1. its about gods timing. i had no idea that it was time for him to die.. i didnt understand why did rick die so fast..i didnt know it was gods time..i want to know more about gods time and gods will,even now gods will for my life as a widow…..and i am preparing to go on the mission field.and if its gods will. sharon mary yount

  2. DR Brown,

    As always I enjoyed the show today and even more importantly have found it to be edifying.

    Concerning the old earth young earth debate is their a theological and or biblical problem with death in the world prior to the fall of Adam and Eve? I have always thought theat death (both spiritual and physical) as an enemy of (ALL) life entered the world after Adam’s sin. Is the death spoken of in Genesis a poetical reference to just spiritual death? Is the view that there was no death before the fall compatible with an old earth belief or does an old earth belief require the acceptance of death before the fall? I realize that the interpretation of fosil records can be understood as death prior to the existence of mankind but I have also heard plausible alternative explanations of the fosil record. So I’m just a bit confused.

    I hope I’ve phrased my questions well enough. Thanks again for your time.


    Bob B

  3. Dr. Brown, I see the context of Heb. 6:4-6 as starting in Heb. 3. There, Paul (?) starts talking about the ancient Hebrews called “Israel” as a whole and how those who called themselves Israel, some were really not. Why? Because some “believed” (true Israel) and some didn’t “believe” (false Israel). These two groups in “visible” Israel are pulled forward into Heb 6. Keeping this in mind then, doesn’t it make more sense then that 6:4-6 talks of a pre-believing (salvation) road that God uses to draw people. Thus, those “unbelieving” ones experiencing 4-6 and then say “Nah”, ofcourse will turn away. Why can’t they return? I believe they would say “I experienced that and it didn’t work for me”. It seems to me that your explanation doesn’t take that into account.

  4. My kudos go out to you Bob B. for you have stumble upon and revealed a very wirily sophistication satanic deception. Just believing that dinosaurs exist before mankind very cleverly places one in opposition to the truths of the Bible that death came into being after the original sin, and this belief also makes void an important Divine promise to us that death and hell, in the future, will be no more.

    Notice how these same scientists state the reason for the destruction of the dinosaurs was due to a meteorite hitting the earth and then proceed no further in their explanation. For if they had proceeded further in that line of reasoning, they would find that their theories are more in line with the world-wide Genesis flood since they would have to reveal a scientific observation that showed that the entire earth had gone through a major transformation in its surface structure. The vast deposits of oil and coal reserves deep underground reveal that the earth was once very luscious in its vegetation, but somehow was quickly deeply buried and then it transformed into oil and coal due to intense heat and pressure.

    According to scientific observation (not scientific theories or interpretations) the earth is found to be billions of years old, but according to the Holy Scriptures, mankind has existed upon this earth about 6000 years. Actually I don’t see any ambiguity in the scriptures between these two facts. Please observe closely how the Bible makes a difference between when the foundation of the world was laid (Job 38:4-6, Psalm 102:25, Psalm 104:5, Hebrews 1:10) vs. the time when God moved upon the face of the deep and transformed and created a vital environment to support life (Genesis 1).

    It is quite easy to see that our earth/world existed in space much like the other planets in our solar system from the beginning of time. Take for example the planet Jupiter. Moving from its outer edges to its internal structure, Jupiter transforms from gas to liquid to a solid core. As we can read in Genesis 1, God moves upon the face of the deep waters on the first day of creation, but created light. On the second day of creation, He rearranged what was already in existence.

    Why is that so hard to understand and believe that our world existed like the other planets in our solar system as a solid center covered with gas and liquid for billions of years before the Genesis creation?

    To get more spiritually deep into this, observe the reading of this scripture…

    “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41

    According to this verse, God has prepare an everlasting fire for Satan and his angels here on this earth, and the smoke from this everlasting fire will be rising up forever and ever according to Revelation 14:11 in which their torment will take place forever.

    By beholding all the pieces of this spiritual puzzle, one can see that this lake of an everlasting fire already exist here on this earth for God would had to created it when He created the foundation of this world because the facts of the Genesis creation doesn’t include fire.

    According to scientific observation, earth has been found to be the only rocky planet that has a two part inner core, a liquid surrounding a solid that reaches temperatures close to that of the sun, which also creates the earth’s strong magnetic field due to its rotation. And one can see that smoke from this eternal burning fire is already rising from it, and it recently caused much chaos in our air travels ~ the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Icelandic.

    A much larger opening will be made unto it at the end…

    And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. Revelation 9:2

    And demons know in what direction the everlasting fire lies…

    And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. Luke 8:30-31

    Please note how the wicked are placed in the lake of fire ~ They are thrown!

    And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Revelation 19:20

  5. Bob, it is absolutely the case that the fossil record is a record of death and that old-earth Christian compromisers believe the fossil record predates Adam & Eve, and therefore predates the Fall. As you rightly point out, this places death before the Fall, which is a major theological problem for the compromisers.

  6. Furthermore, I heard Dr. Brown answer a question (either on this show or another recent Q&A show) on the location of the Garden of Eden. He said it would’ve been located somewhere around modern Iraq due to the location of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, but those who support such notions forget that beneath these rivers are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock layers that were formed during Noah’s Flood. It is more consistent with the biblical data to assume these two rivers were simply named after the original rivers from pre-Flood times. In short, the location of the Garden of Eden cannot be known because the entire topography of the planet was reformed during Noah’s Flood.

  7. Pamela’s explanation above, which as best as I can tell is an attempt to marry both an old-earth and Genesis Creation, is convoluted bunk. At one point she says “According to scientific observation (not scientific theories or interpretations) the earth is found to be billions of years old”, but she is absolutely wrong on this point. She has this exactly backwards.

    The reality is that it is not scientifically possible to directly measure a substance know as “age”. Assumptions always need to be made in any calculation of age. So the belief that the earth is billions of years old is not a direct “scientific observation”, it is merely an interpretation of selective evidence since a majority of the evidence points to a young-earth.

    See: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

  8. Ewan,

    I find it troubling that you refer to people you differ with here as “compromisers.” For me, the only issue is faithfulness to the Word and to whatever other information God has provided for us, and if I am not a young-earth creationist, it is not because of compromise. Every time you use that derogatory term, not only does it insult those who prayerfully and reverently differ with you, but it makes your own position seem all the more tenuous.

    So, feel free to continue the discussion here, but please drop the negative terminology.

  9. Dr. Brown,

    OK, point taken if not entirely agreed upon. Granted the use of the term “compromiser” is provocative to those who believe they are not compromising, but from my perspective when straightforward biblical concepts are modified for no other reason than to yield to naturalistic interpretations of the past, it’s hard not to think in terms of compromise. I recall that you once justified your use of the title “Confronting the Critics of Revival” even though such critics would object that they are not “critics of Revival” because from their perspective they are not against real Revival, but as you said, if it is real Revival then they can legitimately be called “critics of Revival”. So if it really is the case that Creation is only as old as a straightforward understanding of Genesis would have it, then those who want to accommodate millions or billions of years can legitimately be referred to as “compromisers”. But for the sake of congeniality I will refrain from using it on this forum.

    I would hope that the truth of the issue concerning Genesis and the age of the earth doesn’t stand or fall on the basis of my perceived lack of tact (e.g. “Every time you use that derogatory term, not only does it insult those who prayerfully and reverently differ with you, but it makes your own position seem all the more tenuous.”). Rather, I trust you would judge the issue on the merits of the arguments. I could just as easily take a cheap shot at your credibility given that you recently referred in an answer on the LoF to the earth being “3 billion years old” when the claimed secular evolutionary age is in fact 4.5 billion years.

    For the record, I am a great admirer of you and have been since the early days of the Brownsville Revival (I visited there also in 1999). Of all the Christian ministry that has influenced my Christian walk, yours has perhaps had the largest and most beneficial impact. I am usually in total agreeance with all you teach (not surprising considering the fact that I follow your ministry more closely than any other!) but on the issue of Genesis and the age of the earth I have to take strong exception with you. You often talk about being open to being made aware of “blind spots” in your understanding. You often pray that God would correct you if you have a wrong understanding. Do you think it’s even a possibility that God could be speaking to you on this issue? I know that sounds presumptuous on my part (and I am also acutely aware of your far superior biblical scholarship and understanding), but I’m just wondering if you really are open to the possibility of changing your mind about this as you have done on other issues such as with Calvinism and Dispensationalism? Because, to be frank, your use of the term “all the more tenuous” doesn’t sound very accommodating.

    I listen to all your debates on various subjects with interest. I wonder whether you might consider debating this subject? I could recommend an Australian friend of mine who is a highly qualified scientist (PhD), YEC author and speaker (and Messianic Jew). He has an American wife and is about to relocate to the USA.

    In the meantime, would you be good enough to answer these two questions: 1) What evidence from nature do you find so persuasive that it prevents you from entertaining the possibility that the Creation might only be 6000 years old? 2) How is it possible to reconcile the biblical teaching that death and corruption entered the Creation only after Adam’s sin, and the fact that the fossil record, which according to all old-earth views of Creation predates Adam, shows a record of death and disease?

  10. Ewan,

    Thanks for your detailed response, and be assured that I’m deeply blessed to know that the Lord has allowed me to make such an impact on your life. I do take that quite seriously!

    To be perfectly clear, I am not in any way opposed to young-earth creationism and do not claim any scientific pedigree to argue the subject either way. In fact, I first questioned the strict chronological reading of Genesis 1 more than 25 years ago based solely on exegetical and (ancient Near Eastern) contextual issues alone, with no recourse to science whatsoever. From what I have read scientifically on the subject, it appears that the earth and universe are quite old (for all the standard reasons), but I’m absolutely not committed to an old earth and have no ax to grind over the issue. From my reading of scripture, I simply see no reason to argue the issue of the age of the earth, and I’d be perfectly happy if your arguments were correct. It is simply not a concern to me based on my reading of Scripture, not based on science.

    As to your second question, I find quite acceptable the answer of William Dembski and others who argued that, “God [can] act across time . . . as we might say, transtemporarily . . . . Thus, just as the death and Resurrection of Christ is responsible for the salvation of repentant people throughout all time, so the Fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden is responsible for every natural evil throughout all time (future, present, past, and distant past preceding the Fall).”
    “An omniscient and omnipotent God, by anticipating human actions, can respond in advance to humanity’s Fall. . . . To make us realize the full extent of human sin, God does not merely allow personal evils (i.e., the disordering of our souls and the sins we commit as a result) to run their course subsequent to the Fall. In addition, God allows natural evils (e.g., death, predation, parasitism, disease, drought, floods, famines, earthquakes, and hurricanes) to run their course prior to the Fall. Thus, God himself wills the disordering of creation not merely as a matter of justice (to bring judgment against human sin as required by God’s holiness) but, even more significantly, as a matter of redemption (to bring humanity to its senses by making us realize the gravity of sin) . . . .”

    Now, on a more minor point, I would suggest to you that your use of “compromisers” does not parallel my use of “critics of revival,” since in the latter case, these people were self-acknowledgedly critics of what we and a host of others were calling revival. So, they were critics — everyone agreed on that — but the question was, Is this really revival? In the case at hand, I am certainly not acknowledging that I am compromising a syllable of the Word of God in terms of my understanding of the age of the earth, but once again, as just noted, I am absolutely not wed to the idea that the earth is old. It’s immaterial to me either way and I’d gladly agree with your position if I felt persuaded.

  11. Ewan,

    Although these posts are a bit dated…could I encourage you to have a little more respect for Dr. Brown?

    A few statements you wrote were:

    “Do you think it’s even a possibility that God could be speaking to you on this issue?”

    “I could just as easily take a cheap shot at your credibility given that you recently referred in an answer on the LoF to the earth being “3 billion years old” when the claimed secular evolutionary age is in fact 4.5 billion years.”

    I went to his school in ’99-2000(don’t know him personally, though) and I do disagree with him on things. However I would never approach him as loosely and disrespectfully as you have here. He has never demanded respect for himself that I have heard, making him all the more worthy of it. He has proven himself a “father”.

    Please understand I get no “points” for this, as he doesn’t know me. I would have emailed this instead if I had your email.

    I’m not trying to debate you on this. You can take it or leave it.

  12. Hi Dave,

    I do have a great deal of respect for Dr Brown. I follow his ministry closely, listen to all LoF shows by podcast, have most of his books, and have a huge collection of his messages on video and audio. Furthermore his ministry has had a huge impact on my thinking and Christian walk, which makes it all the more painful to me to hear him compromise over Genesis Creation (I know he doesn’t like the term “compromise” but I find it hard to think of a better alternative). This is probably the only issue where he and I diverge.

    My point in saying what I did about God speaking is that none of us are infallible, we all “have a piece of the puzzle” as Dr Brown often says. So I simply wanted to see if Dr Brown was open to the possibility that he could be wrong on this subject. He says that he is so that is why I continue to raise this issue with him.

Comments are closed.