Hi Steve!
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You wrote:
SJ> But the "genealogies" at best could only give an age for Adam.
> Adam could be young (ie. 10,000 - 100,000 years) and yet the
> Earth be old. Ross believes this and so do I.
But Jesus didn't.
Jesus said very plainly that "man was made AT THE BEGINNING OF
CREATION". Not "millions" of years later. Mark 10:6
How do you "interpret" these verses in Mark, Steve?
SJ> Besides, if abandoning your YEC position would cause you to
> abandon the Bible, then I don't want to have your spiritual
> blood on my hands.
Oh Steve, really!
You don't have to worry. I'll never abandon the Bible. As they
say, it is an Anvil that has worn out many hammers. My faith is
in Jesus. And He will never leave me, nor forsake me.
SJ> I will be interested to see how you explain how your agreement
> with "God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech
> in Scripture" with your disagreement with "The truth must be
> a conjunction of the two"
Well, as is not usual, I'm afraid I wasn't very clear. Let me try
to be a little more specific as to exactly what I meant.
It is true I absolutely believe that "God cannot contradict His
speech in Nature by His speech in Scripture." This is obvious.
After all, He who wrote the one, also wrote the other.
Let me try to explain my position with a simple example.
If I look at nature and it seems to be telling me that people came
into existence by some sort of evolutionary progression, then I
would have to assume that I was not interpreting my observations
correctly because I know for sure (according to my understanding
of scripture) that God created man fully formed.
I would not be inclined to try to make a "conjunction of the two".
I would not try to compromise Scripture, just to make something
fit, something that I could be wrong about. This is because I
don't believe Scripture can be wrong (the original manuscripts),
and I know that I can. I also have a very strong impression that
others can also.
SJ> But at least you accept in principle that nature and Scripture
> are ultimately saying the same thing.
I accept it completely, not just in principle, how could anyone do
otherwise?
Of course you are just "playing" with me. You know exactly what
I mean. It is not "nature" which is wrong, but the "conclusions"
from scientists that study nature which are in error, if they
contradict the Scriptures.
SJ> How do you know how much time I spend "reading" my Bible?
Just a guess, Steve. I suppose because Scripture is just too clear
on this subject. There just isn't anything in there to support the
"day-age" theory. It's just too clear on this.
SJ> Hmmm. I just did a Bible search on "days" and "24-hours".
> Guess what? "nowhere does it say the days were 24-hours long"!
> :-)
Yes it does :-)
The context of Exodus 31:17 makes it obvious that the "days"
referred to in Genesis 1 are "24 hours". Remember, this was
inscribed by the very finger of God! See also Exodus 20:11. Same
thing, the context makes it obvious the 6 days of creation were
literal.
Surely you must admit that any other "interpretation" of these
verses must be forced?
Why would one want to go so far out of the way to "interpret" these
verses? So that one could "make a conjunction of the two." THIS
is what I meant in my previous post, and the answer to the question
you were interested in above.
SJ> Fine. I have no problem if you think the "the 6 days of
> creation MUST have been 24 hours", especially if it would wreck
> your faith. I take Mt. 18:6 very seriously.
Well, I'm glad to find out that you at least take ONE part of the
Bible seriously! :-)
As I have said, my faith is strong. You have nothing to fear. It
is not possible for you to shake my faith in either the written
word, of the living Word.
SJ> Romans 5:12 only speaks of the "death" of *man*:
SJ> "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN, and
> death through sin, and in this way death came to all MEN,
> because all sinned". (emphasis mine)
See? Because of your absolute commitment to make a "conjunction
of the two", you have been forced to change the obvious meaning of
this very plain verse to fit your philosophy.
Which is OK, I guess. After all, as you have said before, what
difference does it make how old the earth or the universe is?
So let me make a proposal. Let's set a "time" to meet in the
future. Let's make it, say, 10,000 "years" from today, whenever
that is. Then we can sit down and have a big laugh over who was
right! What do you think? Do you agree?
Until then, may God richly bless you, Steve.
- Tony -