nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Old Earth: Reply to DanH
:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
=== Reply to DanH ===
First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.
"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.
"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.
"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.
"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.
"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.
"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?
"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.
"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?
"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.
"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".
"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
== Primeq's edits ==
== Primeq's edits ==