Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Biblical Creation" vs. YEC

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    On another list, I m engaged in a discussion over Biblical Creation and YEC. That discussion has led to a couple questions: 1) Are Biblical creation and
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On another list, I'm engaged in a discussion over "Biblical Creation" and
      YEC. That discussion has led to a couple questions:

      1) Are "Biblical creation" and "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC) the same?
      2) If not, what is the specific difference between them?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kyle Witten
      The answer to the first question is going to depend on who you ask... OECers hold that their model is Biblical and therefore Biblical Creation would be an
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The answer to the first question is going to depend on who you ask... OECers
        hold that their model is Biblical and therefore "Biblical Creation" would be
        an appropriate description of the OEC view.

        Kyle

        On 10/2/05, PIASAN@... <PIASAN@...> wrote:
        >
        > On another list, I'm engaged in a discussion over "Biblical Creation" and
        >
        > YEC. That discussion has led to a couple questions:
        >
        > 1) Are "Biblical creation" and "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC) the same?
        > 2) If not, what is the specific difference between them?
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for yourself why the
        > RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's scientific and logical arguments
        > and Biblical critique of the teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted
        > followers.)
        > GO TO: http://www.answersingenesis.org
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        >
        > - Visit your group "RTB_Discussion_Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group>"
        > on the web.
        > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > RTB_Discussion_Group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<RTB_Discussion_Group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark E Penn
        On another list, I m engaged in a discussion over Biblical Creation and YEC. That discussion has led to a couple questions: 1) Are Biblical creation and
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On another list, I'm engaged in a discussion over "Biblical Creation" and
          YEC. That discussion has led to a couple questions:

          1) Are "Biblical creation" and "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC) the same?



          *** Yes. Any other view elevates the teachings of men founded in atheism over and above the word of God.


          Mark

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark E Penn
          The answer to the first question is going to depend on who you ask... OECers hold that their model is Biblical and therefore Biblical Creation would be an
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            The answer to the first question is going to depend on who you ask... OECers
            hold that their model is Biblical and therefore "Biblical Creation" would be
            an appropriate description of the OEC view.

            Kyle



            *** They would be liars of course for claiming this. The Bible comes first in our lives and in our hearts. It doesn't play second fiddle to ancient pagan nonsense.

            Mark

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave Oldridge
            ... Depends on who is doing the interpretation of scripture. Augustine would have held out for treating the physical evidence against a literal interpretation
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On 2 Oct 2005 at 14:13, PIASAN@... wrote:

              > On another list, I'm engaged in a discussion over "Biblical
              > Creation" and YEC. That discussion has led to a couple
              > questions:
              >
              > 1) Are "Biblical creation" and "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC)
              > the same? 2) If not, what is the specific difference between
              > them?

              Depends on who is doing the interpretation of scripture.
              Augustine would have held out for treating the physical evidence
              against a literal interpretation as decisive and therefore going
              with an allegorical (or as he calls it, spiritual)
              interpretation.

              But many of the scholastics were almost as literalist as today's
              evangelicals. Certainly neither Luther nor Calvin would have
              countenanced Darwin's dangerous idea in THEIR churches.


              --
              God is an evolutionist.

              Dave Oldridge
              ICQ 1800667
              VA7CZ



              --
              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/116 - Release Date: 9/30/2005
            • Mark Whorton
              The Bible -- yes! Your opinion/interpretation exclusively? No. What Pennster refuses to acknowledge is that his is a minority and very narrow view -- not
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                "The Bible" -- yes!

                Your opinion/interpretation exclusively? No.

                What Pennster refuses to acknowledge is that his is a minority and very narrow view -- not his view on the age of the earth but his idea that other views are illegitimate.

                Just a very meager amount of research will show that he is wrong, that there are many highly esteemed biblical scholars who hold highly to biblical inerrancy that make allowance for latitude. For example, consider the esteemed International Council on Biblical Inerrancy -- hardly a group of liers and infidels, regardless of what Pennster might say.

                With regard to inerrancy and science, ... (following copied from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/icbi.htm)


                The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1982) produced 25 "Articles of Affirmation and Denial." Four of these are especially relevant for origins questions:
                Article 19: WE AFFIRM that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. WE DENY that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
                Article 20: WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
                Article 21: WE AFFIRM the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature. WE DENY that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
                Article 22: WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

                In his commentary on the articles, Norman Geisler (a member of the committee that produced the 25 articles, and General Editor for the conference) says, in part:
                What one learns from sources outside Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. ...[but] The final authority for what the Bible teaches rests in the text of Scripture itself.
                It is acknowledged by all that certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However, it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other. / "Genuine" science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture. / Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation, the framers of this statement welcome such. Indeed, it is acknowledged (in Article XX) that the exegete can learn from the scientist. What is denied is that we should accept scientific views that contradict Scripture or that they should be given authority above Scripture.
                The article [22] left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.



                Mark Whorton

                Mark E Penn <krinks@...> wrote:

                *** They would be liars of course for claiming this. The Bible comes first in our lives and in our hearts. It doesn't play second fiddle to ancient pagan nonsense.

                Mark

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                Read it for yourself - "Refuting Compromise" (See it for yourself why the RTB staff will not comment on Dr. Sarfati's scientific and logical arguments and Biblical critique of the teachings of Dr. Ross and his devoted followers.)
                GO TO: http://www.answersingenesis.org




                SPONSORED LINKS
                Evolution Reasons to believe

                ---------------------------------
                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                Visit your group "RTB_Discussion_Group" on the web.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                RTB_Discussion_Group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                ---------------------------------




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mark E Penn
                Depends on who is doing the interpretation of scripture. Augustine would have held out for treating the physical evidence against a literal interpretation as
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Depends on who is doing the interpretation of scripture.
                  Augustine would have held out for treating the physical evidence
                  against a literal interpretation as decisive and therefore going
                  with an allegorical (or as he calls it, spiritual)
                  interpretation.

                  But many of the scholastics were almost as literalist as today's
                  evangelicals. Certainly neither Luther nor Calvin would have
                  countenanced Darwin's dangerous idea in THEIR churches.



                  *** Sorry to burst your bubble but the idea of evolution and millions/billionsof years was aroung LONG before the Apostles. Luther, Calvin, and Augustine taught that it was nonsense. When the three of them discussed the subject they pointed out that the Earth was no more than a few thousand years old.

                  If God is an evolutionist then he is a greater fool than even you.

                  Mark

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Dave Oldridge
                  ... True, though they still attempt to reconcile at least a quasi- literalist interpretation of Genesis with facts that do not really align with their reading
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2 Oct 2005 at 18:59, Mark E Penn wrote:

                    > The answer to the first question is going to depend on who you
                    > ask... OECers hold that their model is Biblical and therefore
                    > "Biblical Creation" would be an appropriate description of the
                    > OEC view.

                    True, though they still attempt to reconcile at least a quasi-
                    literalist interpretation of Genesis with facts that do not
                    really align with their reading of the text. I prefer to follow
                    Augustine's lead and interpret it in the LIGHT of the facts
                    rather than try to lie about the facts and oppose them.

                    That preference, of course, has so enraged Mark that he has
                    forced me to excommunicate him, not for his belief in a literal
                    Genesis but for sins that he won't repent committed in
                    conjunction with his apologetic. No real choice there for me. I
                    cannot honestly share the communion of saints with a devout and
                    unrepentant sinner, no matter what the sin.

                    --
                    God is an evolutionist.

                    Dave Oldridge
                    ICQ 1800667
                    VA7CZ



                    --
                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 10/3/2005
                  • Dave Oldridge
                    ... Yet your view elevates the teachings of men, founded in superstition AS the word of God. And you lie about evolution being founded in atheism. It s
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 2 Oct 2005 at 18:58, Mark E Penn wrote:

                      > On another list, I'm engaged in a discussion over "Biblical
                      > Creation" and YEC. That discussion has led to a couple
                      > questions:
                      >
                      > 1) Are "Biblical creation" and "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC)
                      > the same?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > *** Yes. Any other view elevates the teachings of men founded
                      > in atheism over and above the word of God.

                      Yet your view elevates the teachings of men, founded in
                      superstition AS the word of God. And you lie about evolution
                      being "founded in atheism." It's founded in fact. Atheists take
                      comfort in that fact because people like you keep insisting that
                      evolution and God cannot coexist, in essence, telling God how He
                      should create.

                      --
                      God is an evolutionist.

                      Dave Oldridge
                      ICQ 1800667
                      VA7CZ



                      --
                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 10/3/2005
                    • Dave Oldridge
                      ... Your god is as great a fool as you are. I hope you understand, though, that when you die, so does he. You ve pretty much told me what you are, Mark.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 3 Oct 2005 at 18:35, Mark E Penn wrote:

                        > Depends on who is doing the interpretation of scripture.
                        > Augustine would have held out for treating the physical evidence
                        > against a literal interpretation as decisive and therefore going
                        > with an allegorical (or as he calls it, spiritual) interpretation.
                        >
                        > But many of the scholastics were almost as literalist as today's
                        > evangelicals. Certainly neither Luther nor Calvin would have
                        > countenanced Darwin's dangerous idea in THEIR churches.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > *** Sorry to burst your bubble but the idea of evolution and
                        > millions/billionsof years was aroung LONG before the Apostles.
                        > Luther, Calvin, and Augustine taught that it was nonsense. When
                        > the three of them discussed the subject they pointed out that the
                        > Earth was no more than a few thousand years old.
                        >
                        > If God is an evolutionist then he is a greater fool than even you.

                        Your god is as great a fool as you are. I hope you understand,
                        though, that when you die, so does he. You've pretty much told
                        me what you are, Mark. You're an arrogant hypocritical
                        narcissist who only PRETENDS to Christianity for some perceived
                        social benefits.

                        Don't bother to reply. You're excommunicate in my sight.

                        And you couldn't burst a bubble that I don't have. Neither
                        Luther nor Calvin had the least CLUE that the earth was old.
                        Augustine might have, being familiar with the writings of
                        Herodotus, in all probability.

                        But what YOU are is a wilfully ignorant, arrogant fool, in total
                        rebellion against God, His Church and His commandments. Good
                        luck with that project. You'll need it!

                        And ONLY a fool would call me one to my face.

                        You're an idiot, practicing to be a moron. That takes real
                        talent, you know. To take the native intelligence that God gave
                        you and squander it on puerile stupidity like biblical
                        literalism.

                        When you decide to love God more than the reflection of your own
                        ego in the muddy waters of your own self-admiration, give me a
                        buzz. Maybe we can BEGIN to work on your salvation.


                        --
                        God is an evolutionist.

                        Rev. Fr. Dave Oldridge+
                        ICQ 1800667
                        VA7CZ



                        --
                        No virus found in this outgoing message.
                        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 10/3/2005
                      • Mark Whorton
                        Okay, this is not even comical anymore. Regardless of how closely you hold your beliefs, to say that God is a fool if He acts in a way that is contrary to
                        Message 11 of 12 , Oct 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Okay, this is not even comical anymore. Regardless of how closely you hold your beliefs, to say that God is a fool if He acts in a way that is contrary to your belief system is an egregious wrong, approaching blasphemy. You must acknowledge what Isaiah teaches, that God reserves the right to operate in ways that are counter to our expectations and even our interpretations of His word. What if God were to choose to use evolution as a means in addition to fiat special creation? The term is quite broad after all.

                          This statement is egregious and you should repent from saying it.

                          Mark Whorton

                          Mark E Penn <krinks@...> wrote:

                          ....
                          If God is an evolutionist then he is a greater fool than even you.

                          Mark


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Dave Oldridge
                          ... In point of fact, Genesis 1 more or less implies something like evolution, in that it tells us this: Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth
                          Message 12 of 12 , Oct 5, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 4 Oct 2005 at 18:21, Mark Whorton wrote:

                            > Okay, this is not even comical anymore. Regardless of how
                            > closely you hold your beliefs, to say that God is a fool if He
                            > acts in a way that is contrary to your belief system is an
                            > egregious wrong, approaching blasphemy. You must acknowledge
                            > what Isaiah teaches, that God reserves the right to operate in
                            > ways that are counter to our expectations and even our
                            > interpretations of His word. What if God were to choose to
                            > use evolution as a means in addition to fiat special creation?
                            > The term is quite broad after all.
                            >
                            > This statement is egregious and you should repent from saying
                            > it.

                            In point of fact, Genesis 1 more or less implies something like
                            evolution, in that it tells us this:

                            Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
                            yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
                            kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
                            {grass: Heb. tender grass}

                            Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding
                            seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed
                            [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

                            and this:

                            Ge 1:20 � And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
                            the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above
                            the earth in the open firmament of heaven. {moving: or, creeping}
                            {life: Heb. soul} {fowl�: Heb. let fowl fly} {open�: Heb. face of
                            the firmament of heaven}

                            Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature
                            that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
                            their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw
                            that [it was] good.

                            And particularly notice how in the verse above, creating and the
                            "watres brought forth" are pretty much equated.

                            Now, I'm not suggesting that the piece should be interpreted
                            literally, at all, but it certainly gives one no reason to fight
                            evolutionary biology tooth and nail the way these latter-day
                            heretics have been doing!

                            --
                            God is an evolutionist.

                            Dave Oldridge
                            ICQ 1800667
                            VA7CZ



                            --
                            No virus found in this outgoing message.
                            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                            Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.10/120 - Release Date: 10/5/2005
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.