Scientific Discoveries that Point to the Creator

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown interviews Doctors Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and Jeff Zweernick, scientists at Reasons to Believe, as they discuss some amazing scientific discoveries that point to God the Creator. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at  (866) 348 7884  with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: You do not need to shut off your mind to believe in God.  You do not need to deny the scientific evidence.  No, look at the scientific evidence and fall on your knees in worship of the Creator!

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We don’t need to be afraid of science. We don’t need to be afraid of atheistic claims that if you knew science you wouldn’t believe in God.  To the contrary, the God of Scripture is the God of science, and the more you know science the more you worship the God of the Bible!

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

The 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2012 Mini-Book and Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire Interview with Reasons to Believe Scholars, both Resources for $12! Postage Paid!

Call  1-800-278-9978  or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Interviews Oxford Professor John Lennox and Takes Your Questions

Dr. Brown Interviews Scientist Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe); and Biblical Mistranslations and Misunderstandings

Dr. Brown Interviews Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana on Hidden Treasures in Job, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Creating Life in the Lab, and the Cell’s Design

529 Comments
  1. Jonathan,

    I did know Charles Hartshorne, father of open theism. In fact, he was the one who pointed out to me that the God of classic Christian theology is the God of the philosophers rather than the God of the Bible. But our mutual interest had to do with things then (in the seventies) taking place in quantum physics and relativity, and about C.S. Peirce, whose papers Hartshorne and Paul Weiss edited.

    Yes, I learned much about reasoning and logic from the greatest of the logicians. Peirce taught that logic was a branch of ethics.

    If I restate things in a more articulate form or if I draw the logical conclusions from premises, I am neither misrepresenting nor twisting words. I am just helping clarify your muddled thoughts.

  2. Philip,

    This is what the Word says, Genesis 2:17 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life”

    Did God curse the ground as a result of man’s sin but it was already cursed prior to man’s sin? This is not what the text says. What did you say earlier about reading between the lines?

    Notice that man was told in Genesis 1 ” I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth,”. He said this prior to the Fall. So are you imposing on the text that they were confined to the Garden prior to the Fall? If so, why? If not, why would they be experiencing the Curse before they sinned?

  3. You went around that question didn’t you? Are you yourself an open theist?

    And no, restating things in a manner that says something different than what the author said and claiming what that is what they say is extremely dishonest! I am dumbfounded that you think you have such liberties as to tell other people what they meant by what they said when it is in direct violation of what they said! That is simply amazing! I proved that what they said in context is not what you said they did and your Christian character (if you have any) is on the line. Will you retract your statements?

  4. Jonathan,

    I am a Scriptural theist. Remember, the distinction that I made between the Creator and his Father that so troubles a Oneness like yourself. It wasn’t just during his days on earth that Israel’s Heavenly King had to investigate matters reported to him.

  5. Philip,

    To balance your advertising of your book, I offer the following for the record:

    “I was extremely disappointed in this ebook. The amount of information thrown at you is mind boggling and a good majority of it was not needed. While I appreciate the amount of work the author put into this, I also came away feeling like the author was a little full of themselves. Very unfortunate. I did skim every chapter hoping that it became what I wanted it to be, but no dice. Author, if you’re reading this review, it’s not a personal attack. Sometimes less really IS more.”

    From: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11022813-archaeological-evidence

    “I assumed this was a Christian book that would address what the title leads us to believe. Not the case. I found it to be both anti-christian and Anti-bible. A real disappointment. I wish I had sampled it first”

    From: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ASZQM9CTOZJLD/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

    “First, let me say that the title of this book is a misnomer. The archaeological evidence of the Flood is really covered specifically in only a few chapters of this entire work. Mr. Williams presented a great deal of seemingly irrelevant material in order for the reader to understand his arguments…”

    From: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2QKT4SY29TPTX/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

    Shalom

  6. Philip,

    So what about this:

    You wrote:
    “…teaching about the word of God is serious business and those who do must be held to the highest accountability.

    That is why the Apostle Paul excluded women from this role. It is not seemly to rebuke a woman so harshly as say, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch.”

    Is that why? Where does the scripture say that? I think that this is another assumption and twisting leap instead of just reading what is said and accepting it.

    Here is what Paul said:

    1 Timothy 2
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    Shalom

  7. Philip,

    And what about this:

    If YHWH made a pair of each animal, how long would it take to fill the earth with animals? How long did it take until Adam fell? Adam had no offspring until after the fall…and I assume that he was doing his best to obey YHWH to be fruitful and multiply before the fall…so was it a long time or a short time? The curse also brought an increase in childbearing for women. Could that also be the case for the rest of creation that has been brought under the curse? Uniformitarianism is a fallacy. Do we know that rabbits always were this fertile?

    Ge 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Isn’t it interesting that fertility is a blessing and YHWH increased woman’s fertility after the fall. The earth was cursed. The Serpent was cursed. Mankind was blessed with more offspring…maybe because he would not have as much free time to just hang out with his wife since he would have to work more to produce food for his family 🙂

    Shalom

  8. Philip, I would like to know what your definition of a Scriptural theist is. You say, “It wasn’t just during his days on earth that Israel’s Heavenly King had to investigate matters reported to him.” So are you saying that the Son was not Omniscient prior to taking on human form and coming down to earth? If so, where in Scripture do you get this idea?

  9. Philip,

    I wrote:
    “To balance your advertising of your book, I offer the following for the record…”

    You wrote:
    “Bo,

    That’s your understanding of presenting “balanced” reviews?”

    No. Those are a few views to balance the one that you gave a link to and your plugs for your book.

    Once again you have twisted what I wrote to make it look like I said something that I did not say.

    You are not an artist or a scientist in your posts…you are a politician.

    Please answer posts 456 and 457.

    Shalom

  10. Jonathan,

    Have you never read the Scriptures?

    The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”

  11. Bo,

    First, do you think those reviews of my book were themselves balanced? Even the five star reviews have some complaint. But these reviews have nothing good to say.

    Secondly, do you think that searching out and presenting four negative reviews, the most negative reviews of my book balances my single reference to a review?

    I presented that review because I had just seen it and it was relevant to the points we were discussing.

    What was your motive for doing this?

  12. Philip,

    Who talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden and subsequently meted out punishment on them? Was it the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

  13. Jonathan,

    You should know that the Creator is fully God the Son.

    You should also know what the New Testament teaches with regard to theophanies. No one has ever seen the Father except through his revelation by the Son. It is impossible to see the one who lives in unsurpassable light. The theophanies in the Old Testament included the one who walked with Adam in the Garden had to be the Christ who would become Israel’s Heavenly King, appointed through his resurrection from the dead above all power and dominion in Heaven and Earth, his Father excluded.

  14. Philip,

    If you believe that the Son is fully God does that mean that you believe the Son has all of the attributes of God?

    In Genesis 3, do you believe God questioned Adam and Eve about what they had done because He genuinely did not know? Was God ignorant of their sin and what they had done? Did God truly have no idea where Adam went? Did He not know that the serpent had deceived them before it was communicated to Him? (Notice the Scripture itself does not say these were the reasons.)

    Or was it because He knew but wanted them to communicate with Him what had happened and He was revealing things to them by the questions(For example, to reveal to them consciously that they were guilty and that was why they were hiding.)I believe it to be the latter of the two.

    As for Abraham and the events of the destruction of Sodom:

    I believe it also to be like that day of judgment in the Garden of Eden. If we look at the passage, it never specifically says that God did not know beforehand about the wickedness of Sodom. Rather, I believe the account is God’s way of communicating with Abraham. Revealing to him that God is merciful. Showing to Abraham that God does not just zap people. That He goes to great lengths to show mercy to people. God shows that His judgment is not done lightly or on a whim and that it is not done without cause.

    You can notice that the company that comes to Abraham is three men. While the Lord says that He will confirm about the wickedness of Sodom, notice that the Lord stays behind with Abraham when the two men carry on to Sodom. There is no record in the following chapter that the Lord ever went to Sodom. It only speaks of the two men who are said to be angels.

    Now look what the two angels say in Genesis 19:12-13 “And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    Now it doesn’t say that these two men came back and reported to the Lord about the condition of Sodom does it? It doesn’t say that they went back and consulted with Him about whether or not Sodom would be destroyed, does it? These two angels knew that the city would be destroyed without having to report back to the Lord. It was already determined because the Lord already knew about it. This mission by the two angels was merely one of a clear demonstration and confirmation of what the Lord already knew and to rescue Lot and his family. That is all.

    A full understanding of the entire passage shows that the Lord indeed knew everything beforehand.

    The prophets often compare the false gods who know nothing with the one true God who knows all. If the Son is fully God, then it should be evident that the Son does know all.

    I think your doctrines sound dangerously similar to those of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    I urge you to rethink that.

  15. Philip,

    Also, I am happy that you are dealing with most of my recent questions (although you have never expounded on what a “Scriptural theist” is defined as).

    But I would agree with Bo that you are not answering the questions he has put forth a number of times.

    If you are refusing to answer, a statement to that effect would probably be in order.

  16. Jonathan, this is not the place to address your modalistic (Oneness) theology except to the extent that it causes you to misread Genesis. The subject here is old earth/young earth. Indeed, I am not going to reply to Bo’s lame attempts to justify himself. Aside from your helpful links to Creationists’ teachings, neither of you are introducing here anything new or interesting.

    Let’s return our focus to animal death before the Fall of Adam. Some in this thread have mentioned the various prophecies in Scripture that tell of the lion lying down with the lamb and the serpents not harming children, using these prophecies to justify the doctrine that the animals were vegans prior to Adam sinning.

    Creationists commit the error of not distinguishing the sacred from the profane. Bill Dembski has tried to point our how you ignore the biblical distinction between the Garden of Eden and the earth outside the Garden of Eden, as I also mention above. I also noted how that in doing this that you are returning to the Enlightenment view of the entire earth being the Garden of Eden, which led to modern naturalism. According to what you teach, the Garden of Eden was also cursed by Adam’s sin. That is not what the Scriptures teach.

    The prophecies that you use to justify no animal death before the Fall refer to God’s holy mountain, the place where God’ abides. That would be in his holy people. With regard to the harmless serpents, consider Mark 16.

    God in Heaven is seeking a dwelling on earth. Though he has made his presence and person known here, that wonderful era that he has promised for the earth has yet to appear. Thus, we all look forward to his Coming when he will be glorified in his holy people. No harm shall come to them.

  17. I wonder if God “walked with Adam in the garden”, by the Spirit. Could that be what is indicated by the term “cool” of the day? Was it by the spirit of that day (the way the holy Spirit worked at that time) that Adam walked with God?

    Could it be that the Spirit of God was described that way?

  18. Philip,

    The whole backbone of your alleged problem of animal overpopulation without sin, is based on a theory that God had no prior knowledge of man’s sin when He created. If God knew prior to man’s sin that man would, in fact, sin, then no backup plan for overpopulation would be necessary. Thus God would have needed to make no plan for overpopulation if He knew there was no possibility of it occurring.

    So the whole basis of your theoretical problem evaporates into thin air if God had foreknowledge of man’s sin when He created.

    My defense of the Son’s divine attributes has no dependence on my beliefs about oneness. Most trinitarians hold to the view that the Son shares the divine attributes. So your reference to my beliefs on oneness is merely a red herring because you don’t want to deal with my defense of the Son’s divine attributes and that He would, in fact, have had forknowledge of man’s sin when He created.

    It is interesting that you started this by imposing your unorthodox viewpoints that the Son had no prior knowledge of man’s sin and then want to change the subject once I give my analysis of what happened at Sodom.

  19. “Some in this thread have mentioned the various prophecies in Scripture that tell of the lion lying down with the lamb and the serpents not harming children, using these prophecies to justify the doctrine that the animals were vegans prior to Adam sinning.” Philip, that is only part of the reason. It does stand to reason that a creation unmarred by sin in the end will share similar characteristics to the creation unmarred by sin in the beginning. But it is clear from Genesis 1 that animals ate “every green herb for meat”. It is a supreme puzzle that you accept man to have not eaten meat prior to the Fall but deny that animals did when similar accounts were given for each.

    “Creationists commit the error of not distinguishing the sacred from the profane. Bill Dembski has tried to point our how you ignore the biblical distinction between the Garden of Eden and the earth outside the Garden of Eden, as I also mention above.”

    I don’t understand what you mean by the first sentence. The second sentence seems to imply you are saying the Garden of Eden was sacred while the rest of the “very good” earth that God created was profane. Is that what you are saying? I will note that we should not view William Dembski’s views as gospel since he also rejects a worldwide flood. But of course I do acknowledge there was a distinction. Yet I do not see how that distinction shows that God cursed the land prior to Adam sinning. It can be noted that I made this observation along with other points and questions in post # 452 which you have completely ignored.

    “I also noted how that in doing this that you are returning to the Enlightenment view of the entire earth being the Garden of Eden, which led to modern naturalism.”

    Again, no one has made any such claim. My claim is that the whole earth prior to man’s sin was unmarred by the effects of the curse of man’s sin. So yet again, you argue with strawmen.

    “According to what you teach, the Garden of Eden was also cursed by Adam’s sin. That is not what the Scriptures teach.”

    The Scripture does not specifically include or exclude the Garden of Eden from the Curse. Scripture does not indicate that man was barred from the Garden because the ground was not cursed, instead it is because of the Tree of Life. Romans 8:22 said ” the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain” so I would tend to think the Garden was not excluded. But regardless of whether it was included or excluded does nothing to effect the point that we should not expect to see the ground cursed and the creation groaning and travailing in pain as a result of man’s sin before man actually sinned. How do you have an effect before a cause?

    One last note is that Mark 16 is referring to a world marred by sin. It is not referring to a world unmarred by sin.

    It is not until there is again a world unmarred by sin that we will see “The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.”

  20. Philip,

    You wrote:
    ” Indeed, I am not going to reply to Bo’s lame attempts to justify himself. Aside from your helpful links to Creationists’ teachings, neither of you are introducing here anything new or interesting.”

    A reviewer of you book wrote:
    “While I appreciate the amount of work the author put into this, I also came away feeling like the author was a little full of themselves. Very unfortunate.”

    Hmmm?

    I think that you are just playing politician again and casting mud and diverting attention from your failed logic. What is it about the following that is me justifying myself?

    Post 456 says the following:

    “Philip,

    So what about this:

    You wrote:
    “…teaching about the word of God is serious business and those who do must be held to the highest accountability.

    That is why the Apostle Paul excluded women from this role. It is not seemly to rebuke a woman so harshly as say, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch.”

    Is that why? Where does the scripture say that? I think that this is another assumption and twisting leap instead of just reading what is said and accepting it.

    Here is what Paul said:

    1 Timothy 2
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

    Post 457 says the following:
    “Philip,

    And what about this:

    If YHWH made a pair of each animal, how long would it take to fill the earth with animals? How long did it take until Adam fell? Adam had no offspring until after the fall…and I assume that he was doing his best to obey YHWH to be fruitful and multiply before the fall…so was it a long time or a short time? The curse also brought an increase in childbearing for women. Could that also be the case for the rest of creation that has been brought under the curse? Uniformitarianism is a fallacy. Do we know that rabbits always were this fertile?

    Ge 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Isn’t it interesting that fertility is a blessing and YHWH increased woman’s fertility after the fall. The earth was cursed. The Serpent was cursed. Mankind was blessed with more offspring…maybe because he would not have as much free time to just hang out with his wife since he would have to work more to produce food for his family 🙂 ”

    Shalom

  21. Philip,

    Who is justifying himself? Who is ignoring crucial points? Who is putting words in other peoples mouths and twisting what the scripture straightforwardly says? Please answer post 473 and consider this posts questions as rhetorical.

    Shalom

  22. Brothers (and sisters),

    BTW, I love to hear the voices of our sisters liberated through the Spirit of Christ. I just returned from Turkey where I witnessed first hand the suppression of women, not by the government there but by their husbands, brothers, and fathers. I will never forget their sad faces.

    The problem in the church and world today is not the women but, as we see in some of the responses here, the lack of mature men. Many of them want to hide beneath the skirts of some or another orthodoxy, as political correctness was once known. As Ben Carson noted at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast, political correctness shuts down freedom of speech. But know the truth and the truth will make you free.

    Returning now to the matter of animals. I searched the Scriptures to discover God’s purpose in animals. I know that he did not make them in his own image. They were not made to possess eternal life. He made some of them for food — not just their flesh, but products like milk, cheese, and eggs. They also give other products such as wool, down feathers, and soap. Some are useful for pulling heavy loads. Others are useful for hunting.

    But one of the chief purposes of the animals mentioned in the Scriptures are for teaching man. That answered a question that I long pondered: what use are those animals that live in the jungle and are hardly useful for such purposes: say the monkeys and apes?

    Consider the various species of apes. Each species represent some or another version of degenerate man. Some get drunk and have big noses that look just like that of an drunk. Others are obsessed with sex. Some are just big apes or gorillas.

    We also have the peacocks.

    Many internet sites devoted to discussing origins are plagued if not altogether shut down by the ‘Squealer Monkeys.” These are individuals who challenge anything that might question Darwinian orthodoxy. My book notes the parallels between a certain kind of Darwinist and a certain type of Creationist. I have in mind those who want to shut down the voices of any who might question that orthodoxy.

    In the video that someone posted to this site, Ken Ham says he doesn’t like poodles. Neither do I. Can anyone tell us why God created poodles.

  23. Philip,

    You can quit your whining and bloviating. You are not a battered wife. No one is trying to shut down your voice. (In fact, we were hoping to here more of it to actually address questions that were asked of you.)

    So you can quit playing the martyr. We “evil” young earthers posting in this discussion are not the Taliban or even the Darwinian.

    We are simply hoping for dialogue in which our position is not unfairly made into a strawman or poisoned with some or another ad-hominem attack. Where we are dealt with in a manner that is not pompous and elitist. And where questions are dealt with honestly and reasonably. And where are responses are not demeaned as “lame” or dismissed out of hand because we are not young earth “leaders”. Where are views are not condescendingly dismissed as “muddled”.

    I am sorry you feel these hopes are so unreasonable. Maybe it is because we are so “immature”. I am scratching my head trying to figure out where your voice has been stifled. Clarity would be helpful.

    (To note: Many of these purposes you mention may be valid of a sin infected world. But many purposes you mention are devoid of any Scriptural reference prior to the Curse. So it would only be a uniformitarian assumption to conclude that some of these behaviors were present prior to a sin affected world. It would yet again be placing the effect before the cause.)

  24. Philip,

    You wrote:
    “The problem in the church and world today is not the women but, as we see in some of the responses here, the lack of mature men.”

    More political posturing and casting mud?

    You wrote:
    “Can anyone tell us why God created poodles.”

    He didn’t. He created the dog kind. Man selectively interbred them to come up with most all the breeds that we see today. I really do hope you already knew that.

    Will you please answer post 473?

    Shalom

  25. So man created them.

    Just as I thought.

    Not very effective guard dogs, but annoying and persistent, refusing to back off.

    Someone report that answer back to Ken Ham.

  26. Here are some quotes from William Dembski about the Garden of Eden that Philip DIDN’T include. (I wonder why?)

    “For the theodicy I am proposing to be compatible with evolution, God must not merely introduce existing human-like beings from outside the Garden. In addition, when they enter the Garden, God must transform their consciousness so that they become rational moral agents made in God’s image . . . (The End of Christianity, 159).

    Any evils humans experience outside the Garden before God breathes into them the breath of life would be experienced as natural evils in the same way that other animals experience them. The pain would be real, but it would not be experienced as divine justice in response to willful rebellion. Moreover, once God breathes the breath of life into them, we may assume that the first humans experienced an amnesia of their former animal life: Operating on a higher plane of consciousness once infused with the breath of life, they would transcend the lower plane of animal consciousness on which they had previously operated—though, after the Fall, they might be tempted to resort to that lower consciousness. (The End of Christianity, 154-155).”

    For more, see: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/07/19/which-southern-baptist-professor-proposesteaches-this/

    Interesting interpretations aren’t they? Philip jumped all over Josh for some of the people he cited on their interpretation of Genesis. But for some reason, Dembski gets a pass?

  27. Philip,

    An answer to post 473 would be considerate of you…but if it does damage to your position, we will understand the silence.

    Shalom.

  28. Is it just me or are Philip’s posts becoming more incoherent? What exactly is your quip about Ken Ham supposed to mean? Is there some sort of implication you are trying to make or is there some other reason for your cryptic words?

  29. Hey folks, I just checked in here tonight — I haven’t looked at the posts for some time — but everybody PLEASE moderate your tone and refrain from attacking one another or others. Otherwise, we’ll have to shut down the discussion. This may have been going on for some time, in which case I apologize for our failure to moderate this more carefully.

  30. Dr. Brown,

    I have tried to have a discussion free from personal attacks. I withdrew from the conversation at a point due to this. I referenced that on the Facebook page but since (at that point) you were encouraging people to post there, I thought it would be safe to return. I have made numerous attempts to return the conversation to dealing with issues instead of casting aspersions on people’s character and twisting what people say. I appealed to you in post #332 and also in the e-mail form for this website. I have continued in this discussion even without the tone being rectified because I saw others still paying attention to the conversation and felt that accuracy needed to be added where hyperbolic and completely slanderous claims about young earthers were made. I believe Philip felt that since he has been on your show and since you asked him to post a link to his book that he had your endorsement for free reign on personal attacks of young earthers. Because it was pretty much right after you asked for the link on his book that his tone changed.

    I hope the tone can be changed and I apologize if I was out of hand in any of my posts.

    I do encourage you to fully go over what was posted during this conversation before you would endorse any of Philips works though. I have not read his book but it seems from some of his posts referencing his book that similar tones are found within his book.

  31. To be honest, my theological differences were far greater with Josh Elsom than with Philip. And there might have been a few tense moments in my conversation with Josh due to those differences. But I never felt like I had a problem with Josh engaging in personal character attacks instead of simply engaging in our differences in beliefs. I only found that issue with one person.

  32. I just noticed this from post # 469 and wanted to clarify: “Jonathan, this is not the place to address your modalistic (Oneness) theology…”

    For the record, I can call myself “oneness” but I shy away from the “modalist” moniker because I reject the belief that God can only appear in one form or mode at a time. God obviously proved that at the time of Jesus’ baptism. Since God is omnipresent, He can appear in as many different ways at the same time as He pleases. So I also reject a belief that would define modes limited as being the Father in the Old Testament, the Son in Incarnation, and the Holy Spirit in the Church Age.

    But also do I reject the viewpoint that slices God up into “persons” which (especially the way Philip describes it) seems to be dangerously close to a belief in three distinct beings. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct ways that God can manifest to us but each of these distinct ways is fully God and are equal in the divine attributes. The Son is not some ignorant being that does not know what is going on in His creation. The Son of God is mighty and awesome and is well aware of what is going on in the hearts and thoughts of men as well as anything else that is taking place. There is nothing that takes Him by surprise.

    I just wanted to briefly clarify my position so there was no misunderstanding.

  33. As a last note, I have no problem continuing the discussion if people can “play nice” in the sandbox. If people will respect each other and not misrepresent or distort each other or use unethical debate fallacies; if people will talk about the ideas and interpretations rather than impugning the character of those who hold to them, then I am fine with continuing with a clean slate.

    If it is better to leave things the way they are, then on the one month anniversary of the start of the discussion may be as appropriate of a time as any to end the discussion.

    I do hope we can all come away from this discussion thinking about what others have said and not simply dismiss out of hand without thinking about it. If we are not teachable or willing to learn from others than our growth will be stunted.

    I am not afraid of those who have a different opinion than mine nor do a want to shut them down. If I feel that they are wrong, it is only through an exchange of ideas that this would be shown anyway. But I do hope that young earth creationism may have a more balanced showing from the program as time goes on. Dr. Sarfati was kind enough to enter the discussion a few times and bring clarity to where he had been unfairly attacked. It was much appreciated. I’m sorry he had the need to do so though.

    Also, Nicholas was a real bright spot in this conversation. He showed a lot of knowledge in a humble and gentle way. Maybe Dr. Brown might consider having him on the program one day?

    Well (if this is the end of the conversation) I wish you all God’s blessings and that we would all continue be more conformed to His image.

    God Bless

  34. @Dan1el, in case you didn’t see this before, I’ll repost it here for you. Here’s what some of the greatest classical Jewish commentators said about the topic:

    David Kimḥi,
    “The verse means that combining the periods described as “evening and morning” constitute a day… The reason why the Torah did not write,
    “the night came, the day came – one day”, which might seem clearer is because the word yom is a word which is applicable both to a single day and to a whole sequence of days such as thirty yom, and we could have become confused not knowing whether the Torah referred to the word yom as merely a single day, or as a period of days.”

    Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra,
    “One day refers to the movement of the sphere.”

    Rashbam,
    “The Torah did not write, “the night came, the day came,” but used the words evening and morning… the purpose of our verse… is to tell us how the six days were accounted for, which is that the morning completed the night, and which was the end of that day and the beginning of the second day.”

    Seforno, “evening preceded total night, and a period of dawn preceding bright sunlight, daylight.”

  35. Dan1el,

    One of the main reasons (given in the video you linked) that the literal creation account doesn’t make sense is due to the creation days before the sun.

    This aspect was discussed earlier in the conversation, but I don’t really see the problem with days before the sun. God created light on day 1. We know we don’t have to have sun to have light as there will be no sun in Heaven and yet it will be light. We don’t know what the light God created was. We really don’t need to. All we need to know is that there was a division of time created by God at the beginning of creation.

    The cycle from darkness to light to darkness again is a measurement of time. Each fully completed cycle (evening and morning) is a day. Once the sun was created on day 4, we would presume the days were 24 hrs, would we not?

    There is no reason to believe the fist days were any different than the days prior to that. Why would we think that a week was made up of unequal days? Wouldn’t it only be logical to believe they were all the same length?

    After the sun was created, it would be a logical assumption that it was a 24 hr day. So I see no reason to believe that all the days were not 24 hr days.

    We also have plants created on day 3. If the cycle from darkness to light was actually very long periods of time prior to the sun’s creation, how would the plants have survived a long period of darkness? There doesn’t seem to be any way to logically believe anything other than the days were 24 hrs or else chuck the whole first chapters as not being true.

    But if we do that, we then run into a problem of whether Adam is actually a real person. Since Adam is listed in numerous genealogies and Jesus and Paul speak of him as if he were literal, and sin and death entering the world is said to have come through Adam, I see it as an impossibility for Adam NOT to be literal.

    Yet, if Adam is a literal person whose recorded history is completely fake, how does that work?

    I think that’s the reason that the Jewish Virtual Library lists: “The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay.” (It would seem that David has listed quotes from several of them.)

    There of course, were exceptions to that. And now that opposing view has increased with the development of evolutionary theory. But I see no reason to not agree with the vast majority of classical rabbis. Furthermore, I actually see a lot of negatives theologically from parting with that view.

    Here is the Jewish virtual library article I mentioned: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html

    Here is a short article about days before the sun: http://creation.com/how-could-the-days-of-genesis-1-be-literal-if-the-sun-wasnt-created-until-the-fourth-day

  36. Thanks I just wanted to share that perspective with anyone who was interested.

    Suffice to say, there is some uncertainty and this causes some questions to be raised.

  37. Dan1el and anyone still following this discussion thread:

    I highly recommend that whether someone comes from an old earth or young earth perspective or even if they aren’t sure what their position is, that they watch the following 2 hr show that has both Hugh Ross and Ken Ham along with Ray Comfort, Dr. John A. Bloom, Sean McDowell, Eric Hovind . It is a great way to get both sides of the issue. I found it to be fascinating!

    http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Praise%20the%20Lord/ec/RjNW53NDodbPdWZMesby0hMNzxHCg2Kk

  38. I saw it.
    The highlights, for me, were:

    Hugh Ross:
    Remained very composed, and seemed to be more filled with hope that scientists could and would see God from studying creation and be saved.
    I would think more scientists are going to be saved through Hugh Ross than Ken Ham, because he seemed to extend a message of peace love and hope (and an attempt at harmonization of Biblical interpretation with science – even if, at the moment, it is imperfect) to them, instead of accusing them of being brutal “haters of God” (as Ken Ham did – based upon an incorrect/superficial reading of Romans).

    Ken Ham:
    Dinosaur fossil records indicate cancerous tumors present in dinos, thus they would have had to have been part of the creation after the fall and not before (though this does not necessarily prove YEC).

  39. Hugh Ross recognized the inner good of the scientists as humans; Ken Ham (because of a faulty reading of Romans) did not.
    What Ken Ham doesn’t see is that Romans 7 says men CAN desire to do good and delight in God’s Law, BUT the Law of Sin in their flesh stops them from being able to walk in accordance with it.
    Men can be like birds with broken wings (who want to fly, but cannot); not EVERY man is 100% depraved – in fact, Biblically-speaking, the term “depraved” is reserved for a specific type of man (“men of depraved minds”) and is not something that defines every human.

  40. It doesn’t help anyone come to faith that you revile them with such brutal and unsparing (and unspiritual and unbiblical) accusations.

  41. Dan1el,

    First, I think you and I might have to differing views on unregenerate man.

    Because I believe that Scripture teaches of unregenerate man that our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). It says that no one seeks after God (Romans 3:11). So when you talk about the “inner good” of non-believing scientists, I would ask what you mean by that?

    Do you remember near the beginning when Ray Comfort was speaking about creating an idol? Do you remember how he was talking about Richard Dawkins (a prominent evolutionist) and how he made his own idol of God that he distorted from the Scriptures and then threw away? Do you think it is only a coincidence that I can name off a ton of radically anti-God evolutionary scientists? Names such as Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Alfred Kinsey, Stephen Hawking, Julian Huxley, etc

    You see, part of the reason that drives some of the most prominent names that are pushing evolution is that they desperately want to live their lives by their own standards. They WANT to reject God because they don’t want to live by His rules.

    That is what Romans 1 is talking about. It says that creation clearly testifies about God. And we see that. We see the incredible complexity of the human body. We divide it down into cells we divide that down into the DNA structure. It is so amazing! It is unconceiveable that happened by chance. Yet they look at the human body and hold to that. We have example after example of that within the creation.

    Yet as Romans 1 notes, people will reject that and instead they exchange God’s glory (that He created) into saying that animals and humans just got there by themselves with no cause from a Creator.

    There is a movement called Intelligent Design that says there had to be a designer but they stop short of saying it was God.

    We can see the results that happen from that from one of the leaders of that movement, William Dembski. Look at post # 479 to see that.

    Now I’m not saying that no evolutionist can come to God through looking at nature. God can use anything to bring people to Himself. But I am saying, as a general rule, that is not what is going to bring them to God. We don’t see from Scripture that Jesus or Paul says to show them creation. That’s because Romans 1 says they can already see that. If they clearly see it and choose to reject it, it’s because there is a heart matter at issue.

    Verse 4 of Romans 7 gives the key to what is being talked about in that chapter. It is talking about the man that has already been regenerated; it is not talking about the unbeliever.

    As to your last comment, I am not reviling anyone. I’m sorry that you feel that I am.

    What I am saying is that we have to get to the root of the problem with unbelievers ,and in most cases it is not about the creation, it is about the God behind the creation that they do not want to accept. It is in a softening of the heart toward God that people will be changed. It is through surrender to Him.

  42. As far as the dinosaurs go, can you name me any old earth leaders that say that the dinosaur fossils we find are from after the Fall and not before?

    I am aware of zero that believe this.

    So I don’t see how Ken Ham’s point does not remain.

    Either you take an old earth view that teaches that God specifically intended for millions of years of painful torturous death to His creatures before the Fall happened. That all of the pain and suffering of the creation was God’s intent from the beginning.

    Or you take the young earth view that all death, pain, suffering and destruction were not God’s intent for His creation. That is was the tragic results of man’s sin.

    Which view do you believe, Dan1el?

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*