VFTB at the OPS: Doug Woodward – The Lie of Ancient Aliens

25 Comments

1. 

   I simply want to say that while listening to Doug Woodward talk about the theoretical impending discovery of artifacts on Mars, the Moon and possibly other planets, I found myself wondering one major thing.

   He kept driving the point that if said artifacts were discovered then they would immediately prove an old earth. Of course secular science will attach a millions or billions of years assumption to the discovery, but that’s to be expected.

   Yet what I found myself pondering is why would a Christian who falls in the Young Earth view of creation have to recant that view or immediately adopt the Gap Theory/Ruin & Reconstruction theory which has theological flaws I will not get into here? It’s perfectly plausible for these angelic, or what I would more accurately call supernatural entities to have built a civilization in the ancient past sometime before Adam’s fall or even after it. It’s plausible God constructed it, there’s a large amount of direct information we do not know, and MAY (caps for emphasis) probably never will know about the realm of outer space beyond our solar system.

   Nevertheless, the point I want to stress is that this could easily fit withing a YEC time frame or is everyone’s God not big enough to work wonders beyond Earth for us to see and marvel at?

   The one thing I will get at about the Gap theory/Ruin & Reconstruction theory that I think proponents of this view seem to let pass by them is this (and I am to cover this in a series I’m working on over on my blog in the near future, but):

   Ezekiel 28: “‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl, Your settings and mountings[c] were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

   Notice Lucifer was in Eden and he was declared good by God before he fell. If he was good and in Eden before he fell and Eden was created after/during the six days of the Creation week or in a Gap theorists view, the reconstruction week, which most I’ve listened to and read admit occurred roughly 6,000 years ago. So if Lucifer was good in Eden 6000 years ago, how could he have fell and created all this mess millions or billions of years ago before the gap in Genesis 1:1-1:2?

   Just something to ponder on as I’ve heard among recent gap theorists that the reason for holding this theory is to explain when Lucifer fell, creation of the angels, etc and Doug Woodward seemed to argue this as a major point as well.

   None of this was meant to be argumentative, just sharing my thoughts on the matter.
   God bless,
   Roy

2. 

   In my personal estimation the Universe’s population is One Centillion (10 with 303 zeroes) and the biggest part of our Universe is the Third Part where my Family lives. This small part of our vast Universe is where Satan has his Universal Empire and Planet Hell is definitely part of it. Everything that goes on in our Milky Way Galaxy has something to do with Satan and his Despotic Empire. I believe that there are actually Star Wars going on in this Warmongering part of our Universe just like here on Planet Hell. Give this information some thought and look me up on my Facebook Page: Four Blood Moon Phenomenon by Rabbi Yohanan lll

3. 

   Roy: There could be a heavenly Eden and earthly Eden just as there is a heavenly Jerusalem and earthly Jerusalem.

4. 

   Good point Roy, though I have read Ezekiel many times I never picked up on lucifer being good in Eden! His fall must have been sudden, maybe caused by jealousy over Adam
   When he realised gods creation was not meant for him?

   1. 

      Lucifer refused to serve Mankind. His Rebellion against God was based upon his estimation that he was superior to Adam and Eve. He now blames Humans for
      the loss of his former Position, not himself, and hates us with an intense passion.

      It is entirely possible that Lucifer formerly reigned over the Earth, as his Domain.

      What was he even doing in the Garden to begin with, since he was evil at that
      point in time, tempting Eve and contradicting God to her. Were there 2 ‘versions’
      of the Garden of Eden, Earthly and Heavenly: now separated by a closed ‘portal’?

      If so, he seems to have eventually rendered it ‘void’, somehow, before creation
      of Adam and Eve. It appears to have been ‘re-built’ by God, for them.

      How Adam caused all of the devastation he did, and then tried to blame Eve,
      doesn’t explain why he chose her over God, as he did. He was not deceived at
      all. Eve was. This scenario is the crux of the matter. How, exactly, it happened
      is somewhat unexplained. And why punish all of His creation for the behavior
      of only Adam, one Man? God can do whatever He wishes, but I still do not
      understand the all-encompassing, all-inclusive retribution meted out. Satan
      instigated all of this, yet still exists, after Adam and Eve are long-since dead.

      There has to be more to this Story that we do not know. At least I don’t; ;>)

      It is supremely important to investigate the dynamics of this huge Debacle.

5. 

   I think that young earth creationists have always twisted logic to come to their conclusion. The bible itself comes nowhere near the YEC conclusion, unless you ignore Hebrew grammar, ignore the underlying poetry that is reminiscent of other creation narratives and also refuse to come to a deep understanding of what inspiration means when it comes to the biblical text.

   If I did all that, and wanted to keep my God in a tiny box, so it was easier for me to understand. Then I think it would be easy to be a YEC.

   But God is so powerful and creation is so vast, I think it’s the height of hubris to say we understand almost anything of how we all got here.

   just my 2cents.

6. 

   Paul,

   It’s been my experience that people who make the claims you do have not properly investigated the subject matter. Here are a few links to ponder on regarding Hebrew grammar and whether or not Genesis is poetry:

   http://creation.com/search?q=Hebrew+Scholars+Genesis

   And Genesis as poetry/figurative or literal history: http://creation.com/search?q=Genesis+as+Poetry
   http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/07/10/A-Fuzzy-Theology-of-Beginnings-Book-Review.aspx#Article

   I used to be an Old Earther, the whole Day-Age, Progressive Creation, “a day is as a thousand years to the Lord,” etc. Not to be argumentative, but if you want to argue that we shouldn’t put God into a box and that God is so powerful, etc. Why does this work for everything but a young earth viewpoint?

   Cassius,

   The Ezekiel passage I pointed to states Lucifer was good in the Garden of Eden or in Eden general. He was their prior to sin being found in him. Again if Eden was not created until the six days of creation, then Lucifer was not ruling over an Earth prior to Eden.

   Priscilla,

   It’s possible. I’ve heard that Eden (heaven & earth) were one and the same. Or in other words Eden was created to be a portion of heaven. I think Doug Hamp argues this in his book The First Six Days (hebrew scholar by the way for Young Earth) and Corrupting the Image.

   Another point is Exodus 20:11 which states, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

   Here Moses wrote that God created Heaven and everything else in six days. This includes the realm we know as heaven just like Genesis 1:1 states, ” In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”

   Exodus 20:11 isn’t poetry. So whether you want to argue Genesis 1 is poetry or not you have to deal with what Moses wrote in Exodus.

   Lastly, another point about the theological implausibility of Lucifer falling prior to the end of the creation week. Meaning the theological impossibility of Lucifer falling during a Gap between Genesis 1:1-1:2 or during a progressive creation. Genesis 1: 31 states, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. ” Which negates any fallen creatures, spiritual or physical, any possible negative death, etc.

   Just further thoughts on the matter,
   God Bless
   Roy

7. 

   I think these videos sum up everything very well, the Bible isn’t a science book, it’s not a way to measure the universe, it’s much bigger, much better and much more profound that a weak science book.

   Science and Genesis – N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM&w=640&h=360%5D

   N.T. Wright on Genesis
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWo7nzL66o&w=640&h=360%5D

   and Mike Heiser did a whole series on this topic that is absolutely amazing
   [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcqfiOFuazc&w=640&h=360%5D

   To me YEC is untenable on the fundamental grounds that God himself never intended us to believe that.

8. 

   Roy,

   Stating that they who disagree with you “have not properly investigated” is an even higher level of “hubris” than that indicated by Paul. Your attempt to raise yourself
   to the status of ‘expert’ is offensive. Your spelling and grammar, in English, is quite
   sub-standard, as well. This arrogance of yours adds nothing to this discussion. Try
   to be brief, therefore. “God Bless”? Really? I don’t think so.

9. 

   Paul,

   Mike Heiser actually IS an Expert, and a good choice for reference works. Thanks.

   And,

   “Gesundheit”,

   Cassius

10. 

    I like Micheal too. Very good reference, but NT Wright is a world renowned expert and theologian.

    It’s very hard to argue with that level on consensuses.

11. 

    Also,

    Mars, along with Saturn, Venus and the other planets in our Solar System may have held radically different positions and orbits in previous epochs. Such is the positing of ‘Thunderbolts of the Gods’, the Electric Universe. Videos are available online.

    Tiny lights visible only in Earth’s NIGHT sky, barely discernible above the billions of others present, would in no way impress, nor impel, ancient civilizations to hugely fear, and comment on them. But, had they been more prominent than they are now, overlapping and inter-acting along with electrical discharge, then they most certainly would be much more impressive. Saturn was often referred to as the ‘Second Sun’, such was its dramatic function, character and apparent size in our sky. Today, we can hardly even see it. Even after ‘sunset’.

    An Old Earth allows for much more than we currently witness. Much of bizarre-seeming Masonic contentions refer to events and situations that happened WAY before Solomon’s Temple, or even the Hebrews, themselves existed, for instance.

    “Gods” seemed to be Everywhere. An Angelic and Demonic Realm seems to be strongly indicated, previously, on Earth and even elsewhere in this Solar System.

12. 

    On the way out to work, quick skim and response.

    I said people who make bold claims about YEC like Paul did usually have not investigated all sides of the issue. I did not attempt to raise my status to expert, because I’m not, I’m saying this from experience in discussion with people Christians who argue for an Old Earth. Doug Woodward was refreshing as he did not come at it with the usual mantra of, “Young Earth Creationism is unbiblical, etc, etc.”

    I find that OEC (Old Earth Creationists) which include Gap Theorists or Ruin & Reconstruction Theorists usually always lean towards Hebrew Scholars, Naturalistic interpretations of science (oddly), etc.

    All this as if YEC (Young Earth Creationists) organizations do not have scientists, Hebrew Scholars, and well educated theologians on their staff.

    I have not had a chance to look at Paul’s videos, but from the names they are the usual high profile (not meant to be a bad thing) apologists and theologians who believe and or argue for an OEC or vague creation time frame. I’m aware of all of this information, I have their books, I have the books of the Gap Theory/Ruin & Reconstruction theory dating back to the early 1800’s.

    If you want to believe in OEC, that’s fine, it just bothers me when OEC’s act like their view is the only view that is sound and then point fingers when YEC’s act the same way and exclaim YEC’s are wrong for having the same zeal. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy, no offense or antagonism intended.

    I will end with this because I was just trying to share info and help people see both sides of the picture. History has shown that YEC has been the viewpoint. The Jews have a calender that’s only dating a little over 5,000 years. In ancient times many of the ancient Jews and early Christians not only believed in a YEC, but also believed the world would only last as it is for 6,000 years or so based on the creation week. I’ve seen many Hebrew scholars disagree with people like Mike Heiser when it comes to Genesis and other OEC favorites. Honestly, I’ve seen the numbers more in favor of YEC, but that coupled with the historical viewpoint, etc made me lean towards YEC. As far as science goes, a good deal of YEC organizations always counter the current science claim in Old age, Evolution, biology, geology, etc.

    Again, like I said, if you are an Old Earther, fine, but please don’t act like you’re view is the only view with substance and scholars behind it.

    You guys enjoy your day, week and upcoming holiday if you’re in the U.S.
    God bless,
    Roy

13. 

    Few quick final points. Also when you go to the New Testament and see that Jesus and many other apostolic authors quote from Genesis 1-3 as if it is literal history and not simply a polemic to counter the local myths surrounding the Israelites at the time Moses penned it down.

    As well as reading many early proponents of the modern OEC movement from the 1800’s and seeing statements made by these men about the requirement to counter or accept the rising geological ages and time needed for evolution at the time. OEC like to say Genesis was not intended to be a science book, but often, in my experience, did not spend the time getting to know the progenitors of their view point and why these guys adopted the Gap Theory, Day-Age, theory, in the modern movement.

    So for me, after studying all that, not claiming expert status, I found OEC failed when it came to harmonizing the overall theological message. Often times you were left questioning the literal nature of Adam, the fall, etc. The need for a savior and as I stated many times I’ve found that many well known OECers also argue in favor of things like theistic evolution, etc when even scientist, despite their naturalistic bias, are disproving their own theory of old ages and evolution.

    All that helped me see an old earth age is not a reality, but a fabrication of man to counter the Bible. In fact if you go back and read people like Charles Lyle, Huxley, etc you will find that these guys created old ages out of thin air for that very reason. It was nothing scientific, it was simply a need to counter the bible. Fast forward and a concept pulled out of thin air is taught as fact and many Christians have fallen for it and thus OEC views are born/reborn.

    Again and for the final time in this topic,
    God bless,
    Roy
    (Sorry for any grammatical errors, as I stated earlier, these were quick responses and I’m on the way out to work)

14. 

    I have to to say, the bible is not a science book. Mike Heiser say’s this much better, but the bible espouses a view of the universe as a dome, on water, with actual pillars etc.

    The truth of the bible is not linked to the scientific accuracy, that wasn’t the point and it’s twisting scripture to make it link up to science. We know the earth is older, data shows it. Twisting scripture and science turns it into a 6k year old planet, not the other way around.

15. 

    Regarding “science” v.s. the Bible, early in his videos, Heiser opines that arguing that the later does not conform to the former is the same as criticizing a boy for not being a girl. They are quite different, inherently. His very first slide reads:
    “Why more than one view of Creation is Biblically Possible”. Loosely related, one problem I have with Anglican Cleric “Tom” Wright is his defense of “St. Paul”,
    who I, along with James and Peter, view as a self-appointed “charlatan”, as they both called Saul of Tarsus. One must consider the source in uncovering the truth. “Science” was never intended to explain God, or His workings. It largely denies
    that He even exists. I agree with Paul, above. Science has painted itself into a corner: having to explain the Universe with no God involved. Their absurd and increasingly vapid over-reaching has become an intellectual embarrassment.

16. 

    I agree with Roy on this, but, I, too, use to be a ‘gap’ theorist–the timeline for the colonization of Mars, and trips to the moon could genuinely fall into the years prior to the flood of Noah–those fallen angels were powerful beings, who literally took over running this planet for around a thousand years–

    –from year one, to the flood, was plenty of time for them to have developed technology that would have enabled them to travel all over our solar system–taking their evil all over the place–they had succeeded in corrupting the human race all the way down to Noah, who was the last man whose genetic makeup was pure–which enabled God to be capable of saving the bloodline of the future Messiah through him–

    –so, God wiped out the corrupted life forms here on earth, which, in turn, also spelled their demise on other planets I’m quite sure–so, God, literally, “Killed two birds with one stone”, when He caused the world wide flood–

    –so, now, as we come along, 5,000 years after the flood[give or take a few years], and we begin finding such mind-boggling artifacts, especially on the mood and Mars, we do what so many faithless people have done down through the centuries–we immediately begin viewing the account given by God to Moses to included in His written Word with a jaded eye, suspiciously wondering if that account is either nonsense, or fantasy–eventually, we just toss it right out the window, or we tell one another our interpretation of it must be ‘adjusted’ somehow, since it’s account is simply not possible according to science, or at least according to non-Christians, non-believers, who do believe the earth is millions of years old, according to science–

    –but, what if–what if the account in Genesis IS a blow-by-blow account in and of itself?–that our heavenly Father really did create everything within the span of what His Word tells us was ‘6 days’?–plus, what if the flood really did occur as recorded in Genesis, and it did wipe out an evil civilization created by the fallen angels here on earth and beyond, leaving only Noah’s pure genetics through which God could eventually bring forth our Savior, His Son, into this world for our sakes?

    Sounds so impossible, doesn’t it–I mean, considering how powerful science is, and how it claims that idea to be utter nonsense.

17. 

    In my opinion, saying, “The Bible is not a science book,” while true falls into the line of thinking espoused today by naturalism. Especially when naturalists (the view that all can be explained by nature alone) realize there are problems with an old universe, old earth, etc from a purely scientific standpoint. Many are quoted as saying, “I dunno” (loosely paraphrasing) when truly challenged about things taught as fact from an old earth/universe standpoint. This has been my main point all along. Science changes, but we’re supposed to develop and or change our doctrine and or understanding of the bible based on the current trend of man’s limited understanding of the creation? I will also throw in here we neede to remember much of modern science originated from the genius of people who held a young earth creation view. I have a book at home called Men of Science, Men of God that goes into this, but here is a quick link for anyone to examine: http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

    There is also a great deal of hints at understandings of the world and universe in the Bible, here’s a quick link: http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

    For me, if science is the study of nature and the universe and no matter what creation view point you hold, but if you believe God is the creator of the universe. I’m not following how one could separate the two. I feel this is largely due to the modern dichotomy pushed by the media and a minority of naturalists that science does not marry well with the Bible based on current trends. Which can change 10, 20, 30 years from now. Case in point:
    Soft tissue found in dinosaurs: http://creation.com/search?q=Dinosaur+soft+tissue

    I understand there are various views in Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, etc about when and where the dinosaurs appear. Old books I have believed they appeared before the gap, some progressive creationists are also theistic evolutionists. Here’s the problem for anyone who wants to argue that dinosaurs are millions of years old…why are we still finding soft tissue in fossils supposedly millions of years old. And it’s not simply in dinosaurs: http://creation.com/original-animal-protein-fossils (science community has known about soft tissue in supposedly super old fossils since the early 1990’s, but it’s just now getting to the public in the early-mid 2000’s.)

    How about the geologic column often used as a proof text for old earth age, it’s not found all over the planet: http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist (Woodmorappe, MA in Geology, interacts with the idea of the geologic column and popular internet arguments that it more than a hypothetical concept.)

    Cassius, with the exception of the implication that the Bible has nothing to say about modern views of science, I agree your final statement. A naturalistic view of origins is bankrupt and absurd, yet this is why I find it odd so many Christians find it necessary to redefine the Bible’s meaning. This attempt is often, in my experience based on the finding common ground with the views of atheist who do not believe in a God in the first place? Either that or the fear of ridicule that comes with siding with challenging the common mantra of Old Earth, Old Earth from the high priests of science. There is a plethora of individuals from the scientific community with testimony, studies, articles, essays, papers, books, reviews and documentaries who expose the indoctrination, misinformation, mishandling, and proselytizing of a naturalist (no-God) viewpoint of origins and science. It’s also interesting that while many well known apologists who I greatly respect and learn from such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Greg Koukul, etc to name a few who stand on the side of the OEC view point so as not to look “silly” in their debates…the very people they are trying to find credibility with on this have been found stating they respect YEC’s more because they do not, in the words of Atheist and I paraphrase, “compromise their fundamental beliefs in order to try to gain common ground with me as an atheist.” I am not saying this is what you or Paul is doing, I’m just saying I find that interesting that an atheist will use an Old Earther or I should say ally with an OEC proponent against a YEC proponent, then turn around and laugh at the OEC proponent too. I’m just pointing this out because in my studies and experience listening to many teachers, this is the main reason for holding this view. Because science, which again has been hijacked by naturalism, says the universe is billions of years old and so we must reinterpret the Bible. Let’s ignore thousands of years of history and a handful of academics will come along in the 19th-21st century and declare the beginning of Genesis poetry and thus a vague breakdown of our origins. A little sarcastic, but no offense is intended, just trying to hit a home run on this necessary point here.

    Lastly, and sorry I’m so long winded in this discussion, but you guys keep quoting Heiser. I agree with Heiser on a lot of things like the Divine Council, his exposition of the Hebraic/ancient terms for the different supernatural entities, etc. So let me make this clear right now before anyone misunderstand these following statements. I am not trying to belittle, take away, or degrade Heiser’s credentials, knowledge, and or views. He is an expert in his field that I greatly respect, but in my opinion this is largely part of the reason we are where we are, particularly with the whole science vs God debacle in society. We are so afraid of disagreeing with experts, sometimes based on common sense alone when they say something way out of left field. Which reminds me of a quote Ravi Zacharias uses often in his speeches about the irrationality of naturalism in its context, but shines light on our fear of challenging experts, and I’ll paraphrase so as not to put words in his mouth, “…it looks like academically there is no view that is so bizarre anymore that we cannot find some professor somewhere to justify it.” Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying Heiser is doing this in anyway, but my point can better be summed up by Thomas Sowell about intellectuals not being held accountable and the lack of the media and or academic institutions offering opposing viewpoints instead of teaching one across the board:
    

    With that said, the point is, as I told someone else I had this discussion with, it’s interesting we tend to migrate towards scholars, academics, experts (authorities) who support our viewpoint, cite them to our hearts content and find irrational ways (not saying anyone here is doing this) to discredit scholars, academics, experts, etc who disagree with our views.
    Case in point, Doug Hamp is a Hebrew Scholar, trained in Hebrew at a Hebrew University in Israel. He believes in a young earth, literal understanding of Genesis instead of it simply being poetry. He agrees the Bible is not meant to be a science book, but he has written an entire book, or should say series if you compare it with his “Corrupting the Image” book on creation. This book is called, “The First Six Days.” Again a Hebrew scholar, trained by descendants of the authors of the topic in question, believes in a literal 24-hour, six day, young Earth creation and he has written over on his website about how it fits with Hebrew Grammar, etc and his book and writing counter all the Genesis is poetry, etc viewpoints: http://www.douglashamp.com/category/creation-vs-evolution/gap-theory-2/

    Again, for my final statement and I apologize for my long responses, but there is a lot to cover and a lot on my mind about this issue recently, Doug Hamp isn’t the only Hebrew, Greek, antiquity scholar in regards to Biblical Studies who believes this. So please do not put words in my mouth and say that I called Heiser anything, I did not. I challenged people to not latch on to any one scholar and peddle his/her views as the end all be all to the topic. Heiser does great work for the Lord, but I do not agree with him here and I am not alone on this. It would be interesting to see other academics interact with his views on this, but I can only repost the previous link of Hebrew and Linguistic scholars who do not agree:
    http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1
    https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0302.pdf
    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1538-is-the-genesis-creation-account-poetry

    And since my responses are so long winded, this is truly my final response.
    God Bless,
    Roy

18. 

    Although my replies are briefer, I do think I need to say one last thing.

    Tradition should never be the way we interpret the bible. Because YEC is something that has been believed in the past (not universally though) we can’t then twist the bible to support it.

    The bible doesn’t force the YEC view, it actually is very non-committal on the age of the earth. Evidence doesn’t contradict the bible, it enlightens us on how amazing creation truly is.

19. 

    Paul,

    I keep responding because of your bold statement of, “twisting the bible to support…” YEC as if a cursory reading of the text does not warrant YEC and somehow directly warrants another understanding.

    I agree we should not use tradition to support our understanding of the Bible if tradition is wrong. Jesus Christ successfully argued against that, but the context in his argument was men (religious rulers, learned men, scholars) of his day twisting scripture for their own benefit. What benefit do YEC proponents get out of defending a YEC view? Their greatly mocked, even by their fellow Christians as we see here.

    Another point on this. Tradition coupled with scripture is where and how our fundamental beliefs in the faith were solidified. You should check out Justo Gonzalez’s or any detailed history of Christianity to see what I mean. Read the church fathers to see that without solidifying a traditional stance on doctrine, we could be all over the place as false doctrine tried to infiltrate the early Church with “Christianese” packaged as occult, Gnosticism, etc.

    I have provided various scholars in ancient Hebrew, linguistic scholars in ancient languages, well trained theologians, etc who counter your arguments, however I feel you have not interacted with any of that information. Instead you just resort to repeating the same bold claim which, I have tried to show has been answered. Even if you do not agree with them, It would do the discussion some good to at least acknowledge that a bold claim like, “YEC View, it is very non-committal on the age of the earth, ” and the one I addressed earlier in this response are not founded based on the information provided.

    One final statement, and I truly mean it this time, I was reading another academic, I have sense lost the link and if need be I will scour the internet to post it, but this individual made a good argument from his annoyance in informal discussions and people parroting “Genesis is poetry” etc. While his argument is more detailed than this, the point was even if we could agree on a definitive breakdown on what poetry is, how to solidify a way to point it out…saying “Genesis is poetry” does not remove it’s literal historical value. He cited various passages that are both poetry and history in the Bible. He pointed out it is erroneous for individuals to say this while trying to imply we should not take the early portions of Genesis as literal history. He also pointed out that in other ancient texts, even direct narratives are not direct history. So saying “Genesis is poetry” instead of it being a narrative does not have any weight to it about Genesis’ historicity.

    That’s all, you guys have a blessed day/night (whenever Derek or Sharon approves this comment)
    Roy

20. 

    Enough of your meandering, ill-informed and self-promoting poppycock, Roy. You are entitled to whatever opinions may be lurking beneath your never-ending prattle, but we do not need to be subjected to your nonsense any longer in this regard. Just move along. You are beating a dead horse. The bucket of slop you constantly spill here, and your inane and thinly-veiled attacks on others, needs to end. Now. And I will not give any ‘order’ to Almighty God directing Him to ‘bless you’. That is Blasphemy, FYI.

21. 

    Cassius,

    I am baffled by your claims of me self-promoting, spouting nonsense, etc. I have been nothing but cordial and I have even agreed with you in the discussion. Nothing I said is “slop” or “self gratification” you and anyone else can go out and find all this information for yourself. I have not wished you any harm, spoken down to anyone, I have only shared information, no different than any guest on VFTB, etc.

    I will keep this short and sweet, but I am truly sorry that my responses have offended you or anyone else. I am also disheartened that you felt the need to resort to personal attacks. Despite your feelings I still pray that the Lord blesses each and everyone one of you.

    Roy

    Roy

    1. 

       Thank you Roy for your more-than-polite, and well read, well informed, well thought out responses on this subject–I especially thank you for bringing up Doug Hamp–as a new Christian years ago this is one subject I avoided for a long time thanks to the ridicule that accompanied the account in Genesis–I was beginning to gain complete confidence in God’s Word as it’s written, and this topic was such a ‘faith killer’, or had the awful potential to become that, especially for young believers, that it literally frightened me off–

       –but, now, I am realizing that that is probably why people, down through the last couple of centuries, have concocted such fanciful ways of trying to deal with the scorn heaped on believers heads when it came to the creation account found in Genesis–trying to hang on to their faith while parrying the constant thrusts at their beliefs that were being delivered by those in science who thought they had finally found a way out of having to believe in Almighty God, and in His Son, Jesus–

       –but it was all of those fanciful ways Christians have found to help defend against those whose aim was to tear down every vestige of the idea of an All Powerful God, that I honestly believe God was able to use to help me finally realize that, if I placed full faith in Him and His written Word, that it would be then that He would help me with clearing away the confusion surrounding our origins–I was so pleasantly surprised as well, that, once I honestly placed my faith in God’s account, as given to Moses, of our origins, things began to make more and more sense, not less sense–

       –I think it’s Doug Hamp who has theorized that, when we do not place our faith in what is written in God’s Word, but try to ‘explain it away’ when confronted with what today’s scientists try to tell us, it’s then that our spiritual growth as Christians diminishes, and our spiritual growth in wisdom does as well–because, our lack of confidence in what God has ordained for the men He chose, to write down what He wished, for us, to help us to know Him, and understand more as to why things have had to be the way they’ve been, for all of our sakes, due to His undying Love for us all–

       –well, our lack of confidence in His written Word is why our understanding of what He has said, begins to become more in agreement with the secular, unbelievers’ viewpoint, and our confusion as to how to interpret God’s Word simply grows and grows–

       —I will add that all I’ve said here is simply my own opinion on this subject–and, I enjoyed reading all that you had to say–I, too, write long replies, but they are never as scholarly, or well thought out, as your replies have been–your replies were very impressive–so, thank you again, and God’s blessings to you and yours.
       In Christ Jesus,
       Christine

22. 

    I want to be clear. I think these discussions are healthy, I have no problem disagreeing. I don’t think YEC are heretic’s or not truly Christians or anything like that.

    I think they are amazingly good, God fearing people, like myself, we simply disagree. I also think the only harm is if what we teach can turn people away from the gospel because it makes things sound fanciful instead of real.

    BUT that doesn’t make anyone a villain or bad, just at the worst, maybe a little misguided. Which aren’t we all from time to time 🙂

    Best to all! Seriously.

    Paul

23. 

    At least it was short.