Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Creation


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:02 AM

Are there any Christian young Earth creation ministries besides the trinitarian ones?

#2 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:09 AM

Are there any Christian young Earth creation ministries besides the trinitarian ones?


It seems to be the trinitarian groups who run the YEC sites.

We have various understandings YEC (Young Earth Creation), OEC (Old Earth Creation) and some who have moved to TE (Theistic Evolution) though the latter the few.

The main belief of the brotherhood, Christadelphians, has been that of OEC, but not in the sense of how the world views it, that is that Satan destroyed a prior creation - rather, our view is that the earth is old - but what we see around us today is that of a creation of about 6000 to 10000 years ago - that is man upon the earth.

What happened before hand, there is uncertainty, though of course the fossil record.

There is another group, interestingly, which even comprises of Atheists and Agnostics etcetera - Intelligent Design - and also includes those of different other persuasions, YEC, and OEC - the former, Atheists and Agnostics, whilst they don't actually believe in a God of the Bible (some may have inkling) they question that which Darwinism promotes as it is not evident in the science seen - the complexity - hence what is fed to the public in general lacks credibility in many aspects.

So, back to your question - again, it is more Trinitarian groups, which have the sites, but a number of Unitarians also believe in YEC, and also included in the Christadelphian brotherhood but the lesser, not the greater.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#3 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:30 AM

Interesting, thanks! Do you know what the majority view of Noah's flood is? Local or global?

#4 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:09 AM

The flood - there are differences of opinion on this subject too.

Some believe in local, others global, then a "new" view and even with mankind, that other than those under a "covenant" escaped the flood, so a very localised flood, though this theory has quite a number of issues with it, and also in consideration that the first covenant made was to Noah.

Brother Robert Roberts mused (the latter part of the 19th Century), or trying to come to terms with, if it was a global flood then what about the animals say in Australia etcetera?

The general held belief is:

if mankind had spread to other areas of the globe it was global, if mankind had only been in a reasonably local area, then the flood may have just been local.

One of the main problems, and seems to be in this day and age is the "evidence" - brother Alan Hayward in his writings to the Christadelphian Magazine (brother Hayward was a scientist) he had ascribed to a local flood position then changed opinion to global - why, I don't know - he now rests waiting trumpet call - but would have been interested to know the reasons of change in opinion.

That aside, the "evidence" that is so often called for and in view that mankind still knows very little about the earth and that it was a supernatural cause with the natural coming into play, then my preference is to take what the Bible declares to be factual, but within the limitations of where mankind had moved to or whether he had stayed within certain boundaries.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#5 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 03:23 AM

I'm a young earth creationist. I've been studying the topic for as long as I've been studying theology proper. I've concluded so far that the Bible and old earth creation of any sort are not compatible with each other. Do you know where I can discuss scientific and Biblical arguments between OEC and YEC?
Thanks again!

Edited by Jesse2W, 21 August 2012 - 03:24 AM.


#6 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:27 AM

Jesse2W

We have some OEC and YEC here ... however, some don't want to discuss it in the public arena others may and do, so of course, will see how it goes.

Brother John Pople - don't know whether you have read this or not @:

The Gospel of Your Salvation

The Bible

has take on the Flood, and Creation - John is a YEC.

Would be interested in a discussion here, and your thoughts on it - I am OEC by the way (but current creation), John is a Physicist so interesting to see the whys and wherefores so to speak.

The Science section of late hasn't been open to the membership group, as each time it was discussed (OEC, YEC and TE) we had one or two in particular only interested in one subject and that was to promote evolution.

I have re-opened the sections to the membership group too so if you would like to put forward your arguments, and even a "Summary" of YEC, then you are most welcome to do so.

This section:

The Bible and Science

and as noted, split into various sections, and one of the reasons is that there seems to be a cross-over, those promoting TE, between YEC and OEC etcetera - hence, easier to follow if kept in different sections of belief.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#7 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 05:53 AM

- ps

Here is one of the previous discussions about the Flood:

The Flood - Global or Local?

though some years old now - there are other discussions on the board about it.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#8 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:42 AM

Hi Jesse,

Kay suggests the "OEC" view predominates amongst Christadelphians as a whole. She may well be right - I'm not going to argue otherwise (though many of the Christadelphians I know hold a "YEC"-type view) - but I don't think any of us can say for certain.

For information, I believe in a recent and rapid (6 x 24h-day) creation of not just the earth, but the heavens (at the widest scope of that word, i.e. the full spread of the universe) as well. I sometimes characterize this as "YCC" - Young Cosmos Creation, to make my position explicit, although it may not really differ from "YEC" per se. My basis for this is Exo 20:11's summary of the Genesis 1-2 record. I don't accept the "gap" hypothesis, not because of my view of creation, but for direct linguistic reasons - I believe the Hebrew of Gen 1:1-2 doesn't support it.

Anyway, it would be best to continue any discussion, in a careful and respectful manner, in the relevant section of the forum, as Kay has indicated.

#9 pete

pete

    Kappa

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:42 AM

One of the main problems, and seems to be in this day and age is the "evidence" - brother Alan Hayward in his writings to the Christadelphian Magazine (brother Hayward was a scientist) he had ascribed to a local flood position then changed opinion to global - why, I don't know - he now rests waiting trumpet call - but would have been interested to know the reasons of change in opinion.


I wonder too why Bro Hayward would change his stand because he gave convinsing proof for the local flood theory in his "God's Truth"
Kay can you site the 'The Christadelphian' reference?
Return, O YHWH,deliver MY soul:Oh! Save me for thy mercy's sake

#10 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:34 PM

YEC is rare among C'dns, because C'dns tend to (or at least ought to tend to) think carefully about "what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what many people think it says" (I quote the blurb from Alan Hayward's best book), and some even think about the ancient Near Eastern context in which it was written. Consequently, they correctly conclude that there is no Biblical foundation for YEC: on the contrary the Biblical view is that thye 'two books', God's word and God's works - the evidence of Scripture and the evidence of the natural world - are consistent, not contradictory. Thus, YEC is untenable and the fact that C'dns of all people are taken in by the fantasy of Whitcomb, Morris et al, embarrassing. Of course, logical application of the 'two books' principle led early C'dns to be very open to the science of their day. It is unfortunate that in contrast, modern C'dns often exhibit a most unhealthy anti-science ethos.

#11 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 01:04 AM

Hey David, It's important to think critically and be respectful of other people - not say you're embarrassed by them. This is a delicate issue. For me personally, I wouldn't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God if I thought the modern theory of evolution was scientifically verified. Kay's view is possible in my eyes, but the Bible doesn't support it and I don't really think it even allows for it.

Mark, Exodus 20:11 is the the main reason I don't accept OEC as well. Perhaps John Thomas missed this verse?

Thanks for the links, Kay! I'll try to compile the evidence and a summary for YEC.
  • Librarian likes this

#12 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 06:16 AM

One of the main problems, and seems to be in this day and age is the "evidence" - brother Alan Hayward in his writings to the Christadelphian Magazine (brother Hayward was a scientist) he had ascribed to a local flood position then changed opinion to global - why, I don't know - he now rests waiting trumpet call - but would have been interested to know the reasons of change in opinion.


I wonder too why Bro Hayward would change his stand because he gave convinsing proof for the local flood theory in his "God's Truth"
Kay can you site the 'The Christadelphian' reference?


Pete:

Comment here:

Incidentally, although Brother Roberts' arguments influenced my own views for 30 years, I am now inclined to think that the Flood may very well have been worldwide, after all. His statement is quoted merely to show that there is nothing un-Christadelphian about believing in a local flood.


The Christadelphian : Volume 114 Bd. 114. electronic ed. Birmingham : Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001, c1977, S. 114:268

I know the 1983 version of "God's Truth" implies local, but wondering how well revised the book was for that print run - that is, changes from the original 1973 version, the comment above is dated 1977.
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#13 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:14 AM

Hey David, It's important to think critically and be respectful of other people - not say you're embarrassed by them. This is a delicate issue. For me personally, I wouldn't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God if I thought the modern theory of evolution was scientifically verified. Kay's view is possible in my eyes, but the Bible doesn't support it and I don't really think it even allows for it.

Mark, Exodus 20:11 is the the main reason I don't accept OEC as well. Perhaps John Thomas missed this verse?

Thanks for the links, Kay! I'll try to compile the evidence and a summary for YEC.


God made the heaven and earth in 6 days...yes. However, Exo. 20:11 does not say that they were made from or out of nothing. On the contrary, we are told they were formed from what already existed.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" Here again, we ought not assume that this is to inform us that God created the heaven and earth "out of nothing", or that the heaven and earth did not exist in any form before God created or made it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is simply a statement which informs us that it was God who created the heaven and earth...and no one else. That's the idea I learn form Genesis 1:1 and Exo 20:11

Edited by Chrlsp, 22 August 2012 - 10:15 AM.


#14 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:44 AM

We know God did it. We don't know how God did it and we don't know how long it took. It's foolish to think otherwise. God hasn't told us so we don't need to know.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#15 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 04:08 PM

We know God did it.


Yes, we do, because scripture tells us: Gen 1-2.

We don't know how God did it


No, we do, because scripture tells us: the means is clearly specified in (e.g.) Psa 33:6-9 and 2 Pet 3:5, and first exemplified in Gen 1:3.

and we don't know how long it took.


No, we do, because scripture tells us: Exo 20:11 (where the contextual meaning of "day" has already been set by Exo 20:9-10).

It's foolish to think otherwise. God hasn't told us so we don't need to know.


I do think otherwise, for the scriptural reasons given above (and others besides), which are what God tells us in his word, and thus wants us to know. I am disappointed that you think me foolish for believing it. We may disagree, but please can we speak reasonably to each other about this, rather than using such language?

Edited by Mark Taunton, 22 August 2012 - 04:15 PM.


#16 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:48 AM

nsr and other OEC, What scientific questions does and old earth, but recent creation solve for you?

#17 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 04:47 AM

nsr and other OEC, What scientific questions does and old earth, but recent creation solve for you?



For me rather - the explanation of the fossil record, but also the query, that the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters:

"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening,and there was morning, marking the first day." NET

it rather doesn't determine the age of the earth (science keeps on extending the age of all to accommodate the theory of evolution, in the sense that some claim that "given enough time" what we see before us could simply happen - which is illogical reasoning knowing the complexity of life - how old is the earth in reality?) that the earth had to be present before God commenced making the earth habitable.

That the life on earth, the "intelligence" of man, written records and so forth only extends back to about 6000 to 10000 years ago ... though not certain whether I am answering your question, as it expands into a number of areas, and why I think the earth is old, but the creation young.

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#18 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:47 AM

A fossil record is exactly what we would expect if God flooded the Earth in judgement.

2 Peter 3:1-7
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation. For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.



The scoffers will believe that everything has been the same since the beginning (gradual change rather than catastrophies - "just as it was"). Because they believe this it escapes their notice that "by the word of God the heavens existed long ago (this is evidence for Ex-Nihilo creation) out of water (this supports OEC)."

Some versions say they are "willfully ignorant." The fact that there are millions of fossils found buried in layers of sediment all over the world with soft tissue is the best evidence outside the Bible of a world-wide flood. By saying everything has been gradual, then they can't have a world-wide flood AND gradual change. A global flood would otherwise be obvious, thus they are willfully ignorant as well.

The reason evolutionists believe in the old geological column is to explain the data with an evolutionary worldview and to rule out a global flood which would validate the Bible. Polytrate fossils are fossils that transcend 2 or more layers of sediment that are supposed to be millions of years old; they are found ALL over the world. There is no reason after accepting the premises of the Bible to accept an old geological column - the Bible's literal face-value reading gives an explanation for what we see in the world. My concern about OEC is that it falls into the same pit that Peter says the scoffers are falling into. After all, one is more likely to believe in a local flood if they are an OEC. OEC does not help one to agree with mainstream "science" unless they reject the global flood.

One could argue that a local flood is still a judgement and thus they are not denying that the world was destroyed with water. However, since the flood is global they are effectively removing 99% of God's judgement.

#19 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:33 AM

nsr and other OEC, What scientific questions does and old earth, but recent creation solve for you?

I'm not OEC. I don't have any position, other than believing it's foolish to imagine we can deduce for ourselves the details of how God created the world when he hasn't told us. We don't even know how the most basic of Jesus' miracles worked, let alone the creation of the universe.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#20 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:07 PM

We're at risk of reading the early OT as though it had been written last week. It's a piece of ancient Near Eastern literature, whatever else it is - and thus formed in a time when people were a lot less concerned about chronology and mechanism than we are. The Bible had to speak to, and be accessible to, such people with the mindsets and mental models of their time. Hence vivid - but not historically literal - stories, and hence passages such as Ex20 which refer back to the stories, without bothering to correct scientific detail, just as Jesusnised the language of demons and spirits without bothering to correct medical detail: he, and Moses, had more important matters in mind.

Once we view the OT in its context, and look carefully at how it uses language and speaks of the natural world, the apparent conflict between God's word and God's works fades, while it becomes apparent that we do not have to, indeed should not, read early Genesis literally - as I've set out at http://davidbrownuk....readgenesis.htm



#21 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 05:40 AM

The Bible - every word of it - is the word of God. Yes, it was written long ago, but it was and is for all people, not just those in the ancient near east but everyone, down to and including us. There is no conflict between it and the natural world which God created. The conflict exists only between human explanations of the natural world, which are made without regard to what the word of God tells us, and the word of God.

Jesus made water into wine, Chemically, this is impossible - wine contains many elements not present in water. Theoretically, it might be achievable by human technology (to achieve fusion, producing new elements such as carbon from the sub-atomic components of the hydrogen and oxygen in water), but this would be far beyond anything man has ever designed or built, and would take vast resources. Yet at Jesus' command, the pots were filled with water, and wine was drawn out. Scientifically, there is no evidence or reason to believe the Bible's claim that he did it, The word of God says he did it. Who do we believe - the scientists, or God?

Moreover, the people who drank it believed, rightly, that it was wine - indeed the best wine. Yet it had no connection to any grape, or vine tree. Was Jesus a deceiver, creating at his word, by God's power, what appeared to their senses to be a purely natural product, but which had come into existence in that form only in the previous few minutes? Of course not.

No more is God a deceiver for creating by his word a world full of life, prepared for human habitation, much more recently than human reasoning, made with reference to the natural world alone and not the word of God, supposes.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 24 August 2012 - 05:49 AM.

  • Jesse2W likes this

#22 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 07:45 AM

Well put Mark. If we believe in a God that can empower a man to change water into wine, then we can believe in a God who created the cosmos fully functioning. Science looks at the observable natural world. When scientists try to answer the question of origins within their empirical assumptions, they will be wrong because it did not come about come about by natural processes. Is God a deceiver for working miracles?

#23 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:04 PM

Clearly not, but if you believe in a God who filled the natural world with overwhelming evidence of great age, filled the genome of every organism with overwhelming evidence of common ancestry, the fossil record with evidence of species coming into being, dying and decaying......then it's hard to conclude that such a God is other than a deceiver. And when you add to that his clear statements that the natural world points TO Him - Romans 1, Psalm 19 and so on - and his instruction to Job to look to the world around him for evidence of God - then the conclusion is further underlined.

I don't believe in a God whose scripture contradicts his world. I believe in one whose glory is declared by the heavens - and by the rich,diverse, life-filled, spectacular creation achieved by evolution.

#24 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:30 PM

David - God's scripture doesn't contradict what we see about us.

In actual fact it is science (evolutionary biology) which contradicts God's Word - that God spoke and it was so ... science removes God and that is the very problem of the discussion (which you have brought around yet again to evolution).

Again, we have been through this with you before - over and over and over again - and not dismissing that you believe in God - but the science you are promoting doesn't = once again, because science removes God they have to come up with some explanation why mankind is on earth - therefore the explanation is "padded out" = that all came about by evolution.

As example (just in the last several weeks - there are numerous past evidences of the same lack of basic understanding or knowledge in the majority of papers and "peer reviewed" journals):

Evidences for Evolution Examined

see the "padding" - they don't know, they haven't a clue, but the "evolutionary padding" is there, which more seems "imagined".

Another major problem is second guessing God, and that man (science) has all the answers - do they?

Edited by Kay, 24 August 2012 - 02:51 PM.
Link Edited

"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#25 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:44 PM

Kay, there is a problem with the link in your post. Did you mean http://creationrevol...ution-examined/ ?

#26 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:50 PM

Kay, there is a problem with the link in your post. Did you mean http://creationrevol...ution-examined/ ?


Thanks, Mark - have fixed the above link now ... not the same as you posted, but one of the articles is related.

So again (though edited above) - the link to several articles in brief and the question of "padding":

Evidences for Evolution Examined
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#27 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 08:07 PM

Scientists who describe the history of this planet and life upon it in the way it is now routinely presented are like the master of the feast at Cana. When he tasted the exceptional flavour of the wine, the pleasing fruitiness, the slight tang of the tanin, the natural acidity, the sweetness of just the right amount of sugar; when he smelt the vapour of the alchohol and all the scents mixed into it, how would he explain it?

By all natural reasoning, that wine must have been produced by the usual process of tending a vine to maturity, harvesting the grapes, treading them out, capturing the juice, filtering it, and holding it in the appropriate conditions so fermentation could proceed, until it had reached just the right state for extraction, ready for bottling and subsequent drinking. Any modern scientific analysis would no doubt conclude the same - after all, wine is wine, isn't it?

But that natural, worldly reasoning, in the case of the Cana feast, would have been entirely wrong. There was no vine; there were no grapes, no treading, no fermenting, no storage. This was a wonderful work, performed by Jesus directly through his father's power. He was satisfying a genuine need; he was not a deceiver - he really did make water into wine, though most were unaware of the fact.

Creation likewise is described in scripture as an entirely un-natural process, achieved by entirely un-worldly means, that is by God simply speaking his word, bringing into being a world perfectly prepared for the needs of human inhabitants. Despite what scientists think when they look at the evidence in the created world, they are not understanding the truth that God's word reveals, any more than the wedding guests at Cana did (though of course the gospel of John was not then written). They are not taking God's power into account; this is obvious because scientists never mention God in their explanations. Yes, indeed the heavens spell out God's glory, they point to him as their creator; but mankind has clearly shut its eyes and ears to the revelation of God which explains exactly how they do that, and for what purpose.

The servants who drew out the wine knew its true origin. We, by the revelation God has given in scripture, likewise know the truth about how this world and everything in it came about. Despite what science claims, God is not deceitful in any way, so long as we put his word first in reaching our understanding. The master of the feast could be excused for his supposition of where the wine came from. But mankind today, with the knowledge of God presented clearly for all to read in the pages of scripture, has no such excuse.
  • Kay likes this

#28 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 08:22 PM

I'm generally sceptical of any arguments along the lines of either:

1. Modern man is intelligent enough to understand God and God's works on God's own level without needing to be spoonfed allegories and myths like primitive ancient man was.

2. Well, God must have done ABC, because God would never have done XYZ.

It's not intelligence that enables us to understand God, it's humility, a trait sadly lacking in modern man. We can't explain how miracles work. No doubt there is some rational explanation but it is currently a million miles away from anything we understand.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter. There are far more important things for us to focus on. Isaiah 66:1-2. Let's focus on what's going to happen in the future - the coming of the Kingdom of God - instead of obsessing about something in the past which God clearly didn't think the details of were important enough to tell us.
  • Kay likes this
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#29 David Brown

David Brown

    Epsilon

  • Christadelphian
  • Pip
  • 57 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:14 AM

Kay, please stop being patronising and instead, think about how credible the sites you quote are when they're similarly sounding off against 'anti-Republican science'. . We can do without right wing, American Bible-thumping evangelicals telling us what to believe.

More importantly, and to Mark's point, who invented 'natural' processes? Evolutionary biology is as much a reflection of God's glory as anything else.

#30 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:41 AM

I wish discussion of this topic didn't always lead to spiteful name-calling and fighting about "my experts are better than your experts". Why does the spirit of Christ always go out the window when this topic arises?

One of the overarching themes of the Bible is this: we can be humble and let God teach us, or we can be arrogant and think we can figure it all out for ourselves. Adam and Eve chose the latter. Let's not follow their example.

Why do we have to insist on the importance of knowing absolutely everything about something God didn't think was important enough to tell us? Why can't we just trust God and get on with developing the spirit of Christ in our thinking and our lives?
  • Kay likes this
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users