Seven Theses on the Age of the Earth

Sharing Options

I recently came to the conclusion that it was time to set down in one place my reasons for approaching Genesis the way I do. I have noticed that the topic has become a matter of increased debate in classical Christian circles — and because schools cannot honestly stay out of it — it matters a great deal what we teach and why. So here are seven theses on the age of the earth.

1. First, the age of the earth, considered in isolation, is neither here nor there. The issue is always what God said, and not how old something is. If the earth is six thousand years old now, it will eventually be one hundred thousand years old at some point, about ninety-four thousand years from now. Will theologians at that time still be required to hold to a “young earth” view? So the issue is not age, or day, or young, or old, but rather the substance of what God actually said. Whatever He actually revealed should be what we use as the foundation for all our subsequent thought. After we have our foundation, we may incorporate truth from other sources — natural revelation included — but we must take care that we never privilege what we think we know over what God actually told us.

2. Therefore, the debate — which is most necessary — should be conducted primarily between Christians who accept the Scriptures as the absolute Word of God, perfect and infallible in all that they affirm. This is because debate is pointless between parties who are appealing to different authorities. The fact that the debate is now being conducted with many of the participants openly saying that the Bible “has mistakes in it” tells us why we are not really getting anywhere.

3. Once we have limited the participants in this way, we have simplified things considerably. Everyone in the debate would be willing to affirm a flannel graph version of the Flood, giraffe and all, if that is what the Bible taught, and everyone in the debate would be willing to affirm a planet creaky with age, if that is what the Bible taught.

That said, the prima facie evidence for the traditional view of Genesis is very strong (historical Adam, continuous genealogies, etc.). Alternative approaches to the text, such as the framework hypothesis or the gap theory, seem like special pleading in order to make room to shoehorn in a cosmology from elsewhere. We should always smell a rat whenever someone notices an anomaly in the text (e.g. the different creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis) and someone else is immediately at your elbow with millions of years he wants to pour in.

I am not saying this because I am automatically categorizing any views contrary to my own as special pleading. One alternative view, grounded responsibly in the text, views the days in Genesis as days of revelation, which Adam was recording as God was teaching him how to write. But even this view would simply require someone to stop affirming “six-day creation,” and is not at all inconsistent with “young-earth creation.” So the prima facie evidence for the traditional view is strong enough for me to consider that the burden of proof lies with those who would question it.
4. The fossil record is a record of death. The fossil record is a graveyard. We have exegetical reasons for believing that this paleontological graveyard was planted after the fall of man. We have a time stamp for Adam in the genealogies, and because of what the Scriptures teach about the nature of death, the recorded deaths of all sentient beings needs to be dated after that point.

I exclude from this consideration the “deaths” of any permitted fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the garden, the “deaths” of the bacteria in their digestion systems, and so forth. The Bible teaches that Adam introduced death into the world (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21), the Bible gives us an example of the kinds of seed-creatures we are talking about, beasts, birds, fish, and man (1 Cor. 15:38-39), and the Bible teaches that the whole created order groans as it looks toward the final day of liberation (Rom. 8:22). The resurrection of the dead undoes and reverses the Fall into death, and the kinds of creatures found in fossil beds are the kinds of creatures that will be raised. When Adam fell, the creation fell also, and when the sons of God are manifested for what they are, the creation will be restored. So the dislocations that are frequently pointed to as evidence of an old earth are dislocations that Scripture teaches were brought about by the rebellion of man.

5. The next point is related. Independent of any exegetical considerations on this point, there is also a deep theological problem with the view that death antedated mankind. The Bible teaches that Adam produced death. The opposing view has to say that in some manner death produced Adam. But when God pronounced the unfallen creation “good” (Gen. 1:4; Gen. 1:10; Gen. 1:12; Gen. 1:18; Gen. 1:21; Gen. 1:25; Gen. 1:31), this would mean He was “creating” by means of millions of years of nature red in tooth and claw, with countless sentient beings suffering and dying in order to get to the place God was going. When we describe the kind of creation that God called good, we are affirming something about His character. The view that His “good” included unimaginable suffering without any reason is an insurmountable cliff for any theodicy to climb. The problem of evil has been tough for many apologists with the reason for evil grounded in the rebellion of mankind. But if we are found to be saying that suffering, pain, and anguish are an unfallen good, then this should tie us up in knots. It should also make us a little wary of looking forward to Heaven too much. I don’t want to go to Heaven just to fall into a tar pit.

Death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), and not a good tool that God took out of His good toolbox in order to fashion a good world.

6. The Lord Jesus speaks of an historical Adam easily, and in the same way that He speaks of other historical characters from the Old Testament. There is no good textual reason for dividing Genesis 1-10 from the rest of Genesis, as though the two parts were different kinds of literature. In the same way, the Lord speaks naturally of the first man and woman created at the beginning (Matt. 19:4), and He speaks of them with the same ease that He mentions Moses a few verses later (Matt. 19:8). He does the same with Noah (Matt. 24:37). There are no good reasons why we should not speak in the same way, and impelling reasons for us to insist on speaking that way under His foundational command to “follow me.”

7. I am quite prepared to make dogmatic affirmations from the text of Scripture because I believe that is one of the reasons why the text was given to us — so that we might have light in a dark place. And provided we remember what I mentioned earlier, I am also prepared to receive light from natural revelation and science, and to incorporate it into my understanding of Scripture (say, what an archeologist tells us about the location of Hezekiah’s water supply for Jerusalem).

But there is science and there is science. I am pretty confident that they have figured out the boiling point of water at sea level, and I am grateful for penicillin. But when the Authorities tell me what the temperature was at the center of a particular star, right before the supernova happened, or they entrance me with tales of wormholes, or they dazzle my eyes with string theory, my enthusiasm might be a skosh more tentative. They strike me as men who say they want to read all the works of natural revelation, but who just read the first three words of a ten-volume series, and who then slam it shut because of the need to start lecturing us creationist cornpones.

Time might be one of those complicated things. If God had only created the solar system, and there was nothing else out there, we would be able to get by with everything measured by how many trips around the sun we had taken. And the entire cosmos should be thought of the same way — if God placed it all here at one fell swoop, it does not give me heartburn to thank Him for starlight from a particular star that has no more been to that star than I have. God created the star, the earth, and the entire rope of starlight in between. That should present no more of a problem than God creating both sides of a rock at the same time.

But even on the reckoning of the astrophysicists’ bigbangery, time (about which we are speaking) should be considered complicated enough for them to stop lecturing us in simplistic terms — as though their view allows the cosmos to have one timer on whole thing. Suppose everything that exists all blew out of a volatile little pinprick, and Gabriel has had himself a blast since that time surfing the event horizon — a celestial maverick. We try to tell him that the earth was fashioned six thousand years go. Pah! he replies, singing for joy. I was there, and it has only been a minute.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
233 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bethyada
7 years ago

There is no good textual reason for dividing Genesis 1-10… Genesis 1–11, most divide from chapter 12 and Abraham onwards. Chapter 11 contains those pesky post-diluvian patriarchs who had the audacity to live longer than modern scientists allow them to.       //     I confess that though I came to creationism via the science, I now find the theological reasons for creationism of greater importance to my beliefs.

B Martin
B Martin
7 years ago

What we really need is some good science philosophers.  Growing up I was always taught that scientific reasoning applied to the “observable and reproducable.”  When I got to college the very best scientists in my field of geology were applying that principle.  Philosophically they were evolutionists, but they were also good scientists when it came to the real stuff.  When I once confronted my college chemistry professor on age of the earth issues he told me that idea was “so 19th century.”  I know he was wrong, but given that argument, at what point did science change?  In the last… Read more »

Moor
Moor
7 years ago

The “Book” of Nature is fallen.  The Book of Scripture is not (because it’s writing, transmission, compilation, and canonization were guided and safeguarded by God).  Therefore, we privilege the latter over the former when their respective witnesses result in potential confusion(s).  Is that the essence of it?

Bradley Jones
Bradley Jones
7 years ago

Pastor Wilson, what are your thoughts on people who deny the type of evolution you are describing, but affirm that the earth itself is very old and that creation happened in 6 literal, 24 hour days? I believe it is called “Gap creationism”, at least according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism). Are there theological/exegetical problems with this view?

BJ
BJ
7 years ago

This simple explaination just shows how deeply the postmodern worldview has seeped into the church. Christians need to continue to challenge the culture by continuing to educate themselves and argue from a distinctly Christian worldview.  Being intellectual does not mean accepting a worldview based on human autonomy.  Thanks for keeping the fight alive, Doug.

Kimberley
Kimberley
7 years ago

Again. Amen! :)

St. Lee
7 years ago

Bradley, I cannot speak for Pastor Wilson, but I can recommend a good book on the subject.  It is “Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory” by Weston Fields.  It has been a number of years since I read it, but as I recall it goes deep into the original Hebrew text to show the fallacy of the theory.  The author is well qualified  to write on the language aspect of it, being a member of the team translating the Dead Sea Scrolls.

rcjr
7 years ago

Don’t want to hijack, but am troubled by the assertion by Moor that the book of nature is fallen. Though nature, like man, groans under the weight of the fall, it, like the Bible, is that book which God Himself has written. In both instances we sinners are more than capable of misreading. But in both instances the perfect author cannot err. It is God’s nature, not nature’s nature. And God neither errs nor lies.

Melody
Melody
7 years ago

I like this discussion because I find myself,  a super-non-scientist, being confronted by young Christians who scoff at a literal translation.  The fact that they also are super-non-scientists troubles them not one bit. I guess it’s a pretty silly debate for two super-non-scientists to engage in, but here we are.

Josh G
Josh G
7 years ago

@ B Martin –  I do ecology and have asked the same question myself. One book I’ve found helpful around this topic (though not specifically about your question, it does have relevant info) is Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy
If you want books about the current scientific worldview, I can recommend A Shot of Faith to the Head by Mitch Stokes and Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl by ND Wilson helpful (I think they’re both available from Canon press).
Cheers

Rick Davis
7 years ago

I would be interested in seeing a theological argument against animal death before the fall. I can totally see the argument against human death before the fall, but I don’t see any reason to say that Adam couldn’t have chowed down on a nice juicy steak or enjoyed a rasher of bacon in the garden . After all, animals are not creatures bearing God’s image. The only argument I usually see is that God specifically tells Noah in Genesis 9 that he can eat the animals. But just because this is the first time we see it recorded in the Bible doesn’t… Read more »

Seth B.
Seth B.
7 years ago

Book books books! James Jordan’s Creation in Six Days… but what else? Also, Greg Bahnsen said in a lecture somewhere that the Genesis text does not necessitate that animal death didn’t occur prior to the fall, only that man’s death didn’t. Now, I may have to listen again to get it right, or he, being a razor sharp logician, may simply have been saying that the *Genesis* text didn’t necessitate it but you can get it from elsewhere in Scripture. Have you heard that position before?

Ben Bowman
7 years ago

A question for Doug and all others who would like to get in the mix. If the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for all sins past present and future happened in the past for us, but in the future for others, doesn’t it stand to reason that Adam introduced sin in the past that also rippled out in the same manner? Or in other words isn’t it possible for Adam to still be the origin for original sin while death in all creation preceded him?

Luke B
Luke B
7 years ago

Bradley, Hebrew grammar discredits the Gap Theory.  There is no action in Gen 1:2, just explanation. Some want to interpret verse 2 as “And the Earth became…” instead of correctly, “And the Earth was…”. The problem is they are two entirely different verb forms.
Think of these two verses as football commentators. Verse 1 is the play-by-play guy, who tells you what’s happening as it happens. Verse 2 is the color commentator who describes in more detail what you just saw. They both talk about the same play.

bethyada
7 years ago

Moor, not so convinced. The earth is fallen, but creation still follows the physical laws, DNA still works (though broken in places). And there are textual problems with the Bible that need to be worked through. We take the Bible over Nature because the specific overrides the general. As to historical facts we prefer eyewitness account (Bible) over indirect supposition.

bethyada
7 years ago

Bradley, gap theory, other than being textually unlikely, creates more problems than it solve. There still remains death before the Fall, and it invents Lucifer’s flood from thin air. Fields’ book is okay, but I remember it being very boring. I would buy Sarfati’s Refuting Compromise which also covers many other issues concerning creation theory. Here is a brief outline of some issues with gap theory (2 pages). pdf. http://downloads.creation.com/pdfs/gap_theory_tract.pdf

bethyada
7 years ago

Rick, Schaffer thought that Genesis argued against antelapsarian death for man, but was not conclusive for animals (I disagree with him).     //     Rick, the relevant text is Genesis 1:29-30, And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”… Read more »

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

Ben Bowman asks an interesting question: “A question for Doug and all others who would like to get in the mix. If the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for all sins past present and future happened in the past for us, but in the future for others, doesn’t it stand to reason that Adam introduced sin in the past that also rippled out in the same manner? Or in other words isn’t it possible for Adam to still be the origin for original sin while death in all creation preceded him?” I’ll jump in with some thoughts.  While… Read more »

bethyada
7 years ago

Ben, I believe Dempski has argued this. As i see it there is a difference between how something is applied and what something causes. Death is a result of the Fall. Cause and Effect (with intermediate causes if you wish such as punishment). Jesus’ atonement deals with problems that arose in the past but did not cause something in the past. Hebrews states the sacrifices in days past were a pointer to what God was going to do in Christ; now done these sacrifices are no longer necessary.

katecho
katecho
7 years ago

rcjr wrote: “Though nature, like man, groans under the weight of the fall, it, like the Bible, is that book which God Himself has written.” I agree with rcjr’s concern, but I took Moor’s comment to be a basic observation that nature has a fallen context.  Nature is not lying to us any more than an adult Adam in the garden with wisdom teeth is lying to us about his age.  What nature says must be taken in context.  Some of that context is only available from special revelation.  If we try to read nature apart from the special revelation… Read more »

Richard Anderson
Richard Anderson
7 years ago

I take a simpleton’s view of it. There are two issues, the creation event and the revelation and recording of the event using written language. In the beginning God created the universe…all time, space and matter. He created time just once…the second, the minute as 60 seconds, the hour as 60 minutes and day as 24 hours. So during the creation event, the only day that existed then was the day created then…the 24 hour period, thus the days of creation referred to when the event was related to Moses necessarily was a literal day. Arguments about the Hebrew word… Read more »

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
7 years ago

Good job, Bro. Doug.  You’re right that time is complicated.  And besides, the Big Bangers have a problem with starlight and time almost identical to ours.  They’re just counting on us not to notice.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
7 years ago

Katecho, do you mean that the unbeliever should have been able to intuit, from nature, the existence of God, or do you mean that the unbeliever, having been created in the image of God, should be able to intuit the existence of a natural moral law?  I can see that these could be quite different.  Natural law explains the shame we feel when we behave wrongly, apart from a belief in God.  But I am not so sure that nature teaches us the existence of God because it can be a false guide.  Without religious instruction I expect I would… Read more »

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

What is the deal with the neanderthals and all of the other ape men types. I have never had that explained well.

BJ
BJ
7 years ago

I thought I might drop a few thoughts in here about the nature of Nature (the created world). The relationship between it and the Word is a complicated one (although most of my fellow creationists won’t admit it). The best way I understand it is to think of it as an artwork. We can study the artwork with meticulous detail and only learn a small bit about its author. Study the “Starry Night” for a lifetime in isolation and you will only acquire a small bit of knowledge about van Gogh. However, there are some absolutes you can deduce from… Read more »

BJ
BJ
7 years ago

Robert, With the utmost respect (no sarcasm intended, honestly), you have either not been reading or you are asking this question having already rejected the arguments. Creation scientists have hammered this nail so many times. Here are some resources if you want good answers.
http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/neanderthals

BJ
BJ
7 years ago

Bethyada, Would you mind sharing a short bit about how you came from the science side of the debate to accept creation as your model for origins? What changed your mind? I came from the other direction, so I am always fascinated by these experiences? I am also curious because as a (hopefully) future pastor, I feel like many of the folks of this generation will probably come from the same direction.

bethyada
7 years ago

Neanderthals are humans, as are Denisovans and Homo erectus. They are just morphological variants that post-date the Flood.     //      Australopithecines are extinct apes.

bethyada
7 years ago

BJ, I was never antagonistic to a young earth, I calculated the age of the earth as a child from the chronologies in Genesis. But I couldn’t fit ancient kingdoms within the Biblical framework.  I read a lot of science at high school and expanded that to scientific books critiquing evolution and long ages when studying science at university along with several books that promote this. This led to reading material about various proposals including a no literal Adam and the idea that a day could not be defined until the sun was created which I may have found variably… Read more »

Reuben K.
Reuben K.
7 years ago

Pastor Wilson (and/or anyone else coming from his perspective) – I have a question regarding the principle behind the idea that the fossil record is a “record of death”. It may not be very well stated as: What exactly do you mean by death, and what makes it bad; in particular, what makes it bad for non-humans to die? Hitting the same idea from another direction, I might ask: Why does your list of living things that did not die pre-fall happen to include the fish, fowls, etc?   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     I ask this because, as a biologist, I have seen that… Read more »

BJ
BJ
7 years ago

Bethyada, Thank you. Your story, much like mine, was a long and slow one. It covers a lot of information, so what I am trying to do is encourage education. We need to have apologists on this issue. Blessings to you as you continue to work through this.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
7 years ago

Thanks for this.   The view that His “good” included unimaginable suffering without any reason is an insurmountable cliff for any theodicy to climb.  I think that cliff is surmountable.  Evil is evil and not good yet it is good that there is evil.  Without it there would be no occasion for God to bring out two of his favorite things, his wrath and his mercy.   Death is an enemy Yes it is but it is also more.  It is a mercy for one thing, to keep us from degenerating to our full potential.  That’s still post-fall but it’s also… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
7 years ago

Reuben, without being a biologist, I completely get what you’re saying.  Anyone who has watched a beloved elderly pet die knows that its death is a merciful gift from nature.  Without human consciousness, natural death is easy.  And although animal death is often cruel and painful in the wild, the instinct to survive is not the same as the human consciousness that can apprehend and experience suffering even before it occurs.  I also hope someone can explain this.

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
7 years ago

Jill and Reuben – exactly the right questions you bring.  There is nothing energetically that speaks to sentient life cessation, lower or higher beings, as bad or a direct result of Adam’s sin.  It would have had to be a God-imposed curse if it were related, and of this we find nothing.  That Adam died immediately upon eating, as warned, should remind us of what kind of death God speaks.  Remember how Lazarus was deceased but not “dead”?  Now physical death is used as a metaphor in the Bible.  But I can make a good argument that it was employed… Read more »

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

I saw a book on a friend’s shelf that posite that the reason starlight can be millions of light years and young earth is still viable is time dilation. If you want a short sf book that explains how time dilation works, read Heinlein’s Time For The Stars.

bethyada
7 years ago

Reuben, I am not completely certain what you are asking. The death distinctions are because we now have definitions that are now the same as the Biblical ones. Neither are correct, rather different. Plants were intended for food, thus they “die” when harvested, so this is not what Genesis means by death. Death can apply to plants biblically, but not in this sense. So we have a vast raft of organisms that were intended to reproduce and cease existing (die) pre-Fall. Humans were not to die as can be seen by the narrative. It seems likely that certain animals were… Read more »

bethyada
7 years ago

Eric, Genesis states that man will physically die. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”      //     And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from… Read more »

Ian Perry
Ian Perry
7 years ago

I am a non-scientist who enjoys reading about science and technology and hopes to do legal work for a technical industry. As someone who grew up as a convinced Young Earth Creationist who enthusiastically read the scientific arguments from that camp and initially accepted them as correct—   The Created Order resoundingly refutes Young Earth Creationism, the theory was rejected in scientific circles before Darwin’s evolutionary theory (or, later, radiometric dating) came on the scene. God, the creator of heaven and earth, has filled the natural world with data which contradicts Young Earth Creationism (and yes, it is uncomfortable how the… Read more »

Ian Perry
Ian Perry
7 years ago

And sorry for the wall of text, prior to posting it looked like was going to have paragraphs but they were removed upon posting (and there are a few typos, but I think my meaning is largely there if you read the wall of text–and I can clarify if anyone wants to discuss). 

James Bradshaw
James Bradshaw
7 years ago

“The “Book” of Nature is fallen.  The Book of Scripture is not (because it’s writing, transmission, compilation, and canonization were guided and safeguarded by God).”   Those who take the Bible as “infallible and inerrant” are asking us to believe that God chose to transmit His word not to one man but many …. over centuries of time, that these men were infallible in hearing and transmitting God’s voice while penning it, that the men who copied the originals into other languages were infallible (since the originals no longer exist … anywhere) and that the men who selected the texts… Read more »

Rick Davis
7 years ago

“The perspicuity of Scripture is twofold, just as there is a double lack of light. The first is external, and relates to the ministry of the Word; the second concerns the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of internal perspicuity, the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures. All men have their hearts darkened, so that, even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know any of it. They do not believe in God, nor do… Read more »

Matt
Matt
7 years ago

There is no good textual reason for dividing Genesis 1-10 from the rest of Genesis

There is a good reason to divide Genesis 1 from the rest of Genesis.  No one was there to witness it.

Tom
Tom
7 years ago

Time is certainly a tricky thing. It is just a physical property lumped in with all the other physical properties of this universe He created. We experience it linearly. He does not. I like to try to view time the way God does. He created both ends of a ray of light at at the same “time”. He created the singularity and the ends of the expanding universe at the same “time”. He is the Alpha and Omega at the same “time”. He is. He “am”. Maybe to God, the debate between old earth and new earth creationists is superfluous. Maybe the… Read more »

James Bradshaw
James Bradshaw
7 years ago

Rick writes: “because of the sinfulness that dwells in each human and affects not only our will and emotions, but also our reason.” The assertion by Christians is that the men who penned the books of Scripture were immune from this (as were the men who copied and translated the originals as well as the men who decided which books would form the Canon). So again … why grant this infallibility to some and then leave everyone else after that in the dark?  What’s the point?  That is, unless, the men responsible for the formation of Scripture weren’t infallible to… Read more »

Rick Davis
7 years ago

James, the idea isn’t that the men who wrote the Bible were infallible or immune to the effects of sin. Paul calls himself “the chief of sinners”. David, who wrote the Psalms, and Solomon, who wrote Proverbs, were most certainly not immune from the effects of sin.     The men who wrote the Scripture, those who copied and transmitted the Scriptures, and even those who debated and determined the canon of Scripture itself were fallible, sinful men. But because God is exhaustively sovereign over everything that happens in the world, because he is the author of the story, he… Read more »

RFB
RFB
7 years ago

This is primarily addressed to the Christian posters, since those who are not do not believe and therefore the question is moot.                                                                                                                                                                  Why is there such a seeming dilemma in simply believing that creation occurred exactly the way the it is written. I hear lots of opinions about “why this cannot be so” and it makes me shake my head in incredulity that supposed intelligent people who say that they believe in God say these things. I see a God Who creates galaxies, constellations, suns by the quadrillions, and simply by speaking them into existence. I believe in a… Read more »

Moor
Moor
7 years ago

@JamesBradshaw: I would probably just echo what some others have said in response to your questions, but might add this thought (though I’m not sure it will be helpful).  My immediate thought was about the response Jesus gave when asked why he spoke in parables (you can see his response here: Mark 4:11-12).  My take on his statement, which seems like an eminently fair interpretation on at least one level, is that his motive is akin to the woman who tosses grain from her woven basket into the air (I saw this done a lot as a youth).  If you’ve… Read more »

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
7 years ago

Was God kidding when He said “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”?

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
7 years ago

Was God kidding when He said “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth”?

Ian Perry
Ian Perry
7 years ago

“Why is there such a seeming dilemma in simply believing that creation occurred exactly the way the it is written”—the Bible says to speak to the Earth it and will teach you, and says that the natural order reveals the creator–and thus, according to the Bible, there are some things one does not need the Bible to know. The Earth and stars and whole created order teach that it and they are of vast age—and it was not by reading the Bible that men determined that the Earth revolves around the sun–how do you avoid geocentrism, with your position?–you (or… Read more »