Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Geisler on inerrancy and age of earth

    Dr. Norman Geisler recently wrote an excellent article: "Does believing in inerrancy require one to believe in young earth creationism?"
    http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...YoungEarth.htm

    Here is his conclusion:
    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


    After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.* (3) *It is not a condition of salvation.* (4) *It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.* As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

    © Copyright Original Source



    (Predictably, YECs responded with an ad hominem attack: "The ultimate motivation of this prominent theologian?"
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ent-theologian
    This elicited a pointed response from Dr. Geisler: " A response to Ken Ham and AiG..."
    http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...nHamAndAIG.htm)
    Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-04-2014, 04:02 PM.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  • #2
    I agree with Geisler's points numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7, along with the even numbered ones.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #4
        To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


        Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.
        "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
        -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

        Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
        1 Corinthians 16:13

        "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
        -Ben Witherington III

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
          To repeat KG: "So Geisler allows an alternative reading to the traditional reading of Genesis, but he tried to destroy the career of Michael Licona for trying to do the same with Matthew 27."


          Note: I am a YEC who has no problems with what Geisler said here, I've said it myself a few times.....but he's letting his hypocrisy show.
          If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
          Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


          Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

          © Copyright Original Source

          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
            Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


            Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

            © Copyright Original Source

            Utter bosh which conflates natural facts with revelation through nature.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
              If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
              Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


              Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

              © Copyright Original Source

              Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures.
              ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
                Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


                Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

                © Copyright Original Source

                He's missing two important facts here. Michael Licona* does not "dehistoricize" the Gospels, and that modern science is not "general revelation". General revelation is what people throughout all time would have available to them.

                *I'll have to look for it, but he explicitly denies this accusation, and goes into why this is so.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Seems to me like Geisler thinks the ICBI statements should be included in the holy Scriptures.
                  No, but affirmation of the ICBI statements IS a requirement for membership in the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and for teaching positions at some Christian colleges and seminaries.
                  "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    If you read Geisler's response to Ken Ham and AIG, you saw that he addressed the difference between these two issues:
                    Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


                    Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels.* However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using God’s general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text.* Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels.* But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).* Also, “We deny that extra-biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    I don't agree with him here.

                    He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
                    He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.
                    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
                    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

                    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                    1 Corinthians 16:13

                    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                    -Ben Witherington III

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                      I don't agree with him here.

                      He is saying it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry, which are "generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual". But he then turns around and says it's not ok for Licona to look at exactly what category of text the Gospels are.
                      He is being wildly inconsistent saying that we can allow outside [extra-biblical] influences to take priority over our interpretation of Genesis, and at the same time saying we can't with regards to Matthew's narrative of the crucifixion.
                      Where does Geisler say or imply that "it's ok for some to regard The first 5 chapters of Genesis as allegory and/or poetry"? I think Geisler has been pretty clear that he views Gen 1-11 as "biblical narratives which present themselves as factual" and that they are history, not myth.

                      E.g. see Geisler's commentary on the ICBI "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics", article 22:
                      Source: Dr. Norman Geisler


                      ARTICLE XXII: GENESIS 1-11 AS FACTUAL
                      WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
                      WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

                      Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the “literal” hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as re- ported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).

                      The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term “creation” was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-05-2014, 10:48 PM.
                      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Special pleading. Licona's whole point was that the narrative wasn't intended to literally historically factual. There is no difference. I have nearly lost all respect for Geisler. His reasoning lately is atrocious to match his atrocious excuse sheet for Ergun Caner.
                        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          I find it interesting that Gleason Archer stated that you can have either inerrancy or a young earth, not both.
                          I believe this is because Gleason Archer thought that the Bible exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 unambiguously points to a young earth and not an old earth. I would have to agree with him on this point. The Institute of Creation Research gives 15 excellent reasons why biblical exegesis points to a young earth and why the 6 days of creation were 24 hour periods: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-...ay-age-theory/ I think it comes down to whether you feel compelled to follow the latest fashions of provincial science or hold to a sola scriptura theology.

                          Also, there is solid scientific reasons for believing in a young earth as well which Dr. Sarfati points out in Chapter 8 of his book Refuting Evolution which is online: http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by manalive883 View Post
                            I believe this is because Gleason Archer thought that the Bible exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 unambiguously points to a young earth and not an old earth. I would have to agree with him on this point. The Institute of Creation Research gives 15 excellent reasons why biblical exegesis points to a young earth and why the 6 days of creation were 24 hour periods: http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-...ay-age-theory/ I think it comes down to whether you feel compelled to follow the latest fashions of provincial science or hold to a sola scriptura theology. [/url]
                            I am not sure what you see as indicating that Archer saw the Genesis account as pointing to a young earth. That goes contrary to what he seems to have believed. On the contrary, Archer seemed to find problems within scripture in regard to a Young Earth. This led him to an Old Earth interpretation which allowed him to retain Biblical inerrancy.

                            Archer: "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days." (A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science)

                            Your ICR link is completely wrong in, painting Old Earth as equal to TE.

                            Old Earth Creationism is distinct from TE in several ways.
                            First - We believe that God created Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve out of Adam’s side as well as the Genesis account states. We do not accept claim of Darwin evolution that random mutation and natural selection can adequately account for the complexity of life. God's fiat action was required. We differ with TE in that we do not see God using evolution as a tool, rather He created by His will.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Edited by a Moderator

                              Moderated By: Littlejoe

                              ONLY YEC's and OEC's are allowed to post in this section. Please do not post here again.

                              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                              Last edited by Littlejoe; 12-26-2014, 07:52 PM.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X