The Karl Principle: Evangelicals Rejecting God’s Word

Recently, I was inadvertently directed to this post.

Though it is about a year old, I thought I would offer a few comments.  It represents one of those remorseful, head-wagging invectives against what is perceived as idiocy within evangelical circles.

In a nutshell, the authoress cites from an article last year from the New York Times written by pseudo-evangelical, Karl Giberson, and some other guy, in which they complain bitterly about what stupid liars 6-day creationists like Ken Ham and Al Mohler Jr. really are and what a terrible disservice they are to both Jesus and the little lambs of His church.

I’ve not seen the original NYT article, or heard the NPR interview also mentioned, but according to the blog post writer, Karl goes on to mournfully opine how evangelicals like Ham and Mohler have turned their backs on society, creating a parallel sub-culture that allegedly presents alternative views of reality with their teaching as well as rejects “science.”  The word “science” here is new-speak for the Darwinian evolutionary worldview, btw. In other words, young earth creationists don’t do “science.” It’s voodoo or something.

What is missed in this blog report is how Karl’s materialistic, a-miraculous, naturalistic Biologos vision of “evangelicalism” is incompatible with biblical Christian theology, the very concerns Ham and Mohler express from their parallel sub-culture.  In fact, nothing is even stated about Karl and his friends being funded by a foundation set up by Charles Templeton who became a notorious apostate before his death.

Everything I’ve read from Karl is that he doesn’t really care about the incompatibility between a Darwinian worldview and biblical Christianity anyways, because he believes evangelicals take the Bible too seriously.  In his mind, we need to abandon the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy because they are bogus to begin with.

At any rate, the writer then tells us a fanciful, personal anecdote about the influx of hillbilly rubes adversely impacting evangelical Christianity in America.

Years ago, I knew a man who I will call Fred. He told me that he had never looked at any evidence that Young Earth Creationism might be wrong. So, I gave him some material to read and suggested he look at websites such as Reason to Believe and Answers in Creation. A few weeks later I asked him about his reading. He told me that he had read a few things and the information made him very nervous since it seemed to disprove everything that he had been led to believe.

So what was his solution? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because “he couldn’t take it.” You see, his faith was based on a secondary issue. If that issue was challenged, his very faith was called into question. Yet this man insisted that his daughter go to college and “stand up” against those “secular” professors who said science has proven the earth is old.

Here is where I stand. All Christians should question anything that is fed to them by supposed “leaders.” We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that goes for Ken Ham, David Barton, and Al Mohler. Never forget Galileo and the church. This means, as hard as it for some Christians to accept, these guys could very well be wrong. And, if these guys are wrong, what happens to your faith? Is it based on a secondary issue or is it founded on the solid rock of the person of Jesus Christ?

Ah yes. Those poor simpleton home-schooling Christians who have been sheltered all their lives in their fundamentalist churches, Baptist schools, and their rural compounds.

The myth floated around now-a-days about these rogue Christians who home school is that they basically lie to their kids.

That’s right. Christian moms and dads lie daily to their kids by making them believe a false reality.  All for the purposes of keeping them safe from evolutionists, atheists, drugs, premarital sex, and gays   Sure, these kids put up a facade of academic achievement by taking top honors in a national spelling bee contest, but it would all collapse if they genuinely knew the truth their parents are purposefully hiding from them.

Just expose them to the real, naked truth of what scientific academics claim about the earth, or all the textual problems with the NT documents, or the so-called archeological evidence against the historicity of the Exodus, or the search of the “historical Jesus,” and their faith will fall over faster than a heavy woman slain in the Spirit at a Pentecostal tent revival.

Four things here:

First, YEC is a matter of biblical authority.  The text of Genesis says God created in 6 ordinary days, as does the rest of the Bible whenever it touches on creation, including our own Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  If you claim to take the Bible seriously as a divinely inspired, infallible document, you cannot possibly get around this fact. You will only be denying the meaning of language and the principles of grammar in order to do so. Moreover, insurmountable exegetical and theological problems are created as well.  This is regrettably the position of many old earth proponents like Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe crew.

Secondly, the writer doesn’t tell the readers that old earth proponents like Hugh Ross are also at odds with even Karl Giberson and the Biologos people.  That is because, as muddled as Hugh’s exegesis of the Genesis text may be, he at least attempts to affirm supernatural creation, albeit in spurts during progressive ages over millions of years.  The Biologos guys reject such a view because of its supernatural implications.

The authoress calls Biologos head, John Collins, an “evolutionary creationist” which is really disingenuous, and would be a term I imagine, if pressed, Collins himself would be uncomfortable being tagged with.  Ultimately, the “age of the earth” really has nothing to do with the disagreement Giberson and Biologos have with these rogue evangelicals who teach young earth creationism. It is God’s creating just like it says in the Bible that bothers them.

Third. Why is it that Christians have to question everything taught to them by Ken Ham and Al Mohler when it comes to creation and the age of the earth? (David Barton’s American “history” lessons are a non-related issue and are hardly the same).  Does this charge equally apply to old earth proponents?  I take it this writer questions Hugh Ross, Karl Giberson, and John Collins in the same way, right? Or does she blindly swallow everything they say just because they are not “fundy, 6-day creationists?”

What happens when their conclusions they make regarding “science” and “reality” conflict radically with the historical narrative presented in Scripture? Which “authority” will they choose? If the Christian’s faith is at risk if Ham and Mohler are wrong, will the writer’s old earth faith be at risk if it can shown Ross and Giberson are wrong?

Fourth. I think the idea of hapless, sheltered home schooled fundamentalist kids losing their faith and going apostate after they bump up against genuine science is highly exaggerated. How do we explain the opposite phenomenon? That being, public schooled and strictly secular educated kids who are saturated heavily in old earth, Darwinian thinking embracing young earth, biblical creationism?  Is it because they caught a bad case of the “stupids?”

I believe fundamentalist defection has more to do with a spiritual heart condition rather than home schooled kids being unable to defend YEC in college.  Their deconversion more than likely goes along the lines of this anti-creationist, Christ-hater who wrote into mock the folks at Answers in Genesis. He’s a bitter troll who rather than sought out genuine answers to the challenges of his faith, instead abandoned the Lord.  It wasn’t a matter of bad “science” being challenged by unanswerable evidence. It was a matter of an unconverted heart.

If I may close by sharing my own anecdote.

Years ago, I knew a fellow who I will call “Karl.” He told me that he had never looked at any evidence that young earth creationism might be true. So, I gave him some material to read and suggested he look at websites such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. A few weeks later I asked him about his reading. He told me that he had skimmed over the material I gave him to read and glanced a bit at the two websites. I asked him what he thought and if they answered some of his questions.

“Well. It was interesting,” he replies, “but I don’t know if I can believe God created the universe and the world in six days a few thousand years ago.” I asked “why?” “Well,” he says, “It cuts against everything I’ve been taught, and I don’t see how all those people can be wrong.” I followed up by asking, “So you don’t believe what the Bible clearly states in Genesis about God creating?” “Who knows? How do we know we don’t have it wrong? Besides, I don’t think we need to be so dogmatic and unnecessarily divisive with such a trivial, secondary matter.”

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “The Karl Principle: Evangelicals Rejecting God’s Word

  1. The real scandal of the evangelical mind is the OEC proponent who’s missing the connections between any old earth position he wishes to put forth, and the very Scriptures he bases his own salvation on. Illiterate of the great biblical doctrines his faith is based upon, devoid of the ability to think through the logical connections between these biblical doctrines and his old earth position, catachrestic of the history of the church’s position on this issue and the origination of ‘deep time’ in the first place, he undermines the very epistemological basis he relies upon to claim he’s saved.

  2. Evidence of evolution. Hah! When you look at the evidence, it is always so weak.

    The reason why people leave the Christian faith has nothing to do with evolution, frankly.

    Great post, Fred.

  3. But why use the term “authoress?” It’s an interesting choice of words.

    Who ever uses this term? I’ve been around a long time, and I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone use this term. If you google the term “author” and “authoress”, you get 650 X as many hits for “author” as for “authoress”. I doubt if there are 650 times as many male authors as female authors.

    So, why use a term that highlights the gender of the writer? Why is the gender of the writer significant? Interesting, interesting.

  4. Because I want to be precise, that’s why. It was a lady who wrote the article. There is nothing sexist in my use of that term if that is what you are implying.

  5. You wanted to be “precise.” The question is…why?

    Why did you need to be precise? When was the last time you saw another blogger be “precise” in this particular way? Why was it so important to be precise that you used a very rarely used term that highlighted the gender of the author? Interesting.

    Apparently, the gender of the author mattered a great deal to you. Apparently it was so relevant in your mind that you used a term that very, very , very few other people use. One wonders why. Is this sexist? Hmmm.

    Now as to the main point of the article, it does seem foolish to be dogmatic about the age of the earth. If one emphatically insists that the Bible and/or Christianity says that the earth is just a few thousand years old, then this really can lead many to reject the Bible and/or Christianity. If rejecting Christianity leads to eternal torture, it would be unfortunate if the rejection was due to encounters with young earth creationists.

  6. You wanted to be “precise.” The question is…why?
    Because that is what a good writer does. Be precise.

    Why did you need to be precise?
    Because it was a woman who wrote the article. Are you telling me I should just ignore that? Wouldn’t that be just as equally sexist?

    Why was it so important to be precise that you used a very rarely used term that highlighted the gender of the author?

    It’s not a rarely used term. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I just googled it again and get close to a million hits on it. There is a couple of feminist oriented faq articles on Yahoo that say it is out of use, but It’s a completely acceptable term. Just like waitress is a completely acceptable term. (Unless you have an ax to grind and wish to nit-pick with someone you disagree with, I suppose).

    it does seem foolish to be dogmatic about the age of the earth. If one emphatically insists that the Bible and/or Christianity says that the earth is just a few thousand years old, then this really can lead many to reject the Bible and/or Christianity.

    Let’s back up a step before we get into age issues. Do you accept what the Genesis record tells us about God creating in the space of a weeks time, ie, 6 days and on the 7th resting? Consistent use through out the Bible insists the truthfulness of the biblical record at Genesis. For instance, in the 10 commandments, the people were to work 6 days, rest the 7th. The comparison is connected to God’s creative work during the creation week. Agree or disagree?

    Next, what is your view of the genealogies listed in Luke 3? Are those accurate? Reliable? Are they the records of real people who really lived? If so, Luke traces them back from Jesus all the way to Adam’s creation. How do you explain that?

    We’ll move on from there after you respond.

  7. “It’s not a rarely used term.”

    Yes, it is a rarely used term. I know it, you know it. (Waitress is used far, far more often.) Honestly, I can’t remember ever hearing or reading term, and I am not a young man. The key lesson from Google is that “author” gets 650 times as many hits as “authoress”. That should tell you something. It tells you that a very, very small proportion of people refer to a writer as an authoress. It tells you that a very, very small proportion of people feel a need to be “precise”.

    “Are you telling me I should just ignore that?”

    Yes, you should ignore that, because, the writer’s gender not relevant!

    Or do you think that it matters that the article was written by a woman? Again, why did you care so much about the gender of the writer that you used the term “authoress”? That’s the key. Why do you care, why does it matter, why identifiy the gender, why is the writer’s gender relevant to you?

    By the way, I didn’t say that the term was “unacceptable”. What’s odd here is that you cared enough about the gender of the writer to use a term that identifies gender and is, at best, rately used and quite outdated.

    But enough about your feelings about women. I don’t really expect you to get it.

    “Let’s back up a step before we get into age issues.”

    My short answer is this. I think that it’s very, very unlikely that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, and it’s very, very unlikely that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago.

    I’m also quite impressed by the myriad ways in which the ancient writings of a long-gone culture can be, and have been, interpreted.

  8. Yes, it is a rarely used term. I know it, you know it.
    I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. I see it a lot in writing in both news articles and blogging. You be alert to it the next time.

    Or do you think that it matters that the article was written by a woman?

    Because the blog where I got that post I respond to is maintained by two women. That’s why. I actually care about what and who it is I interacting with. I’ll let this be the last comment to you about it. I’m not gonna sit here an be insulted by your bizarre fancy that you have exposed some sexist malfeasance on my part. It’s just not the case.

    My short answer is this. I think that it’s very, very unlikely that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, and it’s very, very unlikely that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago.

    So basically, you don’t believe the Bible, because that is what it says. Just like the point I am making. It doesn’t come down to “evidence” it comes down to which authority we believe who tells us what we should think about the evidence. If you’re the “David” I’ve interacted with in the past, your pretty much an atheist, so why are we even having this conversation? Again.

  9. “So basically, you don’t believe the Bible, because that is what it says.”

    Well, what it says is open to interpretation, isn’t it? Goodness, but there are a lot of ways of interpreting the Bible, aren’t there?

    As I see it, there are two possibilities (‘cause it’s really unlikely that the earth is young).

    One possibility is that the Bible really does say, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, in which case, it’s very, very likely that the Bible is wrong. So, if that’s what the Bible says, we can toss it out as a divine revelation. Still has a lot of good stuff in it, but it’s not divine revelation.

    So, yes, understanding that it’s very unlikely that the earth is just a few thousand years old can lead to a loss of faith. This is especially true if you’ve been raised to believe that the earth must be and can only be a few thousand years old. When such an individual takes a real geology course, it can really blow their minds. And so it’s best that fundamentalist kids be sheltered from this knowledge in their nice, safe home schools.

    But I can see another possibility.

    Maybe the Bible doesn’t really say that the earth is a few thousand years old. Maybe that particular interpretation of this particular question is simply wrong. In this case, you don’t have to toss it all out. Jesus really could be the way into heaven and out of eternal torture.

    In this case, one would then be remiss if one did things that drove people away the one true faith, for example, by insisting that one must believe that the Bible says that the earth is a few thousand years old. If one promotes the belief that Christianity insists, demands and requires that one believe that the earth is young, then many people can and will reject the Bible (because young earth simply doesn’t fit the data). So, turn the age of the earth into a “go to the mattresses” issue, and you drive people away from the Bible, away from Christianity, out of the churches and into eternal torture.

    So, what is your priority?

    “Just like the point I am making. It doesn’t come down to “evidence” it comes down to which authority we believe who tells us what we should think about the evidence.”

    Well, one thing is certain. Young earth creationism isn’t supported by evidence. (Isn’t appeal to authority considered a logical fallacy?)

    If you’re the “David” I’ve interacted with in the past, your pretty much an atheist, so why are we even having this conversation? Again.

    Yes, I’m the same David, but this is a different conversation. I know many Christians who don’t buy the young earth story. However, they are able to maintain their faith by ignoring the young earth dogmatists. My point here is to suggest that maybe it would be best if young earthers let sleeping dogs lie.

  10. “Yes, I’m the same David”

    Well, hello stranger!

    “So, what is your priority?”

    My priority is the truth—regardless of how many people choose to embrace it (Matthew 7:13-14).

    I have seen many more people brought to faith in the Bible through the young-earth creationists than I have ever seen with theistic evolutionists. My own testimony is a case in point. Your assertion that young-earth creationism drives people away from the faith is baloney. Since you’re pretty much an atheist anyway, outside of trolling, why should you care?

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s very, very likely that the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old rather than billions. I was brought up to believe the earth was bazillions of years old. My mind was blown when I started studying the writings of creationists and discovered just how lame the evidence was for evolution’s deep time. And also how so much of it is based on the world view and presuppositions one brings to the table when examining the empirical data.

    The Christians who “don’t buy the young earth story” do so not “by ignoring the young earth dogmatists” but by ignoring the historical basis for their faith. I can’t compartmentalize my thinking the way they do. I prefer a consistent philosophical paradigm. Genesis was written as a historical narrative that, if you assume the author said what he meant and meant what he said, teaches the earth is only a few thousand years old. Genesis also documents the reason for the death and resurrection of Jesus. This isn’t some esoteric or trivial theological issue. If I bought into the religious dogma that the earth was billions of years old, then I’d just become an atheist and be done with it.

    Frankly, I think the uniformitarian deep time and rejection of the global flood promoted by the Biologos and Reasons To Believe people are part of the great apostasy of the last days (cf. 1 Peter 3:3-7).

    BioLogos and the age of the earth: Pushing an anti-biblical doctrine:
    http://creation.com/biologos-age-earth

    BTW – You seem to be hung up on this “eternal torture” thingy. Actually, I think of eternal damnation, fundamentally, as God giving unbelievers exactly what they want: an existence without him. The Apostle John wrote that “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Can you imagine an eternity without light? The flames in the lake of fire don’t necessarily have to produce visible light. Think about it (cf. Jude 1:12-13).

    Fred: I’ve heard the term “authoress” several times before. So what if it’s not used a lot? I get tired of reading the same old vocabulary. Variety is the spice of life and the makings of good prose. If David thinks you’re a closet misogynist for using the word, that’s his problem, not yours.

  11. Error correction: My reference was supposed to be 2 Peter 3:3-7, not 1 Peter 3:3-7.

    “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. “

  12. “My priority is the truth—regardless of how many people choose to embrace it.”

    Well, I would have thought that your priorities would be focused on saving people from eternal damnation, but so it goes. So here’s a question for you. If a Christian believe that Genesis is not literally true, but they believe that Jesus is the one true savior, and the way to heaven, and the Son of God, etc., then what happens to them after then die? What happens if it get the one thing wrong and the rest of it right?

    “Your assertion that young-earth creationism drives people away from the faith is baloney.”

    Really? Well, it helped to drive me away from the faith. True fact.

    “I have seen many more people brought to faith in the Bible through the young-earth creationists than I have ever seen with theistic evolutionists.”

    Um, ok. If you say so. But I think you missed my point. My point was that I’ve seen a lot of Christians who have been able to hold on to their faith by interpreting Genesis in a different way. Had they concluded that Christianity insisted and demanded that they believe something that is utterly contradicted by the data, then that might have been it for their Christian faith. But by viewing Genesis as poetry or allegory or whatever, they have preserved their faith. So why go to the mattresses over this issue? Again, what is your priority?

    “As far as I’m concerned, it’s very, very likely that the earth and the universe are only thousands of years old rather than billions.”

    Well, I’m quite sure that there’s nothing that I can say that would change your mind here.

    “My mind was blown when I started studying the writings of creationists and discovered just how lame the evidence was for evolution’s deep time.”

    Er, this isn’t an evolution question. Folks always conflate evolutionary biology with other fields of science. This is sloppy thinking. In fact, this is a geology question and/or an astronomy question. You can throw out evolution if you like. It’s geology and astronomy that says that the earth is millions of years old. Try talking to geologists.

    “And also how so much of it is based on the world view and presuppositions one brings to the table when examining the empirical data.”

    Ah, the old “worldview” gambit. You know, if there really had been a global flood around 2500 BC, you wouldn’t have to appeal to kludges like “world view and presuppositions” . If the global flood actually happened, It would be blindingly, overwhelmingly obvious. Geologists who had never seen a Bible would have been able to figure out that it happened. It would have possible to draw the conclusion that the flood occurred starting with first principles and field observations and hypothesis testing without any assistance at all from an ancient text. But no one has ever done this. No one has ever concluded that the earth is a few thousand years old without a prior belief that Genesis is literal history.

    So, when I see the appeals to “worldview”, I take this as an acknowledgement that you understand the evidence is overwhelmingly against the young earth story.

    “I can’t compartmentalize my thinking the way they do. I prefer a consistent philosophical paradigm.”

    Well, ok, but that’s a personal choice. Others may feel differently.

    “Genesis was written as a historical narrative…etc.”

    Matter of interpretation, my friend. Matter of interpretation.

    “Frankly, I think the uniformitarian deep time and rejection of the global flood promoted by the Biologos and Reasons To Believe people are part of the great apostasy of the last days (cf. 1 Peter 3:3-7).”

    Oh, great. Accuse those with another interpretation of apostasy. Nice.

    “Actually, I think of eternal damnation, fundamentally, as God giving unbelievers exactly what they want: an existence without him. “

    Now here’s an excellent example of what I was saying about a myriad of interpretations. What is eternal damnation? Who knows what this means? Ask a hundred Christians and get a hundred different answers. Start with the same Bible and get a hundred different versions of Hell. If there’s some sort of truth to be found here, it sure seems to be elusive.

    “Fred: I’ve heard the term “authoress” several times before.”

    You know why “authoress” is considered outdated and is rarely used? It’s because folks realize that the gender of the writer is almost always irrelevant. So why use a term that identifies gender? What is the value of the word “authoress”? Why identify gender unless you believe that gender of the writer somehow matters? But again, I don’t expect you to get it.

  13. Dave, you’re like the perfect illustration for the “Karl Principle.” Let’s break down your comment:

    So here’s a question for you. If a Christian believe that Genesis is not literally true, but they believe that Jesus is the one true savior, and the way to heaven, and the Son of God, etc., then what happens to them after then die? What happens if it get the one thing wrong and the rest of it right?

    There are no Christians who don’t believe Genesis is true. The Bible is a packaged deal. If you believe the Gospel narratives enough that a person becomes a Christian, then he has to believe the other portions of Scripture are just as authoritative as the 4 Gospel narratives that told him about the person and work of Jesus Christ. Seeing that Jesus is the creator, as John 1:1 states, and even says “In the beginning…” just as Gen. 1:1, a person could not possibly believe one end of the story, the Gospels, are true, yet reject the historicity of the other end, the creation of the world and men.

    The issue, as we have established is whether or not the Bible reveals to us an estimation of when the creation event took place in time. I believe it does from the reading of the historical text. Someone like Hugh Ross, does not and I will be happy to tell him he is wrong. However, Ross does not deny the historicity and literalness of the Genesis record, so the reality of his salvation is not at stake. He’s a Christian, albeit a muddled thinking, inconsistent one.

    You write,
    Really? Well, it helped to drive me away from the faith. True fact.

    and

    Um, ok. If you say so. But I think you missed my point. My point was that I’ve seen a lot of Christians who have been able to hold on to their faith by interpreting Genesis in a different way. Had they concluded that Christianity insisted and demanded that they believe something that is utterly contradicted by the data, then that might have been it for their Christian faith. But by viewing Genesis as poetry or allegory or whatever, they have preserved their faith. So why go to the mattresses over this issue? Again, what is your priority?

    I isolate these two responses because they are contradictory. In the first, you state that you were driven away from the faith, where as in the second you write about people who were able to maintain their faith in light of so-called “data” once they embraced Darwinian constructs, ie, “viewing Genesis as poetry or allegory or whatever.” Is this your position? Are you still driven away from faith or have you compromised on the authority of Scripture while maintaining what the Gospel teach about Jesus and salvation? The first comment implies your an apostate, the second, that you trade in submission to Scriptural authority for the “authority” of the academic magisterium.

    Faith is a supernatural gift of God wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a sinner at regeneration. One does not walk away from faith when they bump up against challenges to that faith, something the Bible affirms will happen to all Christians. It has happened to me and it has happened to many folks.

    I’ve had hostile anti-ID/creationist professors in college in both the sciences and literature. My immediate reaction was not to abandon what the Bible teaches about the historicity of Genesis or the Gospel narrative because some bitter old hippy woman told me the Bible was sexists, condoned sex-slavery and the like, or when a philosophy prof outlined in detail all the alleged contradictions between the synoptic Gospels. If that was your reaction then your “faith” was not real and reflects the three false “faiths” presented in the parable of the soils in Matthew 13.

    Er, this isn’t an evolution question. Folks always conflate evolutionary biology with other fields of science. This is sloppy thinking. In fact, this is a geology question and/or an astronomy question. You can throw out evolution if you like. It’s geology and astronomy that says that the earth is millions of years old. Try talking to geologists.

    It’s hardly “sloppy” thinking. Evolutionary thought impacts all the major sciences including cosmology and geology. Stop a moment and consider your “sloppy” thinking. Fossils are a big part of evolution, would you not agree? What field of science is fossils apart of? Biology or geology? Before you make such a bonehead comment about sloppy thinking, do yourself a favor and search Amazon or google, “evolution” “geology” and “cosmology.” See what you come up with.

    If the global flood actually happened, It would be blindingly, overwhelmingly obvious.

    Ah yes. No evidence except for fossil grave yards, canyons, oceans, etc. Have you actually studied this subject or are you just parroting secondhand propaganda from atheists?

    “Genesis was written as a historical narrative…etc.”

    You see. This goes back up to your previous comment about overwhelming data. If you actually knew something about linguistic and the way language and literature work, you wouldn’t be making such an asinine comment like this. The grammatical data of Genesis tells us quite clearly that it is historical narrative. It is not a matter of “interpretation.”

    Oh, great. Accuse those with another interpretation of apostasy. Nice.

    But you have already admitted to apostasy in the first comment above. Why the indignant outrage.

    You know why “authoress” is considered outdated and is rarely used? It’s because folks realize that the gender of the writer is almost always irrelevant. So why use a term that identifies gender? What is the value of the word “authoress”? Why identify gender unless you believe that gender of the writer somehow matters? But again, I don’t expect you to get it.

    Again, your wrong about the outdated use of authoress, but I can’t convince you about that. Just pay attention to your reading next time. Be that as it may, I happen to recognize the obvious, that men and women are different. I reject the postmodern feminism that attempts to merge the two sexes into one. Again, go back and read my post. Was it sexist? Did her gender come into play at all in my argument I laid forth? Of course not. If I had meant to be “sexists” I could have done so with out the use of the word “authoress.” But hey, if you continue to want to be moronic on this point go for it.

  14. “There are no Christians who don’t believe Genesis is true.”

    Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that there are no Christians who believe that the earth is millions of years old? What does “Genesis is true” mean? Does the word “true” refer to and/or include the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old?

    “The Bible is a packaged deal. “

    Well, that’s a nice idea, but in practice, given the numerous interpretations of the Bible, what does this really mean? If folks can’t agree on what the Bible says, then what exactly is the package that we’re talking about?

    “However, Ross does not deny the historicity and literalness of the Genesis record, so the reality of his salvation is not at stake.”

    I’m sorry, but you lost me here. Ross thinks that the earth is millions of years old. How is this affirming the “historicity and literalness of the Genesis record”? It sure looks to me like Ross rejects the thing that you say no true Christian could reject. And if someone like Ross can be a Christian (and get his ticket punched for heaven), regardless of his view on the age of the earth, then why all of the fuss about the age of the earth?

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think that I’m getting a clear answer to my question.

    “I isolate these two responses because they are contradictory.”

    I’m not sure I follow. The first statement describes my personal experiences (and the whole age of the earth thing was only one part of it). The second refers to what I’ve observed in others who had different experiences and who chose to reconcile the data in a different way. Where’s the contradiction?

    “Faith is a supernatural gift of God wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a sinner at regeneration. One does not walk away from faith when they bump up against challenges to that faith, something the Bible affirms will happen to all Christians.”

    Well, I guess that’s one view of faith. Don’t know that it’s everyone’s. In any event, are you saying that those who walk away from faith were never really Christians to begin with? Really?

    It seems to me that if faith is “a gift of God”, and if one can’t walk away from a true faith given by God, then my faith is not in my own hands. In that case, why should one be held accountable for a lack of faith?

    “I’ve had hostile anti-ID/creationist professors in college in both the sciences and literature. My immediate reaction was not to abandon what the Bible teaches about the historicity of Genesis or the Gospel narrative because some bitter old hippy woman told me the Bible was sexists, condoned sex-slavery and the like, or when a philosophy prof outlined in detail all the alleged contradictions between the synoptic Gospels.”

    Bitter old hippy women? Wow, you have issues, don’t you? Look, I already understand that you’re going to cling to your belief, regardless of what anyone else says.

    “If that was your reaction then your “faith” was not real and reflects the three false “faiths” presented in the parable of the soils in Matthew 13.”

    Ah, so you ARE saying that those who lose their faith were not true Christians with true faith. Well, that’s not my fault, is it? That was up to God to “gift me”, wasn’t it?

    “Evolutionary thought impacts all the major sciences including cosmology and geology.”
    The science of geology and the conclusions about the age of the earth pre-date evolutionary theory. Folks were concluding that the earth was long before Darwin. Further, as I said, you can toss out all evolutionary biology, and you’re still left with all of the geology that says the earth is old, and you’re still left with all of the astronomy that says that the universe is old. You simply don’t need evolution to draw conclusions about the age of the earth. It’s far more accurate to say that geology impacts evolution than it is to put it the other way around. You need to reverse the arrows in your sentence.

    “Fossils are a big part of evolution, would you not agree?”

    Yes. So?

    “What field of science is fossils apart of? Biology or geology?”

    Well, actually, the field that you are referring to is called paleontology.

    “Before you make such a bonehead comment about sloppy thinking, do yourself a favor and search Amazon or google, “evolution” “geology” and “cosmology.” See what you come up with.”

    I believe that you’ve totally, totally missed the point. Evolution is supported by geology, but geology alone, and by itself, would contradict the young earth story. Geology and cosmology can stand on their own without any reference to evolution. It’s nice that there are connections between geology and evolution, and it’s great that geology provides support for evolution. But if the questions are about the age of the earth, your real problem is with the geologists, not the biologists.

    “Ah yes. No evidence except for fossil grave yards, canyons, oceans, etc. Have you actually studied this subject or are you just parroting secondhand propaganda from atheists? “

    Yes, I have. By the way, you know that the world is filled with Christian geologist who would be glad to explain that the conclusion that the earth is old is not “secondhand propaganda from atheists.” But I don’t expect that I could change your minds with a discussion of the data.

    By the way, did you know that was a massive Civil War battle fought in Arlington, Virginia? No, really. It happened. How do I know? Well, I know because there are a lot of Civil War soldier’s graves in Arlington, Virginia. See? I have evidence. You have “canyons and oceans”, and I have thousands of graves of just the right age. So, do you believe me? Why not? What’s the problem with my theory? How do you know that I’m wrong?

    Also, I don’t see anything here that address my point that no one has ever concluded that the earth is a few thousand years old without a prior belief that Genesis is literal history.

    “If you actually knew something about linguistic and the way language and literature work, you wouldn’t be making such an asinine comment like this. The grammatical data of Genesis tells us quite clearly that it is historical narrative. It is not a matter of “interpretation.”

    Well, it may be asinine, but I’m in good theological company when I conclude that Genesis 1 is not historical narrative. Plenty of good theologians have offered interpretations that differ from yours. Are they asinine, too?

    “But you have already admitted to apostasy in the first comment above. Why the indignant outrage.”

    Not indignant outrage. You’ve read too much into this. My comment was intended to be more like “oy vey!” or “face-palm” than “outrage”.

    As far as authoress goes, as I said, I don’t expect you to get it. So, I’ll let it go.

  15. I probably gonna start wrapping this conversation up. We’ve debated these items numerous times before and there really is no sense in beating dead horses. You need to repent of your sin and embrace Jesus Christ as your savior. Ultimately, your disagreement with God stems from your rebellion against Him. He will save you if you will forsake these secular idols who you have placed your trust in, recognize your sin condemns you, and come to the only Person who can truly save you from the wrath to come.

    David writes,
    Do you mean that there are no Christians who believe that the earth is millions of years old? What does “Genesis is true” mean? Does the word “true” refer to and/or include the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old?

    You had written ” If a Christian believe that Genesis is not literally true,…” I take it to mean you are asking about Christians who do not believe Genesis is a literally true record of God creating. Is that what you mean? For some reason you are adding the concept of millions of years, and I am merely pointing out that accepting what Genesis says about God creating supernaturally is way before we get to the other factors that determine the age of the earth. A true Christian is going to accept that Genesis means that God created supernaturally. Do you believe that? Once we get that established, we then can then move to the other factors that discuss age issues.

    continuing,
    Well, that’s a nice idea, but in practice, given the numerous interpretations of the Bible, what does this really mean? If folks can’t agree on what the Bible says, then what exactly is the package that we’re talking about?

    Before you make a non-sense statement about interpreting the Bible, it would be helpful for you to consider the context in which I stated the Bible is a “packaged deal.” Go back and read the paragraph I wrote and pay attention to my connection with the Gospel narrative. If the Gospel narrative is a true record of who Jesus is and what He did, then the Genesis record is a true narrative of what God did because Jesus references it on many occasions. If Genesis is not, then Jesus either lied or was mistaken. IF either of those things are true about Jesus, then we have problem. Your question is worthless.

    continuing,
    I’m sorry, but you lost me here. Ross thinks that the earth is millions of years old. How is this affirming the “historicity and literalness of the Genesis record”?

    Are you even carefully reading what I wrote? You’re asking about the salvation of one who believes in millions of years. Regardless of Ross’s error, he DOES affirm the historicity and literalness of Genesis. He believes that God created supernaturally, he affirms the special creation of Adam, his fall, and the reality of sin and the atonement Christ supplies. So I can go on that and challenge the areas of textual and theological inconsistency.

    continuing,
    regardless of his view on the age of the earth, then why all of the fuss about the age of the earth?

    Because a Christian should strive for exegetical and theological precision and consistency with what the Bible teaches as a whole. That’s why. If God cares, then I want to care.

    I wrote: “I isolate these two responses because they are contradictory.”

    You state:I’m not sure I follow. The first statement describes my personal experiences (and the whole age of the earth thing was only one part of it). The second refers to what I’ve observed in others who had different experiences and who chose to reconcile the data in a different way. Where’s the contradiction?

    Okay, let’s back up and break it down. You stated: “Well, it helped to drive me away from the faith. True fact.” Okay. to be driven away from the faith implies you once were in the faith. I take faith to mean you are telling me you were once a Bible-believing Christian but this reconciliation of Genesis with “science” has now caused you to abandoned it. That is what “drive me away” implies. Am I right or wrong?

    Then you write: ” My point was that I’ve seen a lot of Christians who have been able to hold on to their faith by interpreting Genesis in a different way.” Okay. Are you defending yourself as one of those Christians who was able to hold on to his faith? Or are you still in a state of apostasy? That is why I asked you to clarify your position. I thought that my questions was rather clear.

    moving along,
    Well, I guess that’s one view of faith. Don’t know that it’s everyone’s.

    It’s not “just my view of faith” it is what the Bible teaches and I can demonstrate it. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t “everyone’s” I can show them they are wrong.

    continuing,
    In any event, are you saying that those who walk away from faith were never really Christians to begin with? Really?

    Yep, really. That’s what I am saying. That is what the apostle John stated in his first epistle in 2:19.

    continuing,
    It seems to me that if faith is “a gift of God”, and if one can’t walk away from a true faith given by God, then my faith is not in my own hands.

    Yep, that’s true as well.

    continuing,
    In that case, why should one be held accountable for a lack of faith?

    Because God holds you accountable, that’s why. That is what Romans 1 and 2 argue.

    Bitter old hippy women? Wow, you have issues, don’t you? Look, I already understand that you’re going to cling to your belief, regardless of what anyone else says.

    Your’e delusional hunting windmills where none exist. You’re also funny, thinking you are some equal rights do-gooder who has uncovered some secret sexism. I’ve sat under a number of old hippy women profs in college who frequently ranted against God in the class room. I can’t help if they are women. They were still bitter and ex-hippy’s (to their own admission,btw). I could have easily written disgruntled old hippy men, too, seeing I had a few teaching my philosophy and science classes, but the women were much more shrill in their denouncements of my faith.

    continuing,
    Ah, so you ARE saying that those who lose their faith were not true Christians with true faith. Well, that’s not my fault, is it? That was up to God to “gift me”, wasn’t it?

    Again, God still holds you accountable. Romans 1, 2 and I would add, 9.

    continuing,
    The science of geology and the conclusions about the age of the earth pre-date evolutionary theory. Folks were concluding that the earth was long before Darwin

    No they weren’t. Not anyone truly serious. Greek philosophers talked about “eternal” matter and the like, but no one suggested the earth was millions of years old until 1700s and they gravitated to those conclusions not because of raw evidence, but because they hated the Genesis record. This was maybe 50 years or so before Darwin took his voyage and relied upon Lyell for the means of his ideas.

    It’s far more accurate to say that geology impacts evolution than it is to put it the other way around. You need to reverse the arrows in your sentence.

    If you want to say so. Did you bother googling those terms I listed? Tell your thesis to the authors of those books if you believe you are correct.

    Well, actually, the field that you are referring to is called paleontology.

    And paleontology studies what? fossils. Where do fossils exist? in rocks.

    I believe that you’ve totally, totally missed the point. Evolution is supported by geology, but geology alone, and by itself, would contradict the young earth story…. By the way, you know that the world is filled with Christian geologist who would be glad to explain that the conclusion that the earth is old is not “secondhand propaganda from atheists.” But I don’t expect that I could change your minds with a discussion of the data.

    Yes. I am well aware of all of this. It is always amusing how anti-theists think I’m stupid. But be that as it may. I happen to know a good number of geologists. A couple of them who teach at a university level (secular, btw), others who work in private industry, and one who works for the national park service, one who works currently for NASA in a high profile position. They are all committed, 6 day creationists who are experts in their fields of study, a few who are even published in secular, peer-reviewed journals. All of them would gladly explain that in most of the cases, geologists who specialize in one particular area have to rely unquestioningly on the conclusions of others in another field who are equally relying unquestioningly on others in other fields, who rely upon the conclusions of those in the first group of geologists. It’s a big circle. All of my friends and acquaintances will tell you that there is solid evidence for a catastrophic, global flood. Those who contest this fact interpret the data with an a-theistic position in mind.

    Also, I don’t see anything here that address my point that no one has ever concluded that the earth is a few thousand years old without a prior belief that Genesis is literal history.

    All men have starting points to evaluate the world. I’ve never said otherwise. If a person begins with his own fallen reason unquestioningly assuming certain unverifiable conditions, certainly they can come to the conclusion the age of the world is whatever they think it is. They’re wrong, but their error is based upon their fallen reason about reality. Of course I begin with our Creator, the same creator you know exists, everyone else knows exists, yet suppress the truth about Him in unrighteousness. The creator who is without error and absolutely trustworthy has inspired a divine record of Him creating and has given clear indications about how old the earth is in an inspired record. I choose to trust God rather than you, or other fallen men, or misguided believers.

    Well, it may be asinine, but I’m in good theological company when I conclude that Genesis 1 is not historical narrative. Plenty of good theologians have offered interpretations that differ from yours. Are they asinine, too?

    As a matter of fact, they are. They are desperately inconsistent because they want to save face with the academic community. They think they are rescuing God from the embarrassment of His own testimony on the matter.

  16. You don’t lead people to a genuine, saving faith by lying to them, David. Jesus made a nuisance of himself regarding the truth (John 14:6, John 8:32). Remember what Paul wrote:

    “…[I]f you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10)

    Believing in the divinity of Christ and that he rose from the dead in a time-space dimension of history is the bare-minimum requirement for salvation. All of the cults and other religions deny one or both of these points. If you believe these two things, you are saved.

    There are many Christians who believe a lot of wrong things that don’t necessarily affect their salvation. The belief that the earth is billions of years old is one of them, but this falsehood is especially evil because it destroys the basis for their faith. Deep time and evolution go hand in hand; you cannot separate the two. Fossils are used to order the rocks in the so-called geologic column. And the ordering of the fossils is based on evolutionary dogma. The secular world knows this and laughs. Radiometric dating, which has a lot of problems of its own, is just a window dressing since the entire geologic column and its long ages was formulated long before it came along. I am unable to speak for the individuals who run BioLogos or Reasons to Believe, since only God knows their hearts, but their teaching is apostate in my opinion and they are treading on very dangerous ground.

    Anthropologists, archeologists and historians have documented the fact that flood legends are pretty much universal (http://creation.com/many-flood-legends). The obvious conclusion to this is because all people living today descended from Noah’s family (and no, it wasn’t from missionaries polluting their cultures). To ignore this witness of history is pure folly. Charles Lyell re-interpreted geology into uniformitarian gradualism because he wanted to “free the science from Moses.” It had nothing to do with the sheer weight of the evidence (http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses). As time as gone by, however, the sheer weight of the evidence is leading geologists back towards catastrophism (e.g. “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record” by Derek V. Ager). Of course, *Biblical* catastrophism is completely off limits.

    I have talked to a few geologists, as matter of fact, who found the evidence for a world-wide flood to be “blindingly, overwhelmingly obvious” after they took off the Lyellean glasses. This is a matter of the heart—not science—and of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). As I said before, 2 Peter 3:3-7 makes it perfectly clear that uniformitarianism and the denial of a world-wide flood are signs of the last days. Deal with it.

    You accuse us of sloppy thinking when it is really you who engages in it. You can’t compartmentalize the issue by saying that one thing is only a question of geology and astronomy and another of biology. The evolutionary religion is an all-encompassing world view as Theodosius Dobzhansky explained:

    “Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is the product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.” (Changing Man”, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Science, Vol. 155, Jan. 27, 1967, p. 409)

    Darwin and Lyell brought nothing new to the table. The notion of long ages and descent by modification is as old as paganism itself. The only thing they accomplished was to disguise paganism as science. And that’s exactly what it is: the pagan creation myth for modern man.

    You insist that Genesis be allegorized because of the mountain of evidence from geology and astronomy proving the earth and universe to be bazillions of years old. They have done nothing of the kind. I have been debating people for thirty years on this subject and I’m still waiting for that big knock-out punch. There is plenty of good material available nowadays on the Internet that can be found in a few minutes using Google. If you are really looking for the truth you can find it there. Going around in circles with you has been a complete waste of time in the past, and it appears as though that hasn’t changed.

  17. Well, I I’d love to spend a month to two discussing geology with those who have been “debating people for thirty years on the subject”, because I think it would be…enlightenting. Very enlightening. But life is fleeting and time is short. And even I get tired of banging my head against the wall after a few days.

    So, I’d just like a little clarification of one thing. I not quite clear as to what the phrase “historicity and literalness of Genesis” really means. Shouldn’t affirming the “historicity and literalness of Genesis” include affirmation of the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old and was covered by a global flood around 2500 BC? How can one holds that Genesis is a literal historical record without also affirming the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old and was covered by a global flood around 2500 BC? After all, this IS what the literal historical record of Genesis says, right? Seems to me that if one does not believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, then one is also denying that all of Genesis offers a literal historical record, starting with Genesis 1:1.

    One other thing. I was fascinated to learn that while my faith is not in my own hands, I’m nevertheless held accountable for my lack of faith. Fascinating. God can give me faith, God can chose to save me…but God then doesn’t do these things. And I’m held accountable. Fascinating.

    And Escavado? My mama always told me that it was impolite to point.

  18. David,
    Can’t help but be intrigued by the dialog above between you, Fred, and Escovado, and your comments that followed. The old earth, old universe vs. young earth, young universe within Christendom is one debate, the same debate with one who is not professing an allegiance to Christ, not claiming to be a Christian, but something else, is another. It then becomes an argument over sources of authority and knowledge, more of a philosophical debate about metaphysics, epistemology, morality, and whether there is a God, doesn’t it?

    As an outside reader of your comments and the dialog between you and Fred and Escovado, I’m a little unclear as to your position. I’m only seeking clarification here, do you profess allegiance to Christ?

  19. Escovado,

    What leads you to believe that I can’t take it? Anything? I was merely suggesting (mostly tongue-in-cheek) that your icon shows questionable manners. Now, if you chose to exhibit such manners, so be it. Your choice. And I’m hardly without sin when it comes to manners. Regardless, I’m quite capable of “taking it”, although I’m not really sure what the “it” is in this case. What is it that I can’t take?

    As long as you’re here, would you care to comment on the following?

    Shouldn’t affirming the “historicity and literalness of Genesis” include affirmation of the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old and was covered by a global flood around 2500 BC? How can one holds that Genesis is a literal historical record without also affirming the statement that the earth is a few thousand years old and was covered by a global flood around 2500 BC? After all, this IS what the literal historical record of Genesis says, right? Seems to me that if one does not believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, then one is also denying that all of Genesis offers a literal historical record, starting with Genesis 1:1.

    Now, I believe that you used the term “apostate” to describe those who hold that the earth is millions of years old. In fact, I believe that you said that Reasons to Believe is part of the “great apostasy”. Is this an accurate interpretation? So, I’m wondering. Do apostates go to heaven? Simple question, and I’d love to get an answer from you.

    A footnote. Could you direct me to a site describing the Flood Myth of the ancient Egyptians?

  20. Steve,

    “As an outside reader of your comments and the dialog between you and Fred and Escovado, I’m a little unclear as to your position. I’m only seeking clarification here, do you profess allegiance to Christ?”

    Well, to be honest, I’m always a little uncertain of my position myself. Broadly speaking, the older I get, the less I know. I always try to Richard Feynman’s wise words in mind… “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” I’m not saying that I always follow these words, but I try to keep them in the back of my mind.

    So, I prefer to describe things in terms of probabilities derived from the available data. For example, when all of the available data are considered, it appears to be very, very unlikely that the earth is only a few thousands years old (or that there was a great Civil War battle in Arlington, Virginia). One can find the odd bit or bob that is not completely inconsistent with the young earth hypothesis, but there is just too much that flat out contradicts or disproves this view. And one doesn’t have to accept the “authority” of geologists to draw this conclusion. Anyone can go to any geoscience library and look at the data themselves. I realize that Fred has a different view of scientists, but I live and work among scientists on a daily basis, and I simply don’t recognize the gross and distorted caricature of the scientific community that he tends to present.

    Now, as far Jesus goes, it seem quite unlikely to me that the historical figure known as Jesus was a god. Can’t be sure of this, of course, and maybe Jesus is a god. However, given what is known, it seems quite unlikely. I was raised in a Baptist church, and as a boy, I certainly had no particular reason to question what I was taught about Jesus. However, as I grew older, there came a point in time when the questions far exceeded the answers. Now, there is much that is positive about the philosophy presented in the New Testament, and among other things, I still like the old hymns I sang in church when I was young. Certainly, I see others benefit of believing as they do, but I’m no longer able to see the world as I once did.

    In short, by what I expect is your standard, you would probably conclude that I don’t have an “allegiance to Christ”

  21. David,
    Fair enough, Thanks for the honest answer. I guess from what you’ve said above, the young earth, young universe position being spoken of here, is not the only stumbling block to professing an allegiance to Christ for you. I take it from your comments that this is may not even be the biggest among a number of others.

    Being raised Baptist, I’m sure you are familiar with the claims of Jesus, His life, His testimony claiming that He is indeed God, the Bible, more perhaps than those not raised in a ‘church-going’ environment, but have found those claims unconvincing.

    Being an older man (I’m not sure how old you are and it doesn’t matter, really), I’m curious to know why you have turned away from that early upbringing? What are the ‘unconvincing’ things you found in Christianity that didn’t make sense?

    I don’t think you are saying there is no God, right? Your own constitution tells you that there indeed is a God, but you’re not sure what it is you have to do with him, correct?

    This then becomes an argument not necessarily about a young earth, young universe, but really whether the truth claims of Christianity are valid. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

  22. David,

    You entered this thread insinuating that Fred must be a closet misogynist (we did “get it” BTW) and that we all must be stupid to think the world is only thousands of years old since all we would have to do is take “a real geology course” and we would be blown away. That is you ‘dishing it out’ from my perspective. When you scolded me about pointing, I thought you were referring to my opinion about the teachings of the BioLogos and Reasons To Believe people as being apostate, and if you don’t like it, too bad. In any event, I have used that avatar for many years and have received nothing but compliments about it. There apparently are a lot of Twilight Zone fans out there. There was no suggestion from the tone of your posts that you were being tongue-in-cheek about anything. And if you really do believe my avatar represents bad manners, then that’s too bad as well. ;)

    I already answered your question about my opinion of the spiritual condition of the BioLogos and Reasons to Believe people. Re-read what I wrote and figure it out. 2 Peter 3:3-7 makes it perfectly clear that their teaching is a part of the apostasy of the last days. If you don’t like that, then take it up with the Apostle Peter. Believers will be judged before the Beema Seat of Christ and our works will be tested by fire:

    “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

    “Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

    It is my opinion that, at best, the works of these people are wood, hay and straw that will be burnt up. And at worst, if they haven’t ended up denying Christ, they may lose their inheritance in the kingdom but not their salvation. I’m glad that Christ is being preached (Philippians 1:15-18). Nevertheless, the foundation given to believers by BioLogos and Reasons To Believe is one of shifting sand. That is not good.

    Finally, you quipped, “Could you direct me to a site describing the Flood Myth of the ancient Egyptians?”

    Earlier, I gave you the link to the CMI article about the world flood stories (http://creation.com/many-flood-legends). I know you don’t bother to read the documentation I post, but I put it there for the benefit of others. Here, I’ll quote it for you:

    “Egypt – Flood stories from the continent of Africa are rare, but one from Egypt tells of an ancient creation god, Tem, who ‘was responsible for the primeval flood, which covered the entire earth and destroyed all of mankind except those in Tem’s boat’.” [Tem is also known as Atem] The same article also says, “If there were no near-universal distribution of world-destroying flood legends, sceptics would no doubt attack the Bible’s credibility on this basis, questioning how the memory of such an awesome account could be lost in so many cultures.”

    On the other hand, to be fair, an article posted at the Associates for Biblical Research states that:

    “There is no Egyptian flood tradition in their literature. It is important to realize that recorded Egyptian history begins about 3000 BC. Egyptian prehistory was probably very short, with little time passing after the great Flood. Although Egyptian historians consider the prehistorical period to be quite long, as seen above, C14 dates are not useful before 3000 BC.” (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2005/12/11/A-Universal-Flood-3000-BC.aspx)

    I don’t know which one is correct since both articles have been around for a while. That is something I will have to research. However, I will say this: 1) Arguing silence from the Egyptians is a fallacy. 2) Moses was educated by the Egyptians and it looks as though he used older sources for many of the early sections of genesis (I’m referring to the tablet theory, not JEDP). Therefore, I am sure the Egyptians were well aware of Noah’s flood. 3) The concept of a God who created the universe that judged the inhabitants of the Earth with a flood probably didn’t sit well with a polytheistic, pagan Egyptian priesthood that demanded the Pharaoh be worshiped as a god. This probably explains why the plagues placed on Egypt were judgments against their gods as a not-so-subtle reminder of who really was in charge.

    I’m not going down that Egyptian chronology rat hole with you. I’m done with this thread and I’m done with you. Ta, ta for now.

  23. Steve,

    I genuinely appreciate your interest in my thoughts. I think that fair to say that the young earth, young universe position being spoken of here, is not the only stumbling block to personal profession of an allegiance to Christ, nor is it necessarily the biggest among a number of others. Among many other things, I am quite disturbed by the capacity of various groups of Christians to express venom, anger and hatred towards other groups of Christians. I’ve seen some remarkably vicious conflicts arise among those whom I would have thought were of the same basic beliefs. It’s truly astonishing! And it leads me to wonder what’s really different about Christianity (versus other belief systems).

    So many conflicts over matters of interpretation of texts that are thousands of years old! I think that the reality is that no one really, truly knows what the Bible really, truly says. We’re human, we are imperfect, and to err is human. I think that we can all agree that we are not gods, right? We make mistakes, we get things wrong, and perhaps one should present a given interpretation with this reality in mind.

    As for other stumbling blocks, I’m afraid that it would take a very long time to describe ‘all of the things that no longer make sense to me. As I said before, the shortest way that I can put it is to say that I’m no longer able to see the world as I once did.

  24. David,

    ‘We’re human, we are imperfect, and to err is human. I think that we can all agree that we are not gods, right? We make mistakes, we get things wrong,…’

    You’ve raised an interesting point here: we make mistakes, we get things wrong, we err, we are not gods. Finiteness and sin, in other words. Jean Paul Sartre raised an interesting implied question when he said ‘No finite point has any meaning without an infinite reference point’. You yourself err, are wrong on many things and make many mistakes, just as I do, but the question is then ‘Who/What is your infinite reference point David?’ Being finite, what/who do you ground yourself in to give your life meaning and to make sense of your personal aspirations?

    In terms of wrongs and mistakes, do you feel guilty about your wrongs, your mistakes, your errors? How do you deal with this guilt? How do you answer for why you feel guilty in the first place when you wrong someone, when you say a cross word to your loved ones, when you tell a lie to a friend, boss, family member, for instance?

    As to venom, anger and hatred by Christians towards other groups of Christians, how is that different than Muslims expressing hatred by killing other Muslims, Buddhist priests expressing hatred by killing other Buddhist priests, Hindu’s expressing anger and hatred at other Hindu’s, etc., etc.,? Since we are all human and err, all having this ‘sin’ problem, it corresponds exactly with what the Bible says about our condition: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), or “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick, Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

    Jesus claimed to be the solution to this sin problem, this heart problem we have. He claimed to be the infinite God of the universe as the answer to our need for an infinite reference point, to give our life meaning and to make sense of our personal aspirations. The problem is we want to run our own lives, though. We want to decide truth for ourselves, to be the rulers of our own domains. In contrast, Jesus is asking us to acknowledge Him as the sovereign God who created us, who willed that we even exist, to recognize our finiteness against His infiniteness, and to bow the knee, to yield. He tells us, “Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Matthew 11:29-30).

  25. Escovado,

    I don’t expect to get an answer, but one must ask. Do you think that Anthony Fremont is a good little boy or an evil little boy?

    Steve,

    I understand that value and/or usefulness of an “infinite reference point”. But this concept raises its own set of roblems and questions. Given that we have strayed from the topic of young earth creationism and given that concepts such as infinite reference points will lead to more endless discussion, I think I’ll bow out at this point.

  26. David,
    Thanks for your interaction. We have indeed gone off topic of the post, but the young earth, old earth discussion is not the most critical I think in your case. You even said as much yourself, so I urge you to reevaluate what is most critical. You obviously have an interest in Christian blogs, otherwise why would you read and comment on this one, unless of course perhaps, you’re trying to justify to yourself why you left your Baptist upbringing. You may have family members who are still Baptists, Mom and Dad perhaps, a sister, a brother? That is not meant to be harsh, and I don’t think you’re just a God-hater who gets his kicks bashing Christians. I think you’re still searching. I encourage you to continue that search. You obviously know that God exists, so I might close by encouraging you to seek out the next step. If God exists, what if anything does that mean for you? Are you supposed to acknowledge this God, if so, how, and in what way? Does He expect anything from you, if so, what? As one who knows that God does indeed exist, and hears my prayers, I will pray that your search might be fruitful in answers to those questions for you.

  27. Have you pondered the relevance of Mary Higby Schweitzer’s discovery of t-rex soft tissue…intact, pliable blood vessels, back in ’05? Fresh DNA and even blood cells perfectly preserved in the ground for 70 M years?

    Or, more recently, Science published a study pegging the explosion of genetic variation in Euro and Afro American genomes to 5,100 years ago?

  28. He probably has, but cites articles that attempt to debunk it as his source of authority. Those atheists who have actually come to terms with the discoveries (and it is not just limited to those couple of examples), attempt to explain it away in some hand-waving, dismissive manner.

  29. “Have you pondered the relevance of Mary Higby Schweitzer’s discovery of t-rex soft tissue…intact, pliable blood vessels, back in ’05? Fresh DNA and even blood cells perfectly preserved in the ground for 70 M years?”

    Fresh DNA? I don’t believe that Schweitzer recovered polymeric DNA.

    “Or, more recently, Science published a study pegging the explosion of genetic variation in Euro and Afro American genomes to 5,100 years ago?”

    Reference, please.

  30. “Those atheists who have actually come to terms with the discoveries (and it is not just limited to those couple of examples), attempt to explain it away in some hand-waving, dismissive manner.”

    I don’t understand this comments. Doesn’t Schweitzer also “explain it away” in the same manner? Isn’t Schweitzer a Christian? So, why use the term “atheist” here? In this case, old earth Christian geologists and paleontologists do the same thing that the atheists do.

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s