I was pointed to the book Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. I really am grateful to my brother-in-Christ Mike Felker for suggesting it. He aid that it would help me understand more about why Hugh Ross is wrong and Young Earth Creationism is the best answer way to understand scripture. I have to admit that I have not read the book yet, but I did find Dr. Sarfati lecturing on the contents of the book in a video on YouTube. I hope the book is better than the lecture because I thought that it was insulting to Dr. Ross and did not explain how Young Earth Creation explains the scientific evidence and scripture. I don't agree with how Ross reconciles the two but I can see he is trying. Sarfarti accused him of compromising scripture in order to accept science. I disagree. Hugh Ross does not start from science and then inconsistently denies scripture. I have heard Ross say many many times that if something science says is true then scripture must not contradict it. I agree. Therefore when I run across a Bible/scientific contradiction then one of two things must be true: either my understanding of scripture is wrong or the science is wrong. I'd counsel care in determining which is which.
Sarfari's greatest argument I think is the idea that death could not have existed on earth before human sin. However arguing that plants don't die seems to me like a bad argument. I admit that I don't have an answer but I don't like Ross' answer either about soul-less hominids existing before Adam. What i would really like to see is a young earth argument for explaining all the science that dates the earth far more than 6000 years. I also think that the bible does not give us enough information to find the age of the earth. If God will not tell us when this world ends why would we think we can calculate when it began? Even if the earth was created in 6 twenty-four hour days, why would that week be 6000 years ago and not 6 billion years ago? There simply isn't enough data to call anyone to the carpet about. I also think its important to recognize God could have done it in any period of time He wanted - 6 seconds or 6 trillion years or anything He wanted. The question is what did He choose to do? I don't know. But to me science is about figuring out what He did.
Hey brother, what piece of evidence do you feel proves that the earth is older than 6,000 years? If you get a chance, please check out the RATE book, which is thousands of pages dispelling the modern dating methods and, more importantly, showing how the methods actually better support the young earth. "Thousands not billions" by DeYoung is the less technical version of the research if you want a more reader-friendly book. After researching the young-earth case from the scientific perspective, I feel that the evidence is far more in favor of the young-earth position.
Well one piece of evidence is looking at the oldest temple built by people being dated 11000 years old.http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2008/11/gobekli-tepe-worlds-oldest-temple.html I will be reading the material being suggested because the debates I've listened to don't go much into scientific evidence for a young earth. I really appreciate the materials you have suggested, Mike!
But how do they know its that old? What dating methods were used? Especially within secular archaeology, they use methods that even Hugh Ross wouldn't agree with as they completely disregard the Bible's historical records.
I agree that there aren't enough debates discussing the scientific aspects. I just try to look at both sides and come to my own conclusions. But for me, if i'm going to be convinced of anything on this issue, whether its evolution or the age of the earth; its going to be because of biblical exegesis and not what "science" has to say.
I agree that what the bible has to say is most important. The Bible is truth. however if science is true (and not all that is called "science" is true like Macro evolution is not proven true) then it must not be contradictory to the Bible. They both can be true, but the Bible is always true. Things like Classical Newtonian physics and thermodynamics and mathematics are true and in no way conflict with scripture. This is why i think that if there is a perceived conflict then either my understanding of scripture or science or both is suspect.
Just to add another two cents to your thoughts, i'd submit that if there are two contradictory viewpoints; one in "science" and the other in "Scripture," then 100 percent of the time, the science should always be the one that is modified. I just don't know of any other way to hold to the inspiration of Scripture and at the same time, use science to dictate what it says. I think it should always be the other way around.
I think am3ending my understanding of scripture is not a problem - not letting science drive scripture re-evaluation - but realizing that the Bible is do deep and and awesome that I don't understand all of it now is healthy I think. If Genesis is not saying that the universe was created in 7 twenty-four hour days then i really want to know that. I've had to amend my understanding of scripture many times as God has given me more knowledge. The Bible tells us the God created everything, what we are, who we we are, and now we can be reconciled back to God. Science is about understanding how God created everything.
Image via Wikipedia![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tjaFgyWxMDMbXodH31DBLjLX9yuWVRNMgJvOa1Z0sA6wDzf1HIPMyy8O1XRnKGZBbQ5V6dq61cg9YqLc7U3ZCKTZxtqsO6y8q2VJ30Qkdpbs4D3IlnV2cS9A9eus3rq5uF-3-5DRhRHevcxCr3N2U=s0-d)
Hey brother, what piece of evidence do you feel proves that the earth is older than 6,000 years? If you get a chance, please check out the RATE book, which is thousands of pages dispelling the modern dating methods and, more importantly, showing how the methods actually better support the young earth. "Thousands not billions" by DeYoung is the less technical version of the research if you want a more reader-friendly book. After researching the young-earth case from the scientific perspective, I feel that the evidence is far more in favor of the young-earth position.
ReplyDeleteWell one piece of evidence is looking at the oldest temple built by people being dated 11000 years old.http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2008/11/gobekli-tepe-worlds-oldest-temple.html I will be reading the material being suggested because the debates I've listened to don't go much into scientific evidence for a young earth. I really appreciate the materials you have suggested, Mike!
ReplyDeleteBut how do they know its that old? What dating methods were used? Especially within secular archaeology, they use methods that even Hugh Ross wouldn't agree with as they completely disregard the Bible's historical records.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there aren't enough debates discussing the scientific aspects. I just try to look at both sides and come to my own conclusions. But for me, if i'm going to be convinced of anything on this issue, whether its evolution or the age of the earth; its going to be because of biblical exegesis and not what "science" has to say.
I agree that what the bible has to say is most important. The Bible is truth. however if science is true (and not all that is called "science" is true like Macro evolution is not proven true) then it must not be contradictory to the Bible. They both can be true, but the Bible is always true. Things like Classical Newtonian physics and thermodynamics and mathematics are true and in no way conflict with scripture. This is why i think that if there is a perceived conflict then either my understanding of scripture or science or both is suspect.
ReplyDeleteJust to add another two cents to your thoughts, i'd submit that if there are two contradictory viewpoints; one in "science" and the other in "Scripture," then 100 percent of the time, the science should always be the one that is modified. I just don't know of any other way to hold to the inspiration of Scripture and at the same time, use science to dictate what it says. I think it should always be the other way around.
ReplyDeleteI think am3ending my understanding of scripture is not a problem - not letting science drive scripture re-evaluation - but realizing that the Bible is do deep and and awesome that I don't understand all of it now is healthy I think. If Genesis is not saying that the universe was created in 7 twenty-four hour days then i really want to know that. I've had to amend my understanding of scripture many times as God has given me more knowledge. The Bible tells us the God created everything, what we are, who we we are, and now we can be reconciled back to God. Science is about understanding how God created everything.
ReplyDelete