" and even an "Intelligent Designer" yet openly rejects any notion of the biblical God who is not only transcendent but most definitely immanent and Who is personally involved in every facet of His creation, having decreed all things after His own good pleasure as a display of His majesty and holiness. Some years back, some thought that if "GOD" were put outside the building and that the debates on origins simply mentioned the possibility of... some type of "Intelligent Design", there might be the possibility of winning some over to at least then consider a "god" who was 'behind' the origin of all things in some way or fashion. Dumbing down biblical truth has rarely produced a genuine convert. nope


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Pilgrim] #54660
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:12 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:12 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
True..... I just think they do a good job of exposing some pretty blatant short comings of those camps..... But so do many Creationist ministries..... IDers often forsake, or cast aside, the inherent truths of Biblical Creation, and the Creator, so yeah, use discretion

Last edited by Anthony C.; Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:16 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54663
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:25 PM
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:25 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I started this thread, because I wanted to find out about the claim that Paul believed in a young earth. I did so because I had not read anything specific from Paul's writing that would show this.
That being said, it seems to me that if Adam and Eve were literal (as I believe they were), then it points to a YE. In theistic evolution circles, such as the people at Biologos, they do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Yes I am aware that there are people who believe in theistic evolution that believe in a literal Adam and Eve, such as cough...Tim Keller. Yet, I am not even sure how evolution and a literal Adam and Eve can be compatible.
I would also like to point out that I have seen a list of names of over 1000 scientists, both Christian and non-Christian that do not believe in evolution. I mention this because of the ignorant claim that often stumps some Christians, that all legitimate scientists believe in evolution.
Also fairly recently I watched a documentary called ‘Is Genesis History?’ It was very well done and I can’t recommend it enough. If my memory doesn’t fail me, Pilgrim even watched it and liked it.
I am including a link to one review. https://www.challies.com/articles/is-genesis-history/
Tom

Last edited by Tom; Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:27 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54684
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:05 AM
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:05 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
I had forgotten... something that seems to be happening on a more frequent basis as I get older rolleyes2.. that there is an excellent article by John K. Reed on The Highway which addresses this debate and the divide which reveals to me at least, who is what they say they claim to be which you can access here: Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of "Modern Reformation" Magazine.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54686
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:34 PM
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:34 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
I just don't get those who cling to old earth..... Especially Christians..... Old earth is the evolutionists alibi..... What would God do with an old uninhabited earth?....it makes no sense on any level.... Especially, in a scriptural context


Last edited by Anthony C.; Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54687
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:47 PM
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:47 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Anthony, I hear you and agree. I think it is only fair to say that not all Christians who believe in an Old Earth believe in evolution; many of them believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe they are sincerely wrong, but....
I will also state that years ago I bought into an Old Earth as a fairly young believer out of ignorance. Mainly because a scientist from NASA came to our Church and preached on Genesis. He did not say anything definite, but he seemed to believe that the six days of creation were compatible with 'big bangs". I thought God could very well have used big bangs to create. Back then, I was not mature enough to understand some of the ramifications of this view. Similarly to how at that time I was a Dispensationalist simply because that was the only view I heard about.

Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Pilgrim] #54688
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:48 PM
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim, yes I read that article some time ago. It is a good read.

Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54689
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:32 AM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:32 AM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Originally Posted by Tom
Anthony, I hear you and agree. I think it is only fair to say that not all Christians who believe in an Old Earth believe in evolution; many of them believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe they are sincerely wrong, but....
I will also state that years ago I bought into an Old Earth as a fairly young believer out of ignorance. Mainly because a scientist from NASA came to our Church and preached on Genesis. He did not say anything definite, but he seemed to believe that the six days of creation were compatible with 'big bangs". I thought God could very well have used big bangs to create. Back then, I was not mature enough to understand some of the ramifications of this view. Similarly to how at that time I was a Dispensationalist simply because that was the only view I heard about.

Tom

You may be mistaken..... I think many old earthers are TE.....so if they believe in literal Adam & Eve, they don't believe they were necessarily the first humans or non-products of natural (inconceivable bash) molecules-to-man evolution.... Not sure why (or how) they would believe in old earth, big bang AND creation.....????

I just believe in Creation and the global flood....not their stupid dating methods that presuppose too much

Last edited by Anthony C.; Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:38 AM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54690
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:29 AM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:29 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Anthony, I did not say that there are not Older Earthers that also believed in evolution. I said that many Old Earthers believe in a literal Adam and Eve. The pastor that I had back then certainly believed in a literal Adam and Eve and I did as well. What I am saying is, I (and I believe is the case with my old pastor) I was not consistent in my hermeneutics. Even today, I still run into Reformed Christians who are otherwise orthodox, believe in either the 'Framework view" or the Old Earth view. In fact, some of them have been members of The-Highway years ago. As for the big bang, although I at one time believed in it; the more I studied the issue, the more I thought it was kind of silly. For one thing, with each big bang, would not it destroy what was created during the last big bang? Funny how a NASA scientist can make things seem correct to many.
Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54691
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:22 AM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Tom
I think it is only fair to say that not all Christians who believe in an Old Earth believe in evolution; many of them believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Could you please explain how someone can believe in an "Old Earth" theory but not evolution? Do they believe that God created everything up until Adam and Eve over a period of millions or billions or trillions of years, if true, what exactly was God doing during that time period, i.e., what kind of creation would that be? And, thus after all that time when the universe and the earth finally was made as God intended it to be, He created Adam and Eve as mature adults... would that be what these "Old Earth but no evolution" alleged Christians believe? If not, again, please explain what appears to me to be an untenable/antithetical view. scratchchin

I'm assuming that you can give a brief explanation of this view since you stated you once embraced it. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54692
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:14 PM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim
Surely after all these years you know there are many who believe in an Old Earth, yet do not believe in evolution.
In my case, I believed that because I was taught that and did not understand the ramifications of it.
Similarly to the reason why I at one time was a Dispensationalist, because that is the only position I was taught at the time.
How can someone rationalize an Old Earth without believing in evolution?
I actually don't know, because when I started rationalizing the issue; I came to believe in a YE.
I believe if you search the archives you will find a few discussions of people who believe in an Old earth but not evolution.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:21 PM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54693
Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:44 PM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:44 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
All I asked, since you used to hold to an Old Earth but not any form of evolutionary theory, is to give me a brief explanation of the basics of such a view. I'm sure there are lots of others here who would really like to read an answer to that question as well. Thanks! grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54694
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:05 PM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:05 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 243
NJ/PA
Tom, let me help you.... This guy fits the profile.....
Hugh Ross is known for establishing his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe that promotes progressive and day-age forms of old Earth creationism. Ross accepts the scientific age of the earth and the scientific age of the universe, however he rejects unguided evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Pilgrim] #54695
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:21 PM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Sorry Pilgrim
In my case, I can't remember anything that would help you understand their position.
Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54696
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:28 PM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:28 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Thanks, that may very well be how a lot of Old Earth advocates view things.
Unfortunate (or perhaps fortunately?) my views were not formed enough back then to give a defence of that view.
Like I said, when I actually started to look into the matter deeper; fairly quickly I embraced the YE view.
At least that is my recollection.

Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54699
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:17 AM
Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I found the information from the person who talked about Paul being mistaken that I mentioned in my opening post.
Unfortunately, I was mistaken concerning one thing. It had to do with a literal Adam and Eve. Dr. Peter Enns, stated that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve; but Paul was mistaken in that belief. It was not about Paul believing in a young earth. You can read more at: https://peteenns.com/did-the-apostle-paul-or-god-believe-in-a-literal-adam/
I understand that not too long ago Dr. Peter Enns was involved in a controversy when he was a Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and was suspended. The problem seemed to be centered around the inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. Enns claims to believe in both the inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet he does not believe in the traditional view of the doctrines. Instead he says there are errors in Scripture; yet they we put there by God Himself. He does not believe it is necessary to reconcile the errors in Scripture, because God placed them there by design. Enns

Thinking about this; I think it explains why he could make such an outlandish statement such as Paul was mistaken about Adam and Eve being literal historic people. He seems to believe that this does not in any way destroy either the inspiration, or the inerrancy of Scripture. He believes that the traditional understanding of inspiration and inerrancy displays bias that Scripture does not teach.
Apparently there was debated between GK Beale and Peter Enns.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-2/JETS_49-2_287-312_Beale.pdf

Apparently Enns responded to this and Beale surrejoindered Enns. (Just in case this interests anyone)
I have chosen to include some relevant things written by Beale.
Quote
Once he moves into his review of Enns' book Beale finds many a fault and points them out in painstaking detail. The 8 major points are:
1. Enns finds myth in the narratives in Genesis (creation; flood) that doesn't correspond to actual historical events. 2. Enns assumes the biblical writers were not objective in narrating history and recorded events in ways that lack correspondence to modern writers would record them. 3. Enns never details his understanding of Jesus' incarnation which is his model analogy for his understanding of Scripture. 4. Enns objects to using modern definitions of truth and error to evaluate Scripture without defining ancient understandings of truth and error. 5. Enns doesn't take his own advice to evaluate others' ideas with humility, love, and patience. 6. Enns' book is ambiguous at important junctures of his discussion. 7. Enns doesn't present and discuss viewpoints other than his own. 8. Enns caricatures evangelical scholarship by presenting fundamentalist arguments and making no distinction
.
From: https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/book-review_beale2.pdf This is a review of Beale's book 'The Erosion Inerrancy Evangelicalism.'
By the way, the link above concerning these points that Beale makes concerning Enns; the links author says Beale seriously misreads Enns
Tom



Last edited by Tom; Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:55 AM.
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54700
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:40 AM
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:40 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Heretics like Peter Enns are in many ways similar to the modern "Main Street Media", those infamous purveyors of Fake News......no, VERY Fake News. They both are looking for that "something new" which would bring them notoriety, first and foremost (cf. Acts 17:21) and then to discredit someone else. The way they do this is to fabricate whatever it is they want to be "new", which is typically false, i.e., it is antithetical to facts, illogical, or even irrational. Enns uses the same old trick of redefining terms which are meant to give credibility to his musings which are nothing less than a denial of established facts and truth... in this case, the doctrine of the divine inspiration, innerancy and infallibility of Scripture. Doing so is a deliberate plan for his modus operandi which opens the door for him to believe whatever he wants to believe which otherwise would be a direct contradiction to what God has written and preserved for all mankind and by which He shall judge the quick and the dead. Peter Enns isn't worth the time to mention his name and it is my advice that most people should avoid him and his writings and ideas at all cost. I suppose those in the academia have some obligation to criticize such heretics and expose them for who they are. Yet, I wonder just how much positive effect their efforts have. And in Peter Enns case, is he even worth dealing with. I mean, when someone comes along and suggests that Paul was mistaken, or that Adam and Eve weren't real historical individuals, etc., etc., ad nauseam do such people even deserve other's time to show him to be wrong and think he is some kind of scholar who should at least be given a hearing? igiveup


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54701
Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:38 PM
Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:38 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,526
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim, you do have a great point about whether or not heretics like Enns is even worth dealing with. Unfortunately, he has had influence on a lot of people. I certainly wouldn't want to become guilty of making people aware of him; so they would think there is merit in what he is saying.

Tom

Re: Paul on a Young Earth [Re: Tom] #54702
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:23 PM
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,513
NH, USA
Matthew 15:12-14 (ASV) "Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit."

1 Corinthians 11:19 (KJV) "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

2 Peter 2:1-3 (ASV) "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of. And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not."


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 28 guests, and 91 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
reformedbygrace, ReformedDisciple, Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes
928 Registered Users
Shout Box
September
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
812,085 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.066s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 3.1215 MB (Peak: 3.4713 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-09-25 13:44:43 UTC