And yet you believe in a old earth. Why?
Was that to me? “And yet… why?”
Why not? The science demonstrating it rather more than a little conclusive.
3 Likes
According to Biologos, the keynote example of nature creating something was the evolution of nylonese bacterium and we all know how that turned out. God made nature to be capable of things that nature can do and designing and creating is not one of them. Instead, God did exactly as He stated: He created plant and animal “kinds” which were graced with adaptation qualities in order to survive on a planet “subjected to futility” after the fall of man. The God of Scripture never claimed to be part of nature, but instead transcendent from it. So if He claims to be the Creator of kinds, then He did so SUPER naturally. The theistic evolutionary terms match more greek myth/ eastern mysticism worldview and less the judeo Christian perspective. Again, to try to marry naturalistic evolutionary terms bordering mysticism and atheistic naturalism with God centered creationism makes no sense. It robs God of the glory by highjacking His Word then leaves Him in the dust while man puffs his ego. This reminds me about an article i read i think on CNN this pm about 3 women along w their young children who entered a store, created a distraction enough to allow one of them to make it out safely with a stolen baby stroller. They may have been successful in their scheme except for one small problem: They realized that they had to return to the scene of the crime when they left behind the precious cargo the stroller was meant for: one of their very children! This is what theistic evolution does- it steals the historical narrative in Scripture to be exchanged with their own with supposed intentions to accredit God but all the while, the process causes God to actually be left behind.
Or not.
1 Like
Scripture necessitates that the Moon, Sun and stars are all of the same age, a day younger than Earth. That’s not what Science finds, and further, what Science offers as an explanation for how it happened.
But nature does create. For example, Cosmologists have captured images of star and planet formation at various stages of development.
Does recognizing God’s providence cause him to be “actually be left behind”?
You recognize that it was the wind direction, strength and duration (and the topography above and below the water) that allowed the crossing of the Red Sea, right?
1 Like
Earth’s morning has long since passed and its day nearly spent. Its evening will be over when the bright Morning Star returns.
Scripture does not necessitate solar days in Genesis 1.
What do you mean? The wind was blowing so hard the sea parted? A wind that hard would be enough to shred the Israelites, dont you think?
1 Like
That has nothing to do with my point. Scripture necessitates that the Sun, Moon, and stars are the same age as each other, all being younger than the Earth. It could a 24 hour difference or billions of years, it’s the order and relative age that the Bible directly comments on. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do.
I still like Hugh Ross’s take on the cosmological sequence in Genesis 1. I presume you are familiar with it.? (Incidentally, it is not incompatible with an ANE or literary framework take.)
Please, elaborate on this disagreement.
1 Like
Does that suffice?
Well, it hadn’t occurred to me that the wind stopped blowing. And since we do not know the exact topography in the region where it happened, it’s a little difficult to address. There may have been other factors such as tides or storm surges involved, but I have no reason to suspect that there was anything that broke the laws of nature that God has established. It might have occurred even if the Israelites were not there. But in God’s amazing providence, they were.
Sorry to interject here Dale, but i have read some really really poor Bible scholarship out from the Reasons to Believe camp. I realize that many think that i am being unreasonable to subscribe to a young earth position which i believe to be important bc this insulates God from being a Creator of natural evil as a biproduct of His character, but i still try really hard to find acceptable, God honoring, gospel centered interpretive methods when examining Scripture. The fruit that seems abundant from Ross is really bad Biblical scholarship. In my mind, this makes me extra cautious about learning anything from this camp…Sorry.
It’s your loss, I guess.
How long did it take God to create light?
This is an example of poor scholarship from Reasons to Believe. Are you to suggest that God was incapable of holding back the sea supernaturally? And who are you to suggest that this was not the case? I have read stuff on the natural occurances of tides being the cause for the sea parting etc, but this does not explain how the entire army giving them chase getting destroyed when the sea came back into place.
The egyptian army was destroyed bc God who held up the sea wall allowed it to colapse thus consuming the army
Why do you think that he could not have used natural means? Is he incapable of that? He used the wind, didn’t he.