tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706355.post8928021072511119042..comments2023-10-09T04:37:04.123-04:00Comments on The matthew never knew: 1000 b/w Friends?matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01053050572052804795noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706355.post-75004779614288241312009-07-24T17:17:22.339-04:002009-07-24T17:17:22.339-04:00Oh, I wasn't offended :) I certainly think it ...Oh, I wasn't offended :) I certainly think it is a non-essential area. I'm a young earth creationist for mostly scientific reasons (as I believe the worldwide flood was responsible for what some call the appearance of age in geology). I'm a catastrophist moreso than a uniformitarianist whereas modern science is uniformitarian moreso than catastrophist.<br /><br />As for biology, I think the evidence speaks against Darwin.<br /><br />But, like you, I don't really care to debate the subject here. In this post I'm more interested in differing views of inerrancy. And I think we're in pretty basic agreement on that point.matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053050572052804795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706355.post-30289937223690303312009-07-24T13:31:40.880-04:002009-07-24T13:31:40.880-04:00sorry, i have no desire to get into a creation deb...sorry, i have no desire to get into a creation debate and don't want to stir things up for myself or anyone.<br />i just don't see how so much archaeological "information" could be discounted to say that the earth is as young as 10000 years old.<br />don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that i'm not a creationist. i just don't try to read my bible like it were a science textbook and i'm searching for ways to allow for a God story in my life.<br />i once saw this debate where NT Wright came right out and said that science tells us the earth is closer to 50 million years old and then he proceeded to bridge the gap between creationism and history etc. i can't do Wright justice but the statements pleased me.<br />after i put my first statements down i was worried that i was offending someone and that is not my intent. that is the reason that i don't wish to get into a debate over it. i enjoy my blog-surfing and am not interested in being the source of burnt bridges.shallowfrozenwaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929302765265013464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706355.post-6930842902241143152009-07-23T18:35:35.901-04:002009-07-23T18:35:35.901-04:00Hey man :)
I personally don't take any issue ...Hey man :)<br /><br />I personally don't take any issue with #1 (re-reading the post, it sounds like I do, but I was trying to speak for the general evangelical public!).<br /><br />We know from other Scriptures that Paul's memory was sometimes mistaken while writing Scripture (1 Corinthians 1:16).<br /><br />As for the date of creation, I actually am a believer that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Popular science certainly tells us differently, but what do you mean in saying that common sense also does so?matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053050572052804795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8706355.post-58979974983663039042009-07-23T15:15:26.116-04:002009-07-23T15:15:26.116-04:00well ... i have little objection to option 1 actua...well ... i have little objection to option 1 actually. there are "factual" errors in the Bible and oral tradition or books ascribed to people who weren't there to see it happen would just create a breeding ground for inaccuracy. if there are errors of fact in scripture does that take away from the spiritual principle otherwise put down in scripture? not for me it doesn't.<br />if we added up all the years listed in the genealogies would we not end up with the creation of the world in 6000 BCE? science and common sense tells us differently though.<br />i'm sorry if i'm bursting bubbles but i'm just saying that Paul certainly could've just "misremembered" on his stats and if he did ... it makes no difference whatsoever.shallowfrozenwaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929302765265013464noreply@blogger.com