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:
Jonathan,
Those are good questions. Here is something, apart from my book, that I have written on the subject of the animals fitting on the Ark:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs083/1105083502346/archive/1107314617250.html
Indeed, just as do people, geographical isolation of populations increase genetic distance making for different appearances as well as traits. So we see many different kinds of cattle, but release them into the wild and let them interbreed, and they will become longhorns like their original parents. When isolated populations mix, the genetic clock goes into reverse.
However much selective breeding and geographical isolation change the animals, as the example of the cattle demonstrates, the kinds of animals that God created still breed after their own kind.
Now, on my recent trip to Turkey, I delivered a scientific package to assist our climbers in the proper collection of hair, feather, and other organic remains, which we hope will help address some of these issues.
Philip,
Yes we can stop discussing our off topic subjects when you stop responding.
As you know, the priests sometimes profane the Sabbath by offering the sacrifices that were commanded them by the creator of the Sabbath and their priesthood. Yes we sometimes may profane the Sabbath by pulling an ox out of the ditch. Of course if we would keep our fences in good repair and cover our pits, we would not have need to pull them out on Sabbath.
Messiah did nothing contrary to the Sabbath. There is no commandment against healing on the Sabbath. There is no commandment against popping some grain into ones mouth on Sabbath. If Messiah broke the Sabbath he was a sinner in need of a savior and he would be disqualified to be our savior.
He did not neglect to keep his fences in good repair so His oxen didn’t get out on Sabbath. He did not leave any pit that He had dug uncovered so that an ox would fall into it. You should find this to be true on the physical and the symbolic and the idiomatic level.
To take your argument about Him being the lord of the Sabbath to its logical conclusion, we could also say that he was lord over people and thus could commit adultery with impunity because he does not have to follow laws made for mankind. Your logic would allow him to steal and murder and dishonor his mother too.
His statement about being lord of the Sabbath is in reference to the religious leaders added rules that they accused Him of breaking. They do not get to decide what Sabbath breaking is…He does and He has and you can read it in His word. His disciples did not break Sabbath by plucking and eating a little grain, though the Pharisees had ruled that this amounted to harvesting and bearing a burden on Sabbath. Messiah set the Pharisees straight and thus proclaimed their rulings to be wrong just as He showed other times that their rulings were making the commandments of YHWH of none effect and causing their worship to become vain. When we declare keeping the Sabbath to be optional or void we are doing the same thing that the Pharisees did…and our worship becomes vain.
Shalom
Philip,
I rest my case if you do not continue the conversation.
Shalom
Brother Bo, sorry for the delay, but I needed some rest. 🙂
But thanks to God, my evening of sweet rest was not a burdensome requirement of some law because Christ has set me free from that.
I am surprised that you suggest that were it not for the Law, that the Lord might steal, murder, and commit adultery. Have you not read that the Lord is righteousness? If we subject ourselves to him, he is our righteousness as well. The Apostle Paul was not introducing anything new in this regard. Have you never read the prophets?
Returning to our subject of Genesis 1, do you suppose there is or was ever some law to which God is subject? That is to make God less than God. It is to place law above God. You can then judge God, which is just what Satan would love us do. Consider what he did from the beginning. Our world today under this spirit who is posing as an angel of light is ever more judging even God.
In any case, the Lord gave the Law to man, and for man. It was never intended for himself. Why would a righteous God need to become subject to some law, even a good law meant to restrain evil among the wicked?
I pray that you come to know the truth about this. The truth will set you free.
Philip,
You wrote:
“I am surprised that you suggest that were it not for the Law, that the Lord might steal, murder, and commit adultery.”
You are putting words in my mouth. I think that you need to read my post more carefully. I did not suggest that YHWH would commit adultery or that He needs a law to keep. I was showing the end result of your logic about Messiah breaking the Sabbath. There is nothing in your logic that would preclude Him stealing or committing adultery. You think that He, as a man, was above law. I think the opposite. He came to earth as a man and subjected himself to the laws made for man. The law reveals to us YHWH’s character.
Too bad that you think that YHWH asking us to remember His Sabbath and keep it holy is bondage. Too bad that you think that you have been set free from YHWH’s perfect law of liberty. Breaking the Sabbath is sin. Sin is bondage. Too bad that you think that keeping YHWH’s Sabbath commandment is grievous.
1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
The truth sets us free to obey not to sin. Transgression of YHWH’s law is sin and that is bondage.
John 8
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Too bad you do not accept the context of the passage you quoted.
Shalom
Philip,
I am beginning to get the idea that you are an artist and not a scientist. The way you paint the first chapter of Genesis, Young Earth Creationists, History, Jonathan’s words, my words and Messiah’s words is the work of an artist communicating his feelings and not of one with an eye for detail and accuracy. Your conclusions contain impossible leaps of logic and assumptions at least as much as they contain the facts.
An artist has every right to critique a scientists paintings but not his logical estimation of what the facts point to. Scientific peer review must be done by scientists. Artistic peer review must be done by artists. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you must work to eliminate rhetoric and manipulation of the facts.
I do not say this as an insult or to stigmatize you or your view, but so that you can become a better communicator in this area. I am all for artistic writing styles as long as they do not do damage to the truth.
Shalom
Philip,
Regarding Malachi 2:10,
I challenge you to look up how many times God or the prophets of God talk to the children of Israel and use the phrase “your fathers” (plural). Whenever they speak specifically of Abraham as being their father, they don’t ever say that he is their only father. Yet look at these three verses as examples of many many more found throughout Scripture where it speaks of fathers (plural) :
Exodus 3:15,16 ” And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt.”
Numbers 33:54 “And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.”
Deuteronomy 1:8 “Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.”
So in Malachi 2:10 where it specifically limits it to only one father. That could only mean the Heavenly Father. You can correct me if I am wrong. But I cannot find a single other place in Scripture where both the words “one” and “father” are used together where they are not referencing the Heavenly Father.
For example compare this verse with the following verses:
Malachi 2:10 “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?”
John 8:41 “Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”
1 Corinthians 8:6 “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
Ephesians 4:6 “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”
“As to taking seriously what the Apostles wrote, in the context of what we are discussing, I mean their teaching that Jesus Christ is the Creator.”
I do take that seriously. I think we both were misunderstanding each other. Just as I thought you were saying that the Son created but the Father did not. You thought I was saying that Jesus is not the Creator. I did not say that. I hope we are both on the same page now.
“Your last paragraph in 386 makes it appear that you believe that perhaps natural selection is capable of creating, as the Darwinists claim, and not only creating, like God does, but creating new kinds of animals.”
No. Not at all. Here are my last two paragraphs of that post:
“So for instance, a dog kind could have been created in the creation week from which variations within the dog kind produced wolves, dingoes, coyotes etc. A primate kind could have been created in the creation week from which variations with the primate kind produced apes, lemurs, monkeys, etc. But there would have been no new created kinds after the creation week. There would have only been variation within kinds. The created kinds would have been fixed and no mixing between the created kinds and no new created kinds would have happened after the creation week.
This is consistent with the Scriptures unless you force the meaning of “kind” to be synonymous with “species”. If you want to force that, my question would be why should we see it that way?”
I believe I am saying much the same thing that you are in post # 401. The difference is that I feel that a created kind which was created in the beginning is a wider category than you think of when you refer to examples such as the breeding of cattle you are referring to.
I believe, due to the Fall, that genetic information in animals started to deteriorate. Animals that used to be able to mate with each other lost that ability due to a loss in genetic information.
(See the quote from the Answers in Genesis article I quoted in post # 389.)
“Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?
Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!
Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.
Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.”
(Also see this quote from post # 367.)
“There are several reasons why hybrid data may be lacking between individuals within the same baramin. First, it is relatively difficult to gather good hybrid data in the wild, and often the opportunity for hybridization is lacking when animals live in different parts of the world. As a result, hybrid data is more complete for animals that are domesticated or held in captivity (for example, in zoos).
Second, as described earlier with sheep and goats, even for animals that have produced hybrids, many attempts may be unsuccessful. This may be the result of genetic changes (mutations) that have accumulated in one or both species since the Fall, that causes a loss of ability to interbreed. Finally, if an animal is only known from the fossil record there is no opportunity for it to hybridize with animals alive today.”
Philip,
Thank you for the response in post # 401 and the link you provided.
Unfortunately neither one defined the exact number of “kinds” you believe were on the Ark and how you came to that particular number.
Some of you may wonder what this discussion has to do with young earth/old earth Creationism. A great deal. As the eminent historian of science Ronald Numbers points out and as this very discussion demonstrates: the survival and especially the revival of young earth Creationism is owing to Neo-Judaizing: a revival of the ancient Judaizing heresy. That isn’t a reference to one’s freedom to keep the Sabbath in whatever way accords with his conscience, but in regarding Sabbatarianism as essential to obedience to God if not for salvation itself. Some go so far as to call those who are not Sabbatarians or who do not believe in 24-hour Creation days as “compromisers” or even sinners. Please, despite Bo’s words, I don’t think that anyone here is doing the latter. I trust this is just a frank discussion of beliefs.
Brother Bo, my earliest years was in practical science and philosophy. The only merit in the latter is, hopefully, some training in proper reasoning and the ability to recognize vain philosophy when one sees it. Most of what now goes under the name theology is but philosophy. When Paul mentions ‘vain philosophy,’ he would have had in mind what today goes by the name theology. Nowadays, I wear a lot of hats: historian, scholar, and writer, but an “artist”? OK. Practical science was formerly called art. Good writing is also an art. But fine discrimination is the essence of good art, good scholarship, and good writing. Today, as formerly, God’s priests are to be discriminating.
I have long years in learning to carefully read and reason. It is fine for you to clarify your words, but I was indeed following the logic of what you wrote above.
You don’t agree with what Second Temple Jews regarded as Sabbath keeping. Precisely what is expected of proper Sabbath keeping? If you see that in Scripture, why do you Sabbatarians not agree? Give us the rules for proper Sabbath keeping.
I should be a little more discriminating regarding the Neo-Judaizing heresy. It is somewhat different from the ancient version. Some of you seem to be referring to a pre-Mosaic Law from which Christ’s atonement did not release us. Tell us how you know about that. Was that part of a so-called ‘oral Torah’?
Philip,
It is a supreme lack of logic to say that since one poster on this page is a young earth creationist and is also a Sabbatarian that it proves that the young earth movement in general is such.
Provide me with links of any leaders currently in the young earth creation movement who are. I am not talking about Seventh Day Adventists. I am talking about current leaders.
So to say at present day that the Young Earth creationists are inexorably linked with Sabbatarianism would be incorrect.
Ken Ham for example, says that he came into it because of his firm belief that death and suffering were not present before the Fall. He did not become one of the foremost voices for young earth creationism as the result of Sabbatarian beliefs.
They are definitely linked for Bo. I understand that. But to extrapolate that to it being linked in general of young earth creationists would be completely wrong.
My book Refuting Compromise thoroughly refutes the claims of that apostate ex-SDA Ron Numbers with his own axe to grind. He totally ignores that the young-earth and global-flood view were the traditional view of the church, long before Ellen White existed. He is also ignorant of the Scriptural Geologists in the early 19th century that defended these biblical doctrines, again long before Ellen White. All she did was restate the long-held traditional view of the church. I myself came to YEC long before I had read anything of hers, or even heard of George McCready Price. It is high time that detractors of YEC stopped using that old canard. There is no excuse for this dishonesty.
I see also that Philip falsely accused me of denying that God supernaturally confused the languages at Babel. It’s Ross who goes too far—he claims that God introduced racial characteristics at Babel.
@Sarfati
Hear, hear.
Jonathan,
I realize that the YEC movement has broadened to include not only evangelical Christians, but Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. I think it is particularly attractive to any tradition where there is strong legalism.
YEC leaders don’t like to let their disciples know to whom they are indebted. Much of the current leadership comes from down under. That needs more research. Numbers traces some of that to Carl Wieland’s promotion of Whitcomb and Morris’ ‘Genesis Flood.’ I believe that Ken Ham is indebted to all of these. Thus, all are much indebted to Price and Ellen G. White.
So Ken Ham was much concerned about death and suffering before the Fall. So was Ellen G. White. Due to that, her disciples Kellogg and Post created for us a meatless breakfast.
Animal suffering was also a concern of Darwin who saw Nature red in tooth and claw, the way he argued against God’s design and for natural selection. Some attracted to YEC may have been trying to answer Darwin and found YEC teachings an answer.
The other source of big source for vegetarian beliefs comes from the Eastern religions. Whether due to Darwin or the Eastern religions, what is most troubling is the leveling of human death closer to that of the animals. We see our world going in that direction. We shouldn’t be surprised at the growing popularity of a theology that tries to align the Bible with the same concerns.
Philip,
Either you acknowledge that both Ken Ham and Dr. Sarfati specifically stated they never heard of Ellen White and George Price and that young earth views completely predates those individuals or you don’t.
Young earth creationism predates Seventh Day Adventism and it predates Darwin. So if anyone borrowed from another, it was Seventh Day Adventism. Not the other way around. You can either acknowledge this fact or be intellectually dishonest.
By the way, Philip, if you are picking up the degrees of separation specious arguments that you took up earlier in the conversation, I will pick up the challenges I made to you earlier that remain unanswered. Would you care to answer them now?
Philip,
Your specious, intellectually dishonest reasoning concludes that young earth creationists believe in no death before sin and Seventh day Adventists believe in no death before sin.
Seventh Day Adventists believe in not eating meat therefore young earth creationists believe in not eating meat.
That is extremely dishonest linkage. You even attempt to link Darwin who came to directly opposite conclusions.
How can you be so dishonest?
Wonderful!
Perhaps Dr. Sarfati (who I regard as the chief thinker in the YEC movement today) will share with us his religious roots. Surely, they aren’t those of that “apostate” Ron Numbers?
And tell us: you don’t believe the scattering from Babel had any effect on the different appearances of humans? (If you read my comments more closely, I suggested that you might just need to clarify what you really believe about Babel.)
Philip,
Whether being intentionally dishonest or just through shoddy logic, you link Eastern religions who view animal death and suffering as something equal to human death with young earth creationsim.
Young earth creationism does not ever state that you should be a vegetarian or not hunt animals or anything like that. They also do not equate human death with animal death. If you disagree, please cite where they specifically do.
Young earth creationists believe that a good God would not intentionally design his creation to suffer because that would be an intentional cause of pain instead of as a tragic result of man’s sin. Scripture teaches that death was the result of sin. So we believe man is to blame for suffering; both human and animal. That God did not design it that way from the beginning. If God would have specifically designed His creation to suffer and be in pain for no reason, that would not be a loving God.
But that belief is in no way comparable to Eastern religions. It is completely and utterly fallacious to link that with Eastern religions. So my question is whether you are linking them together by shoddiness or because you are being intentionally dishonest.
Philip, if you read your comment earlier about cattle and reflect on what that would mean with the human population, you would have your answer. It was a limiting of the gene pool. When that occurred, distinct differences in features of particular separated people groups resulted. God dispersed people by mixing their languages. That is what the Scripture says. We can see even today how that results. If there a few generations where couples coming from different people groups have children today, you then see a mixing of the features in their children. So the differing features are just the result of a more limited gene pool. If Dr. Sarfati wants to further clarify, he is welcome. But that is how I see it.
“Jonathan” = “Dr. Jonathan Sarfati”?
To clarify, Daniel. I didn’t put my last name when I registered. My name is Jonathan Stevenson. I’m not the same person as Dr. Sarfati.
Philip evidently can’t deal with the arguments, so still persists with his guilt-by-association and genetic fallacies.
No death (of nephesh chayyah) before the Fall was a concern of Basil, Luther, and Wesley too. All this is documented in Refuting Compromise. So big whoop about Ellen White sharing this concern. Here’s a novel idea: maybe this concern had a common cause—the biblical teaching! So do you care to deal with the evidence or persist with logically fallacious and facutally incorrect arguments?
Oh, do deny Numbers’ own words that he totally abandoned SDA beliefs of his childhood and became an agnostic. Do you even know what “apostate” meants, given your scare quotes?
I have long taught that the racial differences were the effect of the Babel dispersion not the cause as Ross believes.
@Daniel: no, I am not the one who signs himself just “Jonathan”.
I’m amazed at the complexity of the creation. There’s so much to be learned. It’s amazing the work that God has done.
And in learning about it while interacting with others who do the same, do we learn more about the creation or ourselves?
I think I would rather be one that through the creation, would learn more about myself than it, for in so doing, I think I would be learning about God.
Dr. Sarfati, for reference, Philip and I have already discussed Ronald Numbers previously in the conversation. Philip already knew that Numbers is an agnostic per my comments in post #145. So I’m not sure what the quote marks were all about either.
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati,
I have been looking through your book, “Refuting Compromise” for your refutation of Ron Numbers as noted in your last post. I fail to discover where you even mention this notable historian of science.
I do not deny that, at least since the time of Ussher, theologians have been teaching a young earth. What you fail to acknowledge is:
1. The issue of the duration of the days of Genesis was hardly the issue over much of church history. That question arose due to Isaac Newton’s answers to Bishop Thomas Burnet as to how Genesis might be explained according to Newton’s new laws of mechanics.
2. As I pointed out to Terry Mortenson, the chief controversy concerning Christians during most of the Christian error was establishing the fact against the Aristotelians that the earth had in fact been created.
3. Deists such as the infamous Voltaire had no problem with a 6000 year earth, but they didn’t like Scriptural Geology.
4. Martin Rudwick, currently the most eminent historian of geology, shows how it was Scriptural historians that established against the Aristotelians and Deists the fact that the earth indeed had an ancient geological history. It was due to their studying the earth in the light of Scripture that resulted in Progressive Creationism and changing most Christians to the fact of an old earth. As you know, many Christians, especially Dispensationalists taught the gap theory.
5. Some of the Scriptural Geologists you mention are among the last Scriptural Geologist that contended for a young earth chiefly on empirical grounds. By the early twentieth centuries the majority of conservative Christians taught an old earth.
6. The revival of Young Earth Creationism over my lifetime due to Whitcomb and Morris’s “Genesis Flood” do indeed depend on the work of Ellen G. White’s disciple George McGready Price. If you have refuted Number’s history on that, please share with us where you have published it.
7. The influence of Ellen G. White on the current version of young earth teachings is revealed by the attention that you give to 24-hour days and the denial of animal death before Adam’s Fall. Unlike the Scriptural Geologists, you spurn empirical evidence in favor of your dogma of 24-hour Creation days.
As I note in my book, disagreement over the duration of Creation days is an odd thing to call “compromise” – unless you are an Adventist or Sabbatarian.
Again, I would like to know whether you regard disagreement with 24-hour Creation days as compromise.
Otherwise, I look forward to you along with many Adventists, Sabbatarians, and teachers of a young earth — regardless our disagreement over non-essentials — joining me in making common cause against the evolutionists and others who deny the historical truth of the early chapters of Genesis.
Philip,
You were addressing Dr. Sarfati, not me. So I’ll let him respond.
But I just want to point out about your point # 7 that Dr. Sarfati already gave sufficient information on that point in his hyperlink entitled “nephesh chayyah”. It is pointed out in the article that those such as Basil the Great, John Calvin and John Wesley held to all animals being vegetarian prior to the Fall.
Dr. Sarfati also shows in his book the church fathers who held to a 24 hr creation day.
Neither of those ideas originated with Ellen White in the least. They originated with Scripture. She just happened to agree with Scripture on those points.
I also want to address what you said here: “Unlike the Scriptural Geologists, you spurn empirical evidence in favor of your dogma of 24-hour Creation days.” Shall we go back to your unethical summation of George Young who believed in a young earth? (Which you have never apologized for. I’m still waiting for that apology for the deceptive summary of George Young you gave earlier.) Why do you unethically charge young earth creationists with spurning evidence? Can your bluster give way to accuracy?
Correction: Christian “error” above was not intended as a pun. I meant to write Christian “era.”
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and others who make a study of the history of interpretation of the duration of the days of Genesis:
Augustine interpreted the Creation days as instantaneous so as to interpret Genesis in accordance with his Neoplatonist philosophy. Luther’s famous “calling a spade a spade” remark concerned the teaching of the founder of his order. His remarks were made against teaching the Creation days of even shorter duration than 24-hours. Thus, by insisting on “calling a spade, a spade” Luther was not attacking old-earth Creationism, which did not exist in Luther’s day.
Due to not understanding the issues of Luther’s day, some conservative Lutherans were drawn to Price’s Young Earth teaching prior to Whitcomb and Morris.
Philip,
Since Luther also said, “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.” I think it’s safe to assume he would be in disagreement with old-earth Creationism. Wouldn’t you?
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati,
Whoever taught it over the course of church history, it is time to address this strange doctrine of no animal death before the sin of Adam. Who better to defend this, even to explain this, than yourself?
Now, how is it that you suppose the Lord designed his Creation in such a manner as you propose. Before the Fall, he commands his Creatures to be fruitful, to multiply, and fill the earth.
My first question: How long before the rabbits overrun the Garden of Eden? Australians ought to understand that problem.
Hmmm
Philip, it seems your content to bounce around posting things with errors in them and not addressing them when they are pointed out to you.
Well I guess, just keep bouncing around haphazardly with your posts then…
In regards to your last post, it’s obviously a theoretical that wasn’t addressed by Scripture as to what the mechanism would have been to deal with such a problem if/when it actually became a problem.
Since we are likely speaking of a fairly short time between the creation week and the Fall, these theoretical problems would have never had a chance to manifest though.
Since God already knew that Adam and Eve were going to sin and bring death into the world, no preparation for such a theoretical situation that was not going to happen would have needed to be addressed by God.
It is possible, since the instruction was to fill the earth, that after that point reproduction would have ceased. But such theoreticals are of no value because it didn’t happen and God knew from the beginning that it would not.
What we do know about the issue of death and the fall is found in Scripture. And Dr. Sarfati’s article contained in the hyperlink of his post entitled “nephesh chayyah” beautifully lays that out.
Shhhh, Jonathan,
Everyone is awaiting Dr. Sarfati’s thoughtful reply.
Philip,
Maybe you are not an artist. Putting words into other peoples mouths and making assertions that have been proven to be incorrect and using logical fallacies is not art. It is deception and self deception.
Shalom
@Sarfati
Have you heard the theory that time “stretches” together with the heavens (as God “stretched” them) – that the first day was 8bn “years” 2nd day was 4bn, 3rd was 2bn, 4th was 1bn, 5th was 1/2bn, 6th was 1/4bn 7th was 1/8bn (which would make the Universe 15-16bn years old – precisely the age which it is presumed)? I don’t remember the specific details, but I’m hoping you will recognize the argument and respond confirming it or debunking it. What do you think of it (assuming you recognize it)?
Bo,
I have no special writing skills. The key to being able to articulate a matter well is becoming informed, then acquiring a deep understanding of the subject. To do both, one must sympathetically read those with different, even opposing views.
Unlike most of you, I have read the creators of Young Earth Creationism: Ellen G. White, George McGready Price, Henry Morris, Carl Wieland, even Jonathan Sarfati though I did not include Sarfati’s book in the more than one thousand sources that I list in my topical bibliography. Oh yes, I also read some of the Scriptural geologists as well as those responsible for the uniformitarian view of geology.
When I began my study of Creationism, I was not opposed to the view. Why should I be opposed to something that I do not understand? May I ask those of you who question my motives and challenge my statements whether you have even read my book? Consider this review of my book that was today placed on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R36I32FTV1TMAM/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0080NIG3W&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
My chief concern about Creationism is the damage it does to those who see the fanciful nature of this science but accept its claims about what the Bible teaches.
But the Creationists do not have the best understanding of the worldwide Flood, especially the history recorded in the Bible prior to and just after the Flood. That is why my work appeals even to skeptics and unbelievers. It removes barriers that have caused them to reject the Bible and Jesus. Some of them will humble themselves and open their hearts and minds to Jesus. Is that something to which you are opposed?
Philip,
Quite frankly, after I have seen the haphazard, inaccurate, logical fallacy filled, blustery posts you have made here, I don’t have any confidence whatsoever in whatever would appear in your book.
You don’t even have the decency to retract intentionally misleading statements when they are challenged.
I do find it amusing that you accused Ken Ham of always trying to sell something and yet you keep plugging your books in the comments.
Yes, I already know you will say that Dr. Brown asked you to provide the link. I acknowledge that. But you have been plugging your book quite a few more times than that initial post. Do you know that through the course of this conversation, you have used the words “my book” a total of 40 times?
Frankly, it doesn’t bother me that you do plug your book either. If I wrote a book on the subject that I thought would be helpful, I would probably be plugging it too.
I just find it supremely ironic after your accusatory tone toward Ken Ham earlier in the conversation.
It’s that accusatory tone that has been shown throughout where you shoot of accusations without even researching what you are talking about. Your claim that he denied that God intervened supernaturally at Babel without even researching it to find out if it was true was one such example.
If you put these accusations out on this blog with no research, what would I expect about the level of research you put into things said in your book? Going off half-cocked numerous times in this blog is not the way to win confidence.
Also, for someone who has claimed to have done such extensive research on creationists and their beliefs, the amount of things you seem to have no understanding on that young earth creationists actually do believe is astounding. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of young earth creationism should readily be able to understand the reasoning behind believing there was no death of man and animals before the Fall or exactly what is believed about the created kinds or what is believed about the tower of Babel regardless of whether they are in agreement. Either you were truly ignorant of this information prior to this conversation or you were intentionally twisting what we believe. Either way, for someone who claims to have done so much research on the subject, it is not a good sign.
Jonathan,
I do understand why YEC teach no animal death prior to the Fall. That allows them to claim that all fossils of dead animals along with coal, oil, and gas were the result of Noah’s Flood. And the reason for the latter is to eliminate so much evidence for an ancient earth, making way for their teaching a young earth and 24-hour Creation days.
Since you know YEC views sufficiently to speak for them here so quickly and so often, surely you can point to where they have published answers to the very obvious problem with their theory due to God having commanded the animals to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the earth. Surely that exists because these experts on Genesis must have long ago seen the problem.
I am not particularly interested in your answer but in one that Creationist leaders are unembarrassed to endorse and publish.
Philip,
Your last comment is more of the same of exactly WHY I see no reason to read your book. You have stated the direct opposite of what both Dr. Sarfati and Ken Ham have stated. They don’t hold to no animal death prior to the Fall so that none of the fossils will have been from before the Fall. Rather, they hold to no fossils from before the Fall because they believe in no animal death before the Fall. Ken Ham clearly explained in his video why he see no animal death before the Fall as taught in Scripture. Dr. Sarfati has communicated the same in his links. The fact that you will intentionally turn it completely backward is just another evidence of why I DON’T need to get your book. You’re intentional twisting is, quite frankly, pathetic.
As to your question, I already answered it. What did you find unacceptable with the answer?
I will give you a link. I did not get my answer from this link. I had not read the link before I answered you. I came up with my answer on my own. But you can note that the answer given in the article is essentially the same as the answer I gave. That’s because it’s just basic logic from looking at what Scripture said.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/11/satan-the-fall-good-evil-overpopulation
It seems rather elitist that you dismissed my answer out of hand and only wanted it from a Creationist leader, but there you go.
After looking around a little further, I also find that the question you asked of Dr. Sarfati was not the first time he was asked that question. The following question was asked of Dr. Sarfati by a progressive creationist, followed by Sarfati’s reply:
How could you grow a garden with rabbits and insects multiplying rapidly with no predators to keep them in check?
The purpose of reproduction was to ‘fill the earth’. We cannot presume to know what God would have done once this purpose had been fulfilled, but it’s likely that the command would have been rescinded. Actually, even in this fallen world, there are mechanisms to slow down reproduction in an overcrowded population. This has been observed in rats, for example. It comes down to what sort of God you believe in. The God who prevented the Israelites’ clothes and sandals from wearing out for 40 years in the wilderness (Deut. 29:5) could certainly have controlled overpopulation problems.
Taken from: http://creation.com/answering-some-hugh-ross-supporters
I’m thinking we really don’t know as much as we think about how fossils are formed, how much time is really involved.
I was watching TV News about how a sink hole was about to swallow an entire house. It already took a man who was living there and he could not be rescued.
One said that these sink holes take many many years to form, (thousands? I don’t remember) and another man was doing testing of the soil at the nearby houses.
The news person said that the soil test was only good for about how long the test took, for it seemed that these things can happen so quickly.
They talked about how a certain kind of stone (Limestone?) disolves over time by groundwater, gets washed away and leaves a void underground.
So, do sink holes take thousands of years, or can they happen much more quickly? I don’t know.
Jonathan,
Thank you for getting all these Answers in Genesis. I now understand the problem. I had supposed they meant they were experts in the Genesis text. Turns out, I had a too-narrow view, or rather version. What they mean by Answers in Genesis includes reading between the lines, plus notes and commentary in the margins. I’m waiting on the [Ken] Ham Reference Bible.
That’s fascinating. From my reading, I had never supposed the Lord creating the animals in flocks: male flock, female flock, created he them. Or maybe he means the males and females were mixed in the same created flock.
I am no expert in the Hebrew text so I can’t judge whether,
“Be fruitful and multiply ‘until’ you fill the earth,” [then become barren] is a proper way to translate the Hebrew.
I haven’t seen anyone translate it that way, but I haven’t check The Message and The New World Translation.
Wasn’t barrenness seen as a curse?
Dr. Brown is not just a Hebrew scholar, but also a Semitic scholar. Perhaps, he will let us know whether
“be fruitful and multiply ‘until’ you fill the earth” is an acceptable translation.
I would never trust my own translation of a passage bearing on a point that I am making, the same reason, I don’t mark in my Bible or read versions with commentaries.
What say the rest of you Hebraists?
Philip,
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 🙂
Romans 2
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Did you ever answer if there were thorns and thistles before the fall?
Shalom
On Sarfati’s answer about God “rescinding” his Creation command.
(and doing so though man had not yet sinned to mess up the good Creation)
Here is where we read the Bible differently. Ross and I see the Lord completing the Creation after six days. That’s right: completed.
But Sarfati, like some of the rest of you, sees God just taking a break on the seventh day before going back to work. Too close to evolution for Ross and I.
And, Jonathan, notice how Sarfati answers those of Ross’ supporters complaining about his supposed harsh tone and hard hitting answers. He refers to many of the same Scriptures as I use above. As he points out (and as James the brother of Jesus points out), 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. Dr. Sarfati’s experience in the hard sciences has accustomed him to strictness, necessary for successful science. We have too little of this in the far more important teaching pertaining to the Kingdom of God. I am not looking down on you brother, but remember how Paul admonished Timothy. Endure hardship. Don’t be thin skinned. Be a man. That’s the root meaning of the Latin ‘virtue.’
Philip,
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
More twisting Philip! I think you missed your calling. You twist things out of context like the best of them in politics. Maybe you should have run for office. You say:
“I am no expert in the Hebrew text so I can’t judge whether,
“Be fruitful and multiply ‘until’ you fill the earth,” [then become barren] is a proper way to translate the Hebrew.”
But of course that wasn’t what either the link I gave you or the quote from Dr. Sarfati said. (Of course you knew that already though.) I’m through giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are purposely and maliciously twisting things out of context. That is an awful quality for someone who claims to be a Christian! That is absolutely shameful!
Here is what was actually said:
In the article: “Since God knows the future, He knew Adam and Eve would sin. This explains why He already had a plan in place to redeem fallen man. The first prophecy of Christ comes in Genesis 3:15 , which states that He will come as the seed of a woman/virgin birth (see also Isaiah 7:14). If you look closely at Genesis 2:17, God foreknew that mankind would sin: “for in the day you eat of it.” He didn’t say “if you eat of it.”
So it is pointed out that God knew that the earth would not become overpopulated to begin with, no specific plan to deal with overpopulation was needed. I am sure unless you are an open theist that you can agree with that. Are you an open theist?
Also from the article: “The word fill basically places limits on humans right from the start. Nonetheless, if sin never entered the world, then there is no reason to assume God wouldn’t have said “stop reproducing” once humans had filled the earth. Remember in a world without sin, God’s relationship with mankind wouldn’t be tarnished; hence, open communication should still be there.”
So they note that the connotation of the world “fill” implies a limit. But they weren’t saying that specific command imposed that limit. Rather, they say it is reasonable to assume God could later impose that limit on His Creation at a later time. Just as they noted that He changed the rules when it came to eating meat.
Dr. Sarfati also said something similar:
“We cannot presume to know what God would have done once this purpose had been fulfilled, but it’s likely that the command would have been rescinded.”
Notice he also makes the supposition that God would have given an additional command when it became necessary. Neither person said that God actually gave a command not to overpopulate. Why would He need to? He already saw into the future that such a command would not be necessary. So why would He make it?
But of course, the clear context of what was said is intentionally twisted. Why? That would be the question I would like to know. Could you explain, Philip?
Also, bareness is considered a curse specifically in our post-Fallen world where reproduction is necessary for survival. There is no indication that ceasing to reproduce would have been a curse in a pre-Fallen world. So who is reading between the lines about bareness always being a curse?
That is the supreme irony. You accuse them of reading between the lines when you yourself read between the lines; also when it comes to animal diet prior to the Fall. It specifically says that animals were given “every green herb for meat”. Who is it that reads between the lines to say that pre-Fall animals ate other animals when it specifically says herbs?
Philip,
I am not decrying your harsh tone. I am decrying your twisting of what people said. I have shown time and again how your words are blustery hyperbole and logical fallacies and just plain twisting of what people say. That is wrong and it is against Scripture.
Ray,
You are absolutely right about the fossils: and despite the claims of evolutionists and Creationists, how little anyone really knows about that.
More from Philip “On Sarfati’s answer about God “rescinding” his Creation command.
(and doing so though man had not yet sinned to mess up the good Creation)” Yes, and your point? Show me where rescinding this command in a world untouched by sin is shown to be wrong from Scripture. I am sure you are aware that in Heaven there will be no marriage. So it is reasonable to conclude that it Heaven there will be no reproduction. There is not anything inherently wrong with not having reproduction if that is what God chooses to do. Of course, as I’ve said many times. This is all a moot point because needed no back-up plan and He knew it from before He even started to create. God knew that man would sin; hence no need for a back-up plan on what if he didn’t sin.
Quoting again from Philip “Here is where we read the Bible differently. Ross and I see the Lord completing the Creation after six days. That’s right: completed.
But Sarfati, like some of the rest of you, sees God just taking a break on the seventh day before going back to work. Too close to evolution for Ross and I.”
I have already shown that God adapted what He created after the Creation week. I nor Ken Ham or Dr. Sarfati have said that God made new creations after the Creation Week. But there were adaptions within the creation and that is clear from what I said previously in post # 367.
So it is clear that God did not violate His rest by making those adaptions. Young earth creationist firmly agree that there were no new kinds created after the Creation week. If you call adapting the created kinds, taking a break from His rest and then continuing to work, then adapting of the Creation after the Fall would also be continuing to work. I am sure you agree that was not the case. So why impose it for the adaptions within the fixed created kinds?
Bo,
On “thorns and thistles.” It seems that like the Deists of old, you Creationists make no distinction between the Garden of Eden and the world outside the Garden.
The Garden that the Lord God prepared for Adam had no need of weeding. Now, Adam must work ground subject to thorns and thistles. Despite theologians teaching things contrary to the Scriptures, the Scriptures tell us nothing about God creating new kinds of plants or animals after he rested after the seventh day.