Video Answer: Old Earth Creationism and the Bible

Posted: March 17, 2010 by Alan Shlemon in Etcetera, God Has Spoken, Intelligently Designed

Alan answers two questions about old earth creationism that were submitted through the “Ask Anything” page on strplace.org.

Comments
  1. Keith Scott says:

    Not to try to stir up strife within the body, but it’s disappointing that while Alan states at the outset of the video that he isn’t going to try to defend either old earth vs. young earth, he only provides resources that defend the old earth position. I would kindly recommend excellent young earth ministries such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International who advocate the young earth position. Although I don’t have the time or space to get into the points here, it is a matter of biblical authority. Either you stand on the authority of the Word of God (straight forward reading of the Scriptures equals young earth) or try to add man’s theories (for those who think that radiometric dating, etc have proven the earth billions of years old) to the Bible, and guess what always gets changed? Of course, the Bible to accommodate man’s theories…

  2. Bob says:

    Interesting how there is no discussion of evolutionary creation. Eminent evangelical scientists such as Francis Collins have written about the overwhelming modern data in support of evolution and theologians such as Bruce Waltke advocate this view as the best harmony between science and the Scriptures.

    http://biologos.org/

  3. Gene says:

    I for one appreciate Alan’s approach to represent a very difficult issue. My guess is he presents the old Earth materials because most of his audience is already sympathetic, if not devoted, to young earth theories.

    STR has been impressing me more and more with their humble approach to difficult issues and so long as they can be open to discussion (As alan clearly states) I think they deserve a loud microphone.

    Good Job STR! Getting us Christians to think can only be a blessing.

  4. Matt from the video says:

    Hey Thanks for answering my question!! 🙂
    I’m not a fan of Hugh Ross tho because he think nature is the 67th book of the Bible. The canon of scripture is complete, and there isn’t anything missing from it. And I certainly wouldn’t claim that this cursed creation is on the same level as the Holy inspired scripture! And in order to reconcile nature and the Bible, he doesn’t change his interpretation or assumptions of science – Instead he changes the Bible!

  5. Tee Ar says:

    The apparent conflict [prima fascie] between Hugh Ross’ Progressive Creationism & Ken Hamm’s & John F. MacArthur’s Young Earth View may be resolved in II Thessal. 2.10 –
    Obscu-RANT-ic people shall suck sulfur, and this gives them the bogus excuse to make the Leap of “Faith,” (-Francis A. Schaeffer) “Pell mell into Hell” (-Shakespeare, “Richard the 3rd”).

  6. Tee Ar says:

    The Christless Christianity conference with Drs. J. Mac., R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton & Peter Jones (John Lennon’s High School pal & critic of the latter’s Gnosticism = Liver-quiver-ism) commences today at 2 p.m., continuing tomorrow.

    To Listen “free” @ GraceChurch.org , search for “Live Stream.”

  7. yakamoz says:

    So, Keith, do you believe in geocentrism, too?