BioLogos: Ex YEC Tells All

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 13, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Movements need converts and evolutionists are now revealingyet another ex young Earth creationist who has seen the light. Growing up he was an enthusiastic apologist for creationism. As a teenager he spread the word on the radio and made trips to Kentucky to work with Ken Ham’s young-earth creationism (YEC) organization. He believed YEC was the only acceptable interpretation of the Bible. Without it he would lose his faith. Read more

Comments

I guess you didn’t read Maimonides interpretation of the Bible back in the 11th century
Yes, I haven't but then:
"Number 8": Read some of the OEC exegesis of Genesis ... especially Schroeder who isn’t a Christian, but a Jewish physicist.
Vy: That doesn’t exactly help matters.
---
but he doesn’t count as he was a pagan.
His views on the significance of creation days? absolutely!. And as for most of the Jews closer to the time of Christ, they weren't really interested in mental gymnastics
You have twisted and put words into my mouth worthy of an Atheist.
Projection. YOU are the one who has twisted my words. You can go ahead and show ONE place where I've twisted your words.
It is why I do not get into it with YECs.
You entire post is a good example of why I've stayed away from a mostly OEC group for months. Lots of hot air that is for the most part indistinguishable from Atheopathic ramblings.
Please explain to me how the marsupials DID get to Australia in less than 5 thousand years
Humans got them there is not good enough? How about log mats? Better? Perhaps you can tell me since you think your opinionated Atheopathic babble about what happened X thousand years ago holds more weight. Realize that they aren't doing so well.
Because Ararat is a long ways away.
So you think the distance between the pre-flood "MountainS of Ararat" and whatever Australia was = the distance between the modern day Ararat and Australia? And you have a problem with me saying your babble is Atheopathic? What a joke!
I guess people transported duck billed platypuses and tiger snakes and brown snakes and all the poisonous creatures to the Land Down Under.
Classic Atheopathic obfuscation. Ever heard of baraminology?
All this since Noah’s flood about, what? 6,000 years ago?
NZ got several of its animals in less than 2,000 years
I believe in a huge local flood of which there is evidence.
Even Atheists believe in a "huge local flood". Sumerian Mythologists believe in a "huge local flood". The survivors (and their descendants) of the 1931 China floods that killed over a million people certainly believe in "huge local floods". Huge local floods are recorded throughout history and happen ever so often so claiming you believe in them has as much significance as someone saying they believe in rainbows: NONE. The Bible makes it clear that the flood was a ONE time event. No amount of mental gymnastics and mistranslation like the nonsense in godandscience's "Genesis Flood" article is going to change that. A local flood renders the rainbow as a sign between God and man useless and its frequent occurrence makes God a liar or just plain dumb. - Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark if all He needed to do was to tell him and his family to secretly go on a vacation outside the country? - Is it even slightly logical to assume every human being on Earth was living only in Mesopotamia? Really??? - So assuming they were all there, when they saw the rising water levels and constant rain, were they just staring like mindless fools? For over 100 days? If yes, is it safe to assume that if that happened today, you'll bring out the popcorn and watch? - What of all the people living at the edge of Mesopotamia? They saw water racing towards them and just stared in awe? Perhaps saying "Wooooow, what's that magical thing coming towards us? It looks so coooooooooooool minus the hands popping out here and there. Let's wait and see what it does. Perhaps we can surf!", right?
Go read a very old book by Werner Keller titled “The Bible As History”. It talks about a flood deposit covering the whole Euphrates basin with human settlements below and above it.
Why should I waste my time reading some book when I can find the same thing on several OEC sites?
I said the Flood was a miracle, so why do YECs try to make “science” out of it?
You said:
If Noah’s flood covered the whole planet then it was a miracle and in no way could it have been a natural event.
So this babble about "Which was actually my point there" is nothing but a pathetic bait-and-switch.
but you managed to equate me and my “ilk” with Dawkins whom you insulted.
I said:
So? When you read “And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights”, did you think it was natural? When God gave us the breathe of life, was that natural? How about turning water into wine?
And...
I thought you “do not believe in Darwinist naturalistic evolution” or are you truly oblivious to the fact that the alternative explanation for biogeography is based entirely on evodelusion?
Your emotive and demonstrably false rant is pointless.
Great , let’s applaud that.
You should applaud your selective blindness and ability to conjure up strawmen.
Since the Flood was a miracle then the distribution of animals since had to be one too.
Whether the distribution of animals was aided by a miracle or not, it doesn't change the fact that, biblically speaking, the flood must have been global.
How dare you call me a Darwinist
I'd love it if you can point out exactly where I did that in my previous post.
when you use their same methods of misquoting and turning the meanings of what I said.
If you think playing the victim and projecting is going to get you anywhere, please, do yourself a favor and pour cold water on your face. The only one misquoting and twisting my post out of context is YOU.
Answer my questions, where is this 8000 ringed tree or is that just another YEC argument from a different post than yours.
I never mentioned an 8,000 year old tree but I'm loving the selective blindness! Bravo! Here's what I said:
The oldest tree that has actually been dated by actually counting it’s rings is 2200 years old. And that age itself is highly suspect. Older dates are based on a combo of crossdating against some master chronology (which is itself obtained by crossdating) by selecting portion X in tree A to match with portion Y in tree B, much like Darwinists do with DNA comparisons and calibrating against C14 data.
You certainly aren't alone in that circle of mindless selective blindness.
I went to your link about dendrochronology. Where is the oldest tree being 2200 year old fact at? I am confused. I went there and it gave a list of the oldest trees measured, here, let me go read it again. Pinus longaeva 5062* XD White Mountains, California, USA Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan. The * meant it was still alive. Where is the 2200 year old tree being the oldest tree part? I just gave you a sentence of the oldest living tree from your link and it isn’t 2200 year old.
Yet another lovely example of selective blindness and taking my post out of context. Here's what the article says:
Five types of ages are recognized in the database: XD: crossdated RC: ring counted EX: extrapolations (usually based on ring measurements) HI: historic record C14: radiocarbon dated wood samples from a tree (added 2007)
Here's what the article says about the tree you talked about:
Pinus longaeva 5062* XD [crossdated] White Mountains, California, USA Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
Here's what it says about the tree I talked about:
Sequoia sempervirens 2200** RC [ring counted] Northern California, USA Emanuel Fritz
Here's what I said:
The oldest tree that has actually been dated by ACTUALLY COUNTING its rings is 2200 years old.
---
I have to ask you something. How many Christian college students have you saved from losing their faith because a 10,000 year old Universe is the only possible Biblical interpretation? How many? I have Pastors send me, not just kids, but adults who are losing their faith because of the YEC absolutism and wooden Biblical literalism.
I'm not in a popularity contest pumpkin. Biblical truth, not XP points, is what matters. Creationists become evodelusionists/theistic Darwinists, evodelusionists/theistic Darwinists become Creationists. Is this supposed to be surprising? You do realize that based on the illogical reasoning in that question, Christians should teach that the Bible supports the LGBTQIBPPPXYZ agenda because it keeps them from losing their faith. Sorry but NO. The truth hurts! And if the fallacious reasoning in your posts is indicative of what you're teaching those people, then goodluck to them.
I used to be a YEC
I used to believe the BB Theory was a valid description of reality and that there was an ounce of truth in evodelusion. Your posturing is not going to get you anywhere.
but I couldn’t get my questions answered except like what you are doing with your just so stories
I refuted all the inane babble in your last post and all you can do is blurt out "your just so stories"? Truly adorable!
and, excuse me I have to ask, why did you send me to the website? You said you read some OEC arguments, but you don’t bother anymore.
Yet another lovely example of selective blindness and taking my words out of context. Here's what I said:
"Number 8:"Read some of the OEC exegesis of Genesis for yourself
Vy:I have and I know enough about it to know that it’s the last thing I wanna read on a regular basis.
The very fact that I'm even reading your post and asked you why you didn't link to that guy's view of Genesis absolutely blows this vacuous claim away.
Where did all the animals in the fossil record live, on top of each other?
What sort of daft question is this? Were they supposed to live in space? Neptune?? What do you think the seas and the land is for? Makeup for the Earth?
Oh no! there was much much more land mass then, but the flood destroyed it. Had to be because there are more land animal fossils than there is land
You've got a very lucid imagination. Where did you get this idea from? You do realize that marine organisms make up about 90% of the fossil record, right?
so that must be what happened and the continents spread apart and moved where they are.
Whether it's the Darwinian model or the YEC model, "the continents spread apart and moved [to] where they are"
I was a YEC

I used to believe the BB Theory was a description of reality and that there was an ounce of truth in evodelusion. Your posturing is not going to get you anywhere.
---
, but the “just so stories” were just too much.
And the only one producing just-so-stories is you.
I spent a lot of time in Az. and Ut. exploring the wonderful beauty there, not to mention places like Yosemite valley in Ca.
Good for you.
10,000 years with a global flood that laid down mile deep sediments and built the Grand Canyon. Only about 5,000 years ago.
Was there a point to these incoherent statements?
The Chinese ancestor records go back further than 4000 BC, but I’m sure there is some explanation for that somewhere since it contradicts YEC.
Strawman. You have no case.
Insulting people who you disagree with is an unfortunate YEC practice.
If you need definitions of the words I used that you consider "insults" and how it applies to you, by all means, ask!
I’m also a Preterist and also lean towards Calvinism as Arminianism logically leads to Open Theism.
Red herring.
I’m sure you can find more ways to insult me for holding those positions as well.
Strawman.
Oh I also lean towards presuppositionalism too. I’m not convinced because I am earthbound and can’t see the whole picture.
Red herring.
Whole ministries and colleges devoted to an interpretation of Creation. Millions spent and I have to ask as do you. Exactly how many people has it brought into the Kingdom? What is its fruit? How many?
You have the internet and there's a search box on CMI's site, use it! Here's one and another and another. And again, this is not a popularity contest
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
---
How many people have been fed? How many have been clothed?
Really???
You’ll claim this is a scientific argument. No it isn’t. It is a Christian argument not science.
You can't even read my post properly and you have the audacity to assume what I'll do? Bravo! The only thing in your post is fallacies and baseless assertions.
I am not the one who took a story of a miracle and turned it into a science.
I'm not the one who took a miracle and used Atheopathic secular pseudoscience to make it less than what it is.Vy_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

I wonder what you hope to prove with that diatribe riddled with fallacies left and right but I'll deal with it when I have the chance.Vy_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Number 26 I guess you didn't read Maimonides interpretation of the Bible back in the 11th century, but he doesn't count as he was a pagan. You have twisted and put words into my mouth worthy of an Atheist. It is why I do not get into it with YECs. Please explain to me how the marsupials DID get to Australia in less than 5 thousand years or however long ago the Bible tells your interpretation of it? Because Ararat is a long ways away. I guess people transported duck billed platypuses and tiger snakes and brown snakes and all the poisonous creatures to the Land Down Under. All this since Noah’s flood about, what? 6,000 years ago? I believe in a huge local flood of which there is evidence. Go read a very old book by Werner Keller titled "The Bible As History". It talks about a flood deposit covering the whole Euphrates basin with human settlements below and above it. I said the Flood was a miracle, so why do YECs try to make "science" out of it? Which was actually my point there, but you managed to equate me and my "ilk" with Dawkins whom you insulted. Great , let's applaud that. Since the Flood was a miracle then the distribution of animals since had to be one too. How dare you call me a Darwinist when you use their same methods of misquoting and turning the meanings of what I said. Answer my questions, where is this 8000 ringed tree or is that just another YEC argument from a different post than yours. I went to your link about dendrochronology. Where is the oldest tree being 2200 year old fact at? I am confused. I went there and it gave a list of the oldest trees measured, here, let me go read it again. Pinus longaeva 5062* XD White Mountains, California, USA Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan. The * meant it was still alive. Where is the 2200 year old tree being the oldest tree part? I just gave you a sentence of the oldest living tree from your link and it isn't 2200 year old. I have to ask you something. How many Christian college students have you saved from losing their faith because a 10,000 year old Universe is the only possible Biblical interpretation? How many? I have Pastors send me, not just kids, but adults who are losing their faith because of the YEC absolutism and wooden Biblical literalism. I used to be a YEC, but I couldn't get my questions answered except like what you are doing with your just so stories and, excuse me I have to ask, why did you send me to the website? You said you read some OEC arguments, but you don't bother anymore. I still read YEC arguments and I also read other things as well. Where did all the animals in the fossil record live, on top of each other? Oh no! there was much much more land mass then, but the flood destroyed it. Had to be because there are more land animal fossils than there is land so that must be what happened and the continents spread apart and moved where they are. I was a YEC, but the "just so stories" were just too much. I spent a lot of time in Az. and Ut. exploring the wonderful beauty there, not to mention places like Yosemite valley in Ca. 10,000 years with a global flood that laid down mile deep sediments and built the Grand Canyon. Only about 5,000 years ago. The Chinese ancestor records go back further than 4000 BC, but I'm sure there is some explanation for that somewhere since it contradicts YEC. Insulting people who you disagree with is an unfortunate YEC practice. I'm also a Preterist and also lean towards Calvinism as Arminianism logically leads to Open Theism. I'm sure you can find more ways to insult me for holding those positions as well. Oh I also lean towards presuppositionalism too. I'm not convinced because I am earthbound and can't see the whole picture. "By their fruits shall ye know them." Whole ministries and colleges devoted to an interpretation of Creation. Millions spent and I have to ask as do you. Exactly how many people has it brought into the Kingdom? What is its fruit? How many? How many people have been fed? How many have been clothed? You'll claim this is a scientific argument. No it isn't. It is a Christian argument not science. I am not the one who took a story of a miracle and turned it into a science.jimmontg_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

I’m an old Earth creationist. I am not one because of the doctrines of science though and I do not believe in Darwinist naturalistic evolution.
Unfortunately, the rest of your post contradicts that.
Read Gerald Schroeder’s version of a literal six day creation. Human time doesn’t begin until Adam is created
Er, is there a "God-time"?
and the sixth day of creation was definitely longer than 24 hours.
The 6th day was definitely 24 hours long. There's not a single hint of an x > 24hrs day in:
[24] And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] 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. [30] 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.” And it was so. [31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Where do you get the idea that day 6 was a mutant?
Also the 7th day hasn’t ended yet according to the Bible.
According to what Bible? You're suggesting that God, a timeless being, is stuck in some mystical unending day that existed ~7,000 years ago. What??? Reading the actual text doesn't support your claim:
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. [2] And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. [3] So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Is God still blessing the seventh day? Is He still finishing his creation of heaven and earth? Is the seventh day holy yet? The commentary doesn't lend any support to your claim and neither does the purpose of day 7:
[15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. [16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. [17] It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
If the 7th day was really eternal, why haven't the Jews killed themselves into extinction for blatantly going against God's command? Do I have to remind what happened in the OT when they didn't do as they were told? This is not the first time I've seen this sort of claim and it is just as absurd. I googled it and the main "support" is based on a funky interpretation of Hebrew 4:4-11. There's a lot of noise in these OEC claims but no substance.
Here is a link to Schroeder’s website.http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=2
Hmm, weren't you supposed to link to his OEC version of Genesis?
You see I know too much about geology
This posturing isn't gonna get you anywhere. The fact that the rest of this paragraph is simply a regurgitation of Atheist claims, the mention of dendrochronology, and the fact that you contradict your earlier statement with the denial of non-evodelusionary biogeography point to that fact.
and even without radiometric dating the age of the Earth is still without a doubt older than 10,000 years.
And here comes the "science" ...
Tree rings take us back over 12,000
The oldest tree that has actually been dated by actually counting it's rings is 2200 years old. And that age itself is highly suspect. Older dates are based on a combo of crossdating against some master chronology (which is itself obtained by crossdating) by selecting portion X in tree A to match with portion Y in tree B, much like Darwinists do with DNA comparisons and calibrating against C14 data. Like I said, it's calibrated against C14 data which is itself calibrated against dendrochronological data. I'm sure you see it leads to a nicely comfy circle of self-affirming rightness i.e. it's circular reasoning.
and if you take into account years where the weather was so bad the trees didn’t grow a ring it is even older.
Did you miss the fact of extra rings? Dendrochronology is so funky that not its results have turned out wrong, consecutively:
Experience at Hohenheim, Germany, where g-scores were previously used, seems to support this: matches were thrice found to be in error, each time after strong assertions of reliability [Baillie, 1995: ch.2; Spurk et al., 1998
And there's more speculation that science in dendrochronology that not even the self-appointed god of all that is supposedly scientifically right, peer review, can stop:
The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened? In almost all branches of science there is a check on the validity of published work: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. This check much helps to insure the integrity of the system. Tree-ring studies, though, do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood. Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions (occasionally with average ring widths for a master dendrochronology). This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part because investigators for one region typically do not have access to data for other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and are accountable to no one.
There's more:
However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity. There is uncertainty associated with estimating an accurate age for even a living tree that you cut down today, and much more when you try to make chronological sense out of pieces of trees of uncertain origin. What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense -- really nothing but imaginative speculation -- about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals. You wrote that "But honestly, Ron, we also practice quite a lot of rigor, reflection, questioning etc." I don't doubt that, but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation. As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do. The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.
Dendrochronology is literally one of the worst dating methods anyone can use as an excuse for believing long ages. At least it wasn't ice core dating. You might be interested in this.
We can talk about lake varves
Sure we can but do you realize that this has been dealt with since 1994???!?!
and even if many of them were laid down in one year ...
According to evodelusionary Lyellian uniformitarianism, they ARE laid down annually.
... you still have the Green River deposits that if cut in half would still be over a million years.
Yes, and 25ft of sediment with several "varves" was deposited by St. Helens in about 4 hours. Go figure. Do you know that there are several hundred catfish and extinct shorebird fossils cutting right across the so-annual layers in that supposedly million year old formation with exquisitely preserved skin? Were they waiting for their fairy preserve me mother while all the scavengers watched them lie vertically for several years?
You expect me to believe the Grand Canyon was made by Noah’s flood?
I expect you to get your head out of the rotting naturalistic cesspool that is "save geology from Moses" Lyellian uniformitarianism. Even the secularists have accepted that floods and canyons are best buds, since 2008! As the article shows, they don't form slow and steady, one wash at a time in moyboys but fast and catastrophically over days. Even THREE days!. And wind can do it ten times faster!. More here, here, here, and here. There's a lot more "here's" but that's enough to get the point across. You literally have no reason for doubt, biblically or otherwise.
If Noah’s flood covered the whole planet then it was a miracle and in no way could it have been a natural event.
So? When you read "And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights", did you think it was natural? When God gave us the breathe of life, was that natural? How about turning water into wine?
The Earth doesn’t have that much water.
Yes it does.
Also how did most all the marsupials of the world get to Australia in only 10,000 years unless there was another miracle?
I thought you "do not believe in Darwinist naturalistic evolution" or are you truly oblivious to the fact that the alternative explanation for biogeography is based entirely on evodelusion? Richard Squawkins speaking:
The pattern of geographical distribution [of plants and animals] is just what you would expect if evolution had happened
So which is it? You don't believe, you believe or you selectively believe? As for how marsupials got there, how did fire ants get to the US? What of rats to New Zealand? Feral Goats to Australia? Lemme tell ya, humans got them there. You might wanna check out Surtsey Island.
Read some of the OEC exegesis of Genesis for yourself
I have and I know enough about it to know that it's the last thing I wanna read on a regular basis. I don't wanna spend hours facepalming and wondering how anyone could twist something so clear.
and especially Schroeder who isn’t a Christian, but a Jewish physicist.
That doesn't exactly help matters.
I have a ton of problems with evolution, but not too much with an old Earth or a correlated interpretation of Genesis chapter one.
Apparently you're AOkay with evodelusionary biogeography.
Old Earth interpretations didn’t start recently you know
I can't find any non-pagan version beyond the time of the Charlies - Lyell and Darwin.
they go back centuries, even millennia.
Biblically speaking, not quiteVy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Sorry, Vy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
You ought to have read that to yourself before posting it because based on the content of your post, you just shot yourself in the foot.
And in fact, Christians taught for many centuries that the Earth does not move. This teaching was based on multiple scriptures which literally do say that the Earth does not move.
false, False, FALSE! Let me make it as clear as possible: The Bible has as much to do with geocentrism as evolution or deeptime - zero, zip, zilch, nada, NOTHING. Geocentrism, like evodelusion, is an ancient pagan idea and the oft cited claim that it was based on some notion that the center of the universe was some "special place God placed us" is 100% myth!
Danielson, however, points out that in the early 16th century, the center of the universe was not considered a desirable place to be. "In most medieval interpretations of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic cosmology, Earth's position at the center of the universe was taken as evidence not of its importance but. . . its grossness." In fact, ancient and medieval Arabic, Jewish, and Christian scholars believed that the center was the worst part of the universe, a kind of squalid basement where all the muck collected. One medieval writer described Earth's location as "the excrementary and filthy parts of the lower world." We humans, another asserted, are "lodged here in the dirt and filth of the world, nailed and rivetted to the worst and deadest part of the universe, in the lowest story of the house, and most remote from the heavenly arch." In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a prominent persecutor of Galileo, said that "the Earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world." In Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, hell itself is placed in Earth's inner most core. Dante also speaks of hell in ways consistent with Aristotelian dynamics - not full of flames, which would be displaced skyward by the heavier Earth, but as frozen and immobile. By contrast, heaven was up, and the further up you went, away from the center, the better it was. So Copernicus, by putting the Sun at the center and Earth in orbit around it, was really giving its inhabitants a promotion by taking them closer to the heavens.
Even the Charles Darwin of modern geocentrism (really geoheliocentrism though Rick DeLano continues to deny it), Tycho Brahe, didn't base his critic of Copernicus's idea on the Bible but on absurd pagan ideas:
Regarding the Copernican system Tycho said: This innovation expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy. On no point does it offend the principle of mathematics. Yet it ascribes to the Earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as quick as that of the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that.
If you actually study this, you'll realize that they're more parallels between OEC and the acceptance of geocentrism by early Christians than you might be willing to admit. This is yet another reason why I consider OEC compromisationalism.
“Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.” (Heb. 1:10)
What has this got to do with immovability??? I could very well take that to mean the earth's crust or the world's leaders. After all, when people say "the foundation for success in high school and college is xyz" they certainly don't mean you should go and find/build some foundation in/on xyz.
The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm “foundation of the earth” was laid. (Gen. 1:9-18)
What "firm" foundation of which Earth? Have you actually read Gen. 1:9-18 or do you need me to quote it for you?
“He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.” (Ps. 104:5)
So, what is that supposed to mean? The very same context and "not shake/totter/move/" is used in Psalm 55:12 and especially Psalm 112:6 with respect to believers and nobody will ever take that to mean that believers don't move from place to place.
“The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)
Same as above.
“For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he set the world on them.” (I Sam. 2:8)
How nice of you to quote a verse (in fact, all the verses you've quoted) out of context and assume strange things about it. From the commentary:
Figuratively, the pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zechariah 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property.
The text is so obviously figurative that it's quite strange you think it has any bearing on the YEC interpretation of Genesis.
“It is I who have firmly set its pillars.” (Ps. 75:3)
Same as above.
Vy, I’m sure you’d agree with me that these statement were not meant to be taken strictly literally any more than Jesus should be taken strictly literally when He says He is the door.
Your "refutation" of your strawman version of YEC is a sorry attempt at an excuse. No more valid than that of the Theistic Darwinist I linked to earlier. Biblical creation/YEC =/= some weird belief in 100% Absolute Literal Like "the sun is freakishly hot" Interpretation of Everything in the Bible. That has been made clear since 2006 (possibly earlier):
The Bible gives us principles of interpretation in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9:
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2). All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge (Proverbs 8:8–9).
In other words, we are to read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say “literal interpretation of the Bible” (this phrase is common among those not well-versed in hermeneutics). I try to use the term “plainly” so I don’t confuse people. Reading the Bible “plainly” means understanding that literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is why we understand that Genesis records actual historical events. It was written as historical narrative, as outlined in Should Genesis be taken literally?
The fact that OECs and Theistic Darwinists alike keep pedaling that myth says loads.
But when you deny your own hyperliteral hermeneutic in one instance, it ill becomes you to to attack those who deny it in another.
Your post is a giant strawman.Vy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Hunter's point is well taken, and it's exactly the reaction I had to this article. "So, you changed your scientific views as a result of your theological study? And you see no problem with this?" This accords with my own experience as a lifelong YEC. The objections to it from people I know are usually theological, not scientific, and gain purchase from Christian theological seminaries and higher Christian education. Those who remain primarily interested in the science generally remain YEC. And according to a long running Gallup poll, YECs are 40% of the U.S. population and have been at that level for thirty years. So if you figure 90% of the U.S. believes in God and something like 70-80% are Christians, there's a nearly even split between YECs and Christians who believe something else. Science is hard. Religion is not. So expect to see religion continuing to play a primary role in what people think about scientific issues like this, unfortunately.tragic mishap_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

tjguy 20: "One of my problems with the old earth interpretation is that if that is the way God intended us to understand the Bible, He certainly did a really lousy job of communicating that to us. Because for thousands of years Christians and Jews misunderstood it." Tjguy, I appreciate the more rational tone of your post. Accusations that I'm an atheist since I'm not a YEC are absurd, and I note several of your fellow YECs continue to beat that dead horse. They give YEC a bad name. That said, I'm quite surprised that you think humans cannot misunderstand the meaning of Genesis 1. Consider the many prophesies concerning the coming Messiah. The Jews were NOT expecting a nobody from a nothing town to die for their sins. Rather, they expected the Messiah to be a conquering, glorious hero who'd kick the Romans out. That's why they rejected Jesus. They knew their scriptures all right, but misunderstood them. We did the same re the movement of the Earth for over a thousand years. Thus, it is not in the least surprising that we'd do the same with the young earth interpretation. That's it for me on this thread.anthropic_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

I did try to delete my whole comment at #17, take it up with the moderator as he didn't honor my request.jimmontg_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @2 One of my favorite verses is Romans 11:36. It relates well the the verses you picked.
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.
All things are from him - He is the origin, creation, source of all All things are through him - He is upholds all things by his powerful word - the sustainer / preserver of all. All things are for him - He is the goal, the end of all - the restorer of all for all of eternity! To Him be glory forever! Amen! Cheers!tjguy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Anthropic @12
You cannot deny that these scriptures exist, no matter how much you dance about the KJ Bible. You cannot deny that these scriptures were interpreted literally for many centuries. You cannot deny that these scriptures haven’t changed recently, so that the new interpretation comes entirely from scientific observation.
Anthropic, no one denies these scriptures exist. However, Andre is right to point out what he did. However, you are also right to point out that the plain reading of the text of Genesis has been the favored understanding/interpretation for many many centuries! I agree with you that it is the influence of evolutionary science that has caused Christians to all of a sudden see an old earth in the Bible. One of my problems with the old earth interpretation is that if that is the way God intended us to understand the Bible, He certainly did a really lousy job of communicating that to us. Because for thousands of years Christians and Jews misunderstood it. And now, we finally understand it thanks to a bunch of godless 19th, 20th, & 21st century scientists who reject/rejected the Bible and allow/allowed no role for God in creation and their evolutionary hypotheses? I don't think so. I find that VERY hard to believe. Obviously I identify as a YEC. Context is indeed very important when interpreting the Bible as well as the original intent of the author and the genre of the literature/section/sentence in question. That is exactly why YEC's hold that position. The doctrine of the perspecuity of Scripture simply goes down the drain if God intended us to understand that the world is millions of years old. All the biblical writers take Genesis in a literal fashion so if these inspired writers, Jesus included, are also wrong, it really makes biblical interpretation almost hopeless.tjguy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

jimmontg@17
Believe it or not, not all scientists are liars.
jimmontg, are you insinuating that YECers believe that all scientists are liars? If so, please apologize and never say that again, because it is not true. If not, then please delete that from your post because that is what it looks like you are insinuating. You know as well as I do that some scientists ARE dishonest. The only evidence you need to support that are the growing number of falsified research papers that have had to be recalled in spite of peer review. YEC's do not say that all scientists are dishonest. Most actually believe what they say. It's just that we believe they are wrong in their beliefs/interpretations/conclusions mainly because they rule out any role for God from the get go. How can you expect them to get their view of creation right if they disbelieve or reject any role for the Creator?tjguy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

Awstar @2
I’ve come to the conclusion that the idols we now fashion for ourselves and worship are not “things” we make with our hands out of silver and gold like in the olden days, but are “thoughts” we conjure up with our own self-sufficiency of the mind. In other words, it’s our intellect that we worship as false god’s and it’s pervasive throughout all Christianity — much like the letter to the Church of Lacodecea warns against.
Very true, Awstar! We all have idols that we struggle with in our hearts. Idols are things we serve and/or things we value over God. For many of us our idols are things like family, money, power, sex, a good reputation, etc. But they could be something intellectual like you mentioned - a feeling of intellectual superiority(pride), being right, etc. Freedom to live life as YOU want, independence, self-sufficiency, etc. are others. Idols vary, but we all have them, unbelievers included.tjguy_{December 15, 2015
December
12
Dec
15
15
2015
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

I'm not here to get into arguments with YEC believers. events of Genesis 2 looks like the 6th day wasn't a 24 hr day and I have found some YEC proofs of a young Earth to be false and I have a hard time believing that the purveyor isn't being deceptive on purpose as I have witnessed cognitive dissonance in some Christians as well as Evolutionists, especially ones with million dollar ministries. I have been a Christian since the 70's and tried to be a YEC, but what I could see told me different. Also I never brought up radiometric dating as evidence as I'm not a physicist. As for the 8000 ringed tree, where is it? The oldest trees I'm aware of I have visited on top of the White Mtns. of Ca and they have around 5000 rings. Believe it or not, not all scientists are liars. As for soft tissue found in dinosaurs here is a link I'm sure you may find different.http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-could-fresh-dino-tissue-survive-for-millions-of-years Like I said I tried to believe in a 10,000 year old Earth and if it is only that old then God has not only sent a strong delusion to those who do not love the truth, but he has sent it to those who do. By all means believe in your interpretation of the Bible. I just don't believe in your interpretation, I wished I could, but I have a rational mind too and I have seen many wonders of the world. I find it hard to believe they were only 10,000 years old. Just the Grand Canyon alone and the amount of fossil remains deter me from accepting the YEC point of view. I will tell you like I tell the people in my church who feel it is their job to set me straight, leave it alone and me as I wasn't trying to convince a YEC about the age of the Earth and the Universe. I was trying to convince unbelievers and struggling believers in the truth of the Bible and especially the evidence for the resurrection of Christ from the dead. I'm not a Presbyterian either, you ask what does that mean? Simple, we interpret the Bible differently and I hope you do not believe being a YEC is the only way to be a true Christian.jimmontg_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

9 @anth, When the Bible uses poetic language, it is very clear. For example, from your quote of Ps. 75:3: Do you honestly believe that anyone ever believed that the earth is sitting on pillars? Stone, marble, or cement? What, are they embedded in the backs of the giant world turtle, maybe? One of the reasons why Gen. 1 is taken literally is the lack of poetic symbolism that is so obvious in all of your quotations (there's no real physical "foundation" either - we are not a house). If you want a stronger argument, stop quoting poetic scripture to dispute historical scripture - provide a reason why the historical scripture should be taken poetically. jimmontg @8, I have to disagree with you re OEC. While it is certainly true that radioactive materials all appear to show billions of years of decay, it is also true that they are inconsistent at best, and they are the ONLY method of dating that appears to show that particular clock. Every other attempt to "date" the earth has provided significantly incongruent age. There exists plenty of evidence that the earth and solar system are much younger than that - e.g. existence of comets, active planets and moons, young faint sun paradox, the changing moon orbit, etc., etc. I believe that creation.com is up to over 100 different dating methods that provide younger ages? If you wish to have a religious faith in, and prioritize, radioactive decay in long-decay rate elements, that's fine, but be aware you are then forced to discount or rationalize dozens of contradictory evidences. The oldest living tree has up to somewhere around 8000 rings, I believe - you can only get older by arbitrarily "synchronizing" new trees with dead trees and tree fossils and making some assumptions that are based on the old ages uniformitarian philosophy. How do you handle living dinosaur tissue? The presence of C-14 in all organic material? Presence of un-racemized amino acids in "million" year old unfossilized tissue? Etc. It's all in which "facts" you prove to accept uncritically at face value, and which "facts" you decide to modify/rationalize to fit into your prevailing life view. As for the "earth doesn't have enough water", I've always found that one kind of amusing. The unstated assumption being, of course, "if the world looked pretty much exactly the way it does today". Here's a thought experiment: flatten the world's surfaces, and move all the water to above the land. By definition, the entire world is underwater, a global flood. Now, how high do you have to raise mountains and lower the ocean beds before you no longer have enough water to cover the highest elevation? Whatever your answer is, that defines how tall the tallest mountain was (maybe*) prior to the global flood. In any event, no one believes the earth prior to the flood looked like it does today - when God says he "destroyed the world in a flood", that's more than saying he got everything a bit damp for a week or too. Think earthquakes, and splitting continents, and volcanic eruptions, etc. *maybe - as everyone knows, it is entirely possible to flood land even if the (settled) water table is below that land - ask anyone who has been in a flash flood or hurricane or tidal wave, etc. It is possible that the global flood covered all the land without the water being in equilibrium - more water fell on mountains than in newly created ocean beds. Who knows? Certainly no one alive or who lived to tell about it!drc466_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Anthropic Of course the texts exist I'm not denying that but trying to translate a language with only 80 000 words into a language that has close to a million is not easy. That was the point I was trying to make about translation in many cases of translation context is lost. As for your quip about defending Christianity.. tell you what show me that bona fide evidence that atheism is true and I'll go hangout at a site of your choosing. If you have any evidence that we can trust the convictions of a monkey's brain I'll do as you request.Andre_{December 14, 2015
December
12
Dec
14
14
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

jimmontg The earth has had only 6000 years of death or geological action. so there is no reason to see a older earth. I'm YEC and thats our assertion. these are minor details like tree rings. One can't reject scripture on such things. How do you know there isn't other options. How about the bibles claim that people livd hundreds of years? if so why wouldn't trees be as healthy. so the rings, to make a stronger tree growing, would grow say 50 a year for a few centuries after the flood. Other options. Marsupials. glad you asked. I write an essay POST FLOOD MARSUPIAL MIGRATION EXPLAINED. by robert BYers. just google. some yEC think marsupials are the same creatures as elsewhere soon after the flood and simply adapted a different form of reproduction upon migration to far areas from the ark. to increase reproduction rate for timeline issues. The bible should be given the benefit of the doubt.Robert Byers_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

jimmontg, excellent comments. I too have read Gerald Schroeder and gleaned much from his perspective. As for Biblical interpretation, my three guiding principles are context, context, and context. The scriptures were written by dozens of different people over thousands of years for different audiences. Any hermeneutic that ignores those facts does a disservice to those who seek truth.anthropic_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Andre 10 Ad hominem much, Andre? You cannot deny that these scriptures exist, no matter how much you dance about the KJ Bible. You cannot deny that these scriptures were interpreted literally for many centuries. You cannot deny that these scriptures haven't changed recently, so that the new interpretation comes entirely from scientific observation. As for calling me an atheist, why don't you put on your big boy pants and defend & promote theism, Christianity, and ID at a hostile science & tech site some time? That's what I do.anthropic_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

To clear up some possible misunderstanding of the Bible and it's translation into English I must say something. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus (which had the Hebrew Old Testament from the Masoretes) by some of the best linguistic minds of the time, indeed maybe of all time. I read somewhere that one scholar could recite the whole Bible from memory in the original languages. Yes the Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic text as many translations were until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 40's to early 50's and then suddenly they had copies in the original hebrew from over a thousand years earlier in just a few years. The wolves were waiting to show how mis-transmitted the texts became over the centuries, how full of mistakes and corrupted it had become. The wolves went hungry, the comparison of the manuscripts had a deviation of less than 1%. The KJV translators got the translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text very close and it is considered a very literal translation, especially for it's time and most of it correlated greatly with the Geneva and Coverdale translations that had come out before it. Don't forget the work of William Tyndale and his excellent translation in 1530 I think. The verses quoted are all from the old Testament about the Earth standing still. It was translated from the Hebrew with some cross reference to the Greek Septuagint. No offense to many, but I dislike the term "a translation of a translation." as it is inaccurate. The KJV was a translation from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It would be more accurate to say, "A copy of a copy of a copy." and on and on. Besides the verses quoted meanings do not change in any modern literal version that I'm aware of. If anyone wants to know I read the NJKV, New Geneva commentary version. The New KJV is another literal version. I read The Living Bible for relaxation, but it is heavily paraphrased.jimmontg_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

And Anthropic does what every single other atheist does they explicitly quote from the KJV. Anybody that has ever done any type of research about the bible knows that there are issues with the KJV translation. It's not like it is some deep Christian secret that it's a translation from a translation. If you are interested in truth then go do the research of the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek. 50 bucks says Anthropic does not care about truth.Andre_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Vy 7 Lol! This is exactly what the BioLogos blogger in the article I linked to above does. A moving Earth does not go against the “plain reading” of the Bible. --------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, Vy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And in fact, Christians taught for many centuries that the Earth does not move. This teaching was based on multiple scriptures which literally do say that the Earth does not move. "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:10) The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm "foundation of the earth" was laid. (Gen. 1:9-18) "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5) "The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30) "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Sam. 2:8) "It is I who have firmly set its pillars." (Ps. 75:3) Vy, I'm sure you'd agree with me that these statement were not meant to be taken strictly literally, any more than Jesus should be taken strictly literally when He says He is the door. But when you deny your own hyperliteral hermeneutic in one instance, it ill becomes you to to attack those who deny it in another.anthropic_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

I'm an old Earth creationist. I am not one because of the doctrines of science though and I do not believe in Darwinist naturalistic evolution. Read Gerald Schroeder's version of a literal six day creation. Human time doesn't begin until Adam is created and the sixth day of creation was definitely longer than 24 hours. Also the 7th day hasn't ended yet according to the Bible. Here is a link to Schroeder's website.http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=2 You see I know too much about geology and even without radiometric dating the age of the Earth is still without a doubt older than 10,000 years. Tree rings take us back over 12,000 and if you take into account years where the weather was so bad the trees didn't grow a ring it is even older. We can talk about lake varves and even if many of them were laid down in one year you still have the Green River deposits that if cut in half would still be over a million years. You expect me to believe the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood? If Noah's flood covered the whole planet then it was a miracle and in no way could it have been a natural event. The Earth doesn't have that much water. Also how did most all the marsupials of the world get to Australia in only 10,000 years unless there was another miracle? Read some of the OEC exegesis of Genesis for yourself and especially Schroeder who isn't a Christian, but a Jewish physicist. I have a ton of problems with evolution, but not too much with an old Earth or a correlated interpretation of Genesis chapter one. Old Earth interpretations didn't start recently you know, they go back centuries, even millennia.jimmontg_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Do you, against the so-called “plain reading” of the Bible, believe the Earth moves, Vy?
Lol! This is exactly what the BioLogos blogger in the article I linked to above does. A moving Earth does not go against the "plain reading" of the Bible.
If so, why?
Answered above.Vy_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Vy 5 Do you, against the so-called "plain reading" of the Bible, believe the Earth moves, Vy? If so, why?anthropic_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Ah, what's one more deluded compromisationalist. I guess he missed the part where they admit the Bible is in full support of YEC:
a plain reading of Exodus 20:11 shows that God created in six literal days
The only way anyone would see anything else is by giving secular pseudoscience more priority with silly excuses like "the Bible is not a science book" which deserves a "duh? Books about WW1 & WW2 aren't science books either, doesn't mean they're any less true or symbolic or whatever useless term you wanna describe Genesis as because they're about history, plain and simple" OR chopping Bible verses and taking them out of context. Theistic Darwinists, the people of oldearth.org, godandscience and RTB are very capable of both.Vy_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Sounds like he admits his faith has changed. He still seems to see the glaring holes in evolutionary theory but has faith in it anyway. ToE says that nature built organisms' physical features by an accumulation of mutations...yet where is the evidence that mutations can actually build new anatomical structures? Where are the mutations that add new parts of eyes or ears or kidneys? This essentially leaves all of biology unaccounted for. The creative element of the theory of evolution is not legitimate. The adaptive changes we do see from mutations are all either negative, conservative or degenerative. And selection only weeds out the worst of these. The big picture is that we're going downhill not uphill.tommy hall_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

As a Bible believer which makes me a YEC by default, I've come to the conclusion that the idols we now fashion for ourselves and worship are not "things" we make with our hands out of silver and gold like in the olden days, but are "thoughts" we conjure up with our own self-sufficiency of the mind. In other words, it's our intellect that we worship as false god's and it's pervasive throughout all Christianity -- much like the letter to the Church of Lacodecea warns against.awstar_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. [John 1:3, 10 (ESV)] For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. [Colossians 1:16 (ESV)]
Christ is both agent and goal of creation, Lord of all that is. Sing Psalm 148 and rejoice!Dionisio_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

God is good. All the time.Mung_{December 13, 2015
December
12
Dec
13
13
2015
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply