Posted on 03/25/2009 9:09:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Old-Earth Creationism
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Many evangelical leaders today, unfortunately, have capitulated to the evolutionary timescale of modern unbelieving geologists and astronomers. They feel that they must somehow reinterpret the Genesis record of creation to allow for billions of prehistoric years, which the evolutionists must have in order to make cosmic evolution and biological evolution seem feasible. This compromise is necessary, they say, in order to win scientists and other intellectuals to the Lord...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
2 Peter 3:5 - Yep - Noah’s time
2 Peter 3:7 - reserved unto fire .... for the future destruction in judgment.
Gen 1:28 - Replenish... King James Version. Not necessarily the most accurate in relation to our current English language (I prefer the ESV for personal study). I doubt Hebrew fonts will show correctly here without making a graphic... so I will improvise:
The Hebrew that the KJV translates to “replenish” is “mâlê’ mâlâ’”, a primitive root meaning to fill or to be full. Strong’s does list “replenish” near the bottom of the list of usage.
Genesis 9:1 - the days following the flood - thus a logical use the same term above - also translated by MOST as “fill”. While this time, you could technically call it a “replenishing” - considering the entire population other than Noah’s immediate family were destroyed.
And I’m not going to touch the Catholic Bible... will get me in a whole different discussion that will detract from this one.
, "Arthur C. Custance, who has written an excellent book in the theory's defense, traces it to the certain early Jewish writers,...who even put a 'rebhia' mark in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament to let the reader know there is a break in the narrative between v1 and v 2..
Here is Mr Custance's page on the Masoretic text. http://www.creationdays.dk/withoutformandvoid/Articles.php
Or can create things as He sees fit - even in 6 literal days. What is interesting... how many early writings depict dragons and other “monsters” that we generally discount as folklore and myths. Yet even in the Bible, we see allusions to dragons, leviathan, and other dinosaur-like creatures...
Why is it not just as possible that our perception and understanding of time are not what is wrong?
Exactly what does being a "Calvinist" have to do with the post you replied to? I don't quite grasp how the post was related to Calvinism. Care to elaborate?
Great post! The fact is - one cannot claim to be a practicing Christian and believe in evolution. To do as such would mean a person picks and chooses which parts of the Bible are useful, and throws the rest in the scrap heap.
Which brings about the reason those who claim to be Christian, while defending evolution are so rabid and easily offended - they are forced to confront that reality - the conflict within.
Origen, the Neoplatonist was well known (even more so today with the better vision of perspective and history) as a radical in that he took pretty much NONE of the Bible as literal - instead he allegorized everything to mean something quite different from what was both accepted at the time, and what was clearly on the pages of scripture. Yes, this is the same Origen who denied Christ's physical resurrection. But I would imagine this ties in directly with his theology based on allegory of the Bible (rationalism based on platonistic practice).
I know quite a bit about Origen - and don’t see how Christianity was helped by his theology (though he did do some good comparative works comparing manuscripts). But anyone who denied a literal resurrection of Christ is not a reliable theologian or interpreter of scripture in my book.
I don’t know near as much about GReogry of Nazianzen (and admit I got him and Gregory of Nyassa confused in Church History I). What I do know - he stood against Arianism - the relationship of the Trinity, are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit actually three distinct entities, or are these just simple essences or manifestations? A rather deep subject. Gregory basically argued for three distinct Persons of the Trinity.
But I really don’t see how the average Christian would be affected negatively in any way by not knowing a single detail about either man. Knowledge of men is inconsequential to salvation (other than the saving faith in Christ Jesus alone).
You got no replies, and I'm not going near the edge to check!
:)
DRUG RESISTANT PATHOGENS = Evolution in action
Explain it any other way if you can.
>> Amen to that! If the Lord wanted us to know more or how, He would have explained it in His Word! <<
Well, he COULD have explained astrophysics to people with no concept of a zero and who couldn’t conceive of numbers beyond 7000. On the other hand, maybe he would have inspired prophets to sing of how the Heavens proclaim his handiwork, and rewarded those who investigated His laws of nature with wonder and prosperity.
and for the record, I don’t mean to come down on the side of old-Earth creationism. I recently was inspired by a Freeper to a notion that maybe God made the world SEEM old because he wanted to reveal the nature of things. Just like Adam, if he were truly human, had a body which seemed to be the result of physiological processes of maturation, so too would the Earth and skies seem like they were the result of cosmological processes of maturation.
Of course, once you start getting into quantum stuff, then you can get these concepts to merge into one another: Is ours a young Earth created to seem old or an old Earth gone unseen except by a creator who declares what day and night are for his own purposes?
Actually, the bible does mention making us out of clay. I know most people picture him using clay like Play-Dough, especially given the metaphorical references to God as a potter in the prophets. But evolutionary biology has taken a turn for hypothesizing that pond scum was made out of clay.
Now, I’m back to reading the philosophies of Play-Dough.
Feel free to believe whatever you want in your religious faith. Don’t call it science.
No, he wasn’t stupid enough to do that.
“OK, well something had to be created to cause a boom! Right?”
They always have some convoluted answer to that question. You’re right though, it’s just stupid. Not really worth disproving but that theory is sending people to Hell and putting our society in a world of hurt.
I'm glad you agree that creationism is not falsifiable.
The Grand Canyon doesn't hold billions of years of geological record? I suppose plate techtonics is just another crapola theory too be ignored
Really....
Lets assume Mr. Custance is correct in saying there is a break (a length of real time) between v1 and v2..
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
What I gather from this break would be that God said what He did, then He describes in better detail how He did it on a day-to-day basis.
Bottom line is this: if the "break" or any other time-adding theory takes away from the fact that Adam's sin originated death (as described in Romans 5), there is no consequence for sin (if death was already taking place), no need for a Savior to remove the punishment for sins and the Gospel of Jesus, in fact the entire Bible, is reduced to a "feel good" story.
That ICR site has an interesting alternative explanation of the Ice Core findings.
is it just that everything Man has discovered that shows the Earth to be billions of years old is a buncha scientific hooey nonsense?
Not all scientific claims can be easily refuted with our current knowledge, but alterative explanations exist for much including the Grand Canyon and Plate Techtonics.
ICR articles by branch of earth science
See the articles on Plate Techtonics and Grand Canyon in the list below
ICR on Geology
Ice cores aren't going to show how the Cape formed......or how the Hudson River Valley formed.....or any of the other landscapes and water systems that were formed the last Ice Age........there's a reason why Minnesota has 10000 lakes.
The ice age DID occur.
So, the Grand Canyon was formed when Noah made his Ark, eh? The articles say otherwise:
In Grand Canyon, the "date" of metamorphism of the basalt lavas to form these Brahma amphibolites has been determined as 1690-1710 Ma (million years ago)
.....the argument is that, because radioisotope dating isn't as "exact" as they demand...then the young-earth theory is correct and the Canyon was created by the Great Flood. Such conclusions.....
Just read another of the articles and find their tactics fascinating and quite dishonest.
Evidence? The Burlingame Canyon in Washington that was formed in 6 days. Yes, it truly was. That means that the Grand Canyon COULD have been formed in such a short period of time, right?
Wrong. The Burlingame Canyon was carved out of "loess" a fine powdery, FRIABLE (reduced to fine sand easily) and really fragile sedimentary substance that cannot even be considereed "rock"......which is not what the make up of the Grand Canyon, so one cannot compare and equate the 2.
Their premise fails with even a cursory glance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.