Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth…’
by Peter Milford
...
The issue of the age of the earth parallels circumcision. In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about. They believe we are free to hold whatever view our conscience permits. They are right in the first part. In and of itself, the age of the earth is not a central focus of Scripture. But the distortions a long-age view brings to the gospel message make them wrong on the second part...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The bible is allegorical. That’s 4 words—I’ll leave the remaining 499,996 for you to use as you see fit.
God gave us the capability to understand how he did it. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.
Only if you haven't paid your taxes! ;o)
Apples and Oranges! - - Job had questioned God's motives, while we, on the other hand, are being obedient in studying his ages and appointed times as he commanded us to do. If you do not understand his times, how can you do the job that he has set forth for you to do? How can you watch for his coming on the day that he told us he would come, if you don't examine the evidence he gave us, and declare it to be irrelevent?
Does that mean that despite abandoning all reliance upon any literal interpretation of the biblical accounts of creation, and with that abandonment you have been freed to "to use the faculties that God gave man to ascertain the method of creation", that you still have not been enlightened about the "method of creation" that God used?
But you promised me an understanding of this method if only I would reject the words of God on the tablets of Stone.
Must I do something more than merely reject the words of God on the Tablets of Stone in order to achieve this scientific enlightenment?
By continuing to use the word “reliance” you are confirming my original point about weakness of faith.
When he created time. - Time could not have existed before the universe was created, and it only exists within the universe. - Time will cease when the universe is destroyed, at the end of the millenial reign. We will not have "time on our hands" when we are with him, face to face.
Thanks for an argumentative childish dodge!
The age to come cannot be a part of Earth’s past.
The Bible does not just call out a ‘previous’ age, but defines it to be the age before the judgement every time that it is mentioned.
==By continuing to use the word “reliance” you are confirming my original point about weakness of faith.
Are you saying that Christians are not supposed to rely on the Bible in terms of salvation, morality, wisdom and history?
which is obviously NOTHING!
The age to come cannot be a part of Earth’s past.
The Bible does not just call out a ‘previous’ age, but defines it to be the age before the judgement every time that it is mentioned.
You are most welcome...and I thank you for your outstanding Christian attitude! Well done.
There is no dodge silly boy nor did I say the future is part of the past.
There was a past age...as the Bible declares in various Scripture, there is a present age...that most of us understand, there is a future age....that all Christians look forward to.
giving fallible science priority over infallible scripture is a devaluation of scripture by definition.
Priority in what sense? In one's life - no. For finding the area of a cone, yes? Does it devalue scripture to use science for science and Scripture for Scripture?
No more than it devalues a rake to use a shovel for digging.
God says he created the Universe and everything in it in Six Days.
And from this we infer facts about anthropology, geology and paleontology? Not it's intended purpose. A category error and a misuse of Scripture.
Scientist often perform this error in reverse, we do not help ourselves by doing the same.
thanks for your reply..
If I read him right (and he has accused me of reading him wrong) but IF I read him right he is saying that a literal belief in and a reliance upon scripture is a sign of weak faith.
It is funny how Buck came on this thread accusing those of us who take the Bible literally of claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with us is not a Christian, and yet he comes on here and claims that those of us who believe in the literal interpretation of scripture or those of us who rely upon scripture of being weak in faith.
It would be interesting to see Buck's definition of "FAITH".
Personally I will admit to being weak in faith. But my weakness in faith will clearly not be strengthened by rejecting the words of God on the Tablets of Stone as documented by Moses.
Jesus chastised the Pharisees by saying [John 5:46-47] “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
I do not have enough "faith" to reject the words of Moses, for it would appear that a rejection of those words would go hand in hand with the ultimate rejection of the Words of Christ.
Are we asking for scientific proof that He did in order to follow Him? Did some have to see miracles to follow Him?
if He did not have the power to override the laws of physics..
Yes, and you'll not find your "proof" therefore in physics.
We learn nothing about physics here, that's not the point. We cannot prove Jesus's divinity by physics; reading Newton or Feynman will not help us know Jesus. Reading Jesus will not help us know physics.
Thanks for your reply.
No. Science would suggest that such a miracle was a physical impossibility. But merely because an event is a "physical impossibility" does not mean that it did not occur. The problem, my FRiend, is that many people use Science to prove the Bible false. There was a poster on this thread who said that while he believed in God, he did not believe that Jesus walked on water. His disbelief was apparently grounded in Science. He used his scientific knowledge to disprove (in his own mind) the miracles in the Bible.
Belief in Miracles, such as walking on water, turning water into wine, and creating the earth in 6 days, requires that we acknowledge that God is not bound by physical laws and that his miracles are not made false by empirical or circumstantial evidence which suggests either that they could not occur or that they did not occur.
Yes, and you'll not find your "proof" therefore in physics.
Neither will you.
Reading Jesus will not help us know physics.
Then why do Christian students pray before their Physics finals?
That's as silly as using the Bible to prove science false.
why do Christian students pray before their Physics finals?
I used to pray that I would do my best before I went to bat in little league.
But I still took batting practice.
Hopefully Christian students study their school textbooks before the exam. :)
It is a foolish question which betrays the questioner's ignorance.
So are you admitting that it is silly for Science to try to show that the earth was not created in 6 days?
Moses wrote Exodus. He wrote down the words of God which were on the tablets of stone. Those words specifically stated that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in SIX DAYS.
Do you believe that?
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.