I think you misunderstood what the President said. Intervention is not merely for humanitarian concerns, there are other considerations as well.

MarconiDarwin That is a very general claim without any real support. Who are these "honest atheist"? The truth is, the so called debunking is simply atheists denying any theistic hypothesis without presenting any substantial defeaters. It would be interesting to see one of the hypothesis and the facts that debunked it.

No, you are missing the point. You are asking two questions, 1) you wonder how come everyone does not believe in God if His law is written on their hearts. The answer is this: Everyone has a sense of God; that was placed there by God. But instead of acknowledging Him, they worshiped created things... "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to t...more

No, you are missing the point.

You are asking two questions, 1) you wonder how come everyone does not believe in God if His law is written on their hearts. The answer is this:

Everyone has a sense of God; that was placed there by God. But instead of acknowledging Him, they worshiped created things...

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. " (Romans 1:19-22)

Then 2) you want to know if Jews and Muslims are saved even though they do not accept the Lordship of Christ. I'll let Paul answer for the Jews.

“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Romans 9:1-9)

As for the Muslims, they do not believe in the God of the Bible.less

No, you are missing the point. You are asking two questions, 1) you wonder how come everyone does not believe in God if His law is written on their hearts. The answer is this: Everyone has a sense of God; that was placed there by God. But instead of acknowledging Him, they worshiped created things... "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to t...more

No, you are missing the point.

You are asking two questions, 1) you wonder how come everyone does not believe in God if His law is written on their hearts. The answer is this:

Everyone has a sense of God; that was placed there by God. But instead of acknowledging Him, they worshiped created things...

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. " (Romans 1:19-22)

Then 2) you want to know if Jews and Muslims are saved even though they do not accept the Lordship of Christ. I'll let Paul answer for the Jews.

“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Romans 9:1-9)

As for the Muslims, they do not believe in the God of the Bible.less

rlelln... I am not saying that. What I am implying is that we must recognize that God's way of salvation was established before creation. Therefore all who received salvation received it through Christ, even though they were NOT aware of it. Their faith was in the Creator and the Bible tells us that Christ was the Creator (John 1:3); so when they believed in God it was a tacit belief in Christ....more

rlelln...

I am not saying that. What I am implying is that we must recognize that God's way of salvation was established before creation. Therefore all who received salvation received it through Christ, even though they were NOT aware of it. Their faith was in the Creator and the Bible tells us that Christ was the Creator (John 1:3); so when they believed in God it was a tacit belief in Christ. Jesus told the Pharisees and Sadusees that Moses wrote about Him (that would be the Five Books of Moses). But we also know that men were calling upon the name of the Lord long before Judaism was established; it was also God the Son, that they were calling upon.less

Rielln... "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A LOVING GOD WILL NOT PROVIDE A WAY FAIR AND JUST WAY FOR SALVATION."... But He has. We get caught up with the notion that those who believed before the incarnation, or before the the establishment of the Hebraic religion, or have never heard of jesus, could not be saved by accepting the salvific work of Christ. That is a misguided notion. We see things fro...more

Rielln...

"I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A LOVING GOD WILL NOT PROVIDE A WAY FAIR AND JUST WAY FOR SALVATION."...
But He has.

We get caught up with the notion that those who believed before the incarnation, or before the the establishment of the Hebraic religion, or have never heard of jesus, could not be saved by accepting the salvific work of Christ. That is a misguided notion. We see things from a temporal and progressive point of view, forgetting that from God's point of view it is all in an instant.

Scripture teaches that Christ was "slain before the foundation of the world"; this was for the salvation of all who would believe. Scripture also teaches that those without the law have the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-16). Furthermore, God's grace that brings salvation has appeared to all (Titus 2). Additionally, Jesus said that only way one can get to the Father is through him, and Luke tells us in Acts that there is only one path to salvation - through Christ. Therefore, wherever and whenever a person comes to faith in God, it is through Christ, whether or not they have cognitive awareness of the proposition "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".less

The first time I heard Ehrman lecture, I came away with the impression that he slanted the facts to support his narrative.

Ketch22,... I couldn't agree more...that is, I doubt the claim that a person is a Christian who disagrees that Jesus is the only way to the Father.

The red flag that comes up and that should make Christians suspect of BioLogos is its belief that God is using it to bring the Church into acceptance of evolution; it exaggerates its own importance. Make no mistake, BioLogos is indeed challenging the integrity of the Christian faith, not just its theology. There is a clear difference between evidence that the earth is very, very old, and claiming...more

The red flag that comes up and that should make Christians suspect of BioLogos is its belief that God is using it to bring the Church into acceptance of evolution; it exaggerates its own importance. Make no mistake, BioLogos is indeed challenging the integrity of the Christian faith, not just its theology. There is a clear difference between evidence that the earth is very, very old, and claiming that men evolved from other life forms. The Bible declares, and no scientific evidence has proven otherwise, that God made man de novo. This is what’s at stake.

At the heart of the matter, the fundamental premise of evolution denies the existence of God or his superintendence of the creative process; so even theistic evolution is untenable.less

Believer, I agree that Jesus was addressing the man's reluctance.

DP and believer, there was an inadvertent omission by copyists of missing the small Aramaic character that differentiated between dead (metta) and town (matta). This has been verified by extant old manuscripts. The original Gospels were written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek, then to English. The eastern Churches still use the Aramaic versions. The expression is still used today in t...more

DP and believer, there was an inadvertent omission by copyists of missing the small Aramaic character that differentiated between dead (metta) and town (matta). This has been verified by extant old manuscripts. The original Gospels were written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek, then to English. The eastern Churches still use the Aramaic versions.

The expression is still used today in the east.. Also, the expression, "Let me bury my father" is an old Aramaic expression that means the father is over seventy years old and close to dying. It was customary for the oldest son to take over the family's affairs in transition until the the father dies.less

Just a clarification on Matt. 8:22: The proper interpretation is "Let the town bury the dead"

Well said, well said.

Not to belabor the issue, because good Christians disagree on the age of the earth, but this is not about whether the Bible has errors because it clearly does not. It is about whether what another Bible scholar (Archbishop James Ussher) claims is reliable. It was he who in the seventeenth century established the date of creation as 9 AM, Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. (There are some questions as t...more

Not to belabor the issue, because good Christians disagree on the age of the earth, but this is not about whether the Bible has errors because it clearly does not. It is about whether what another Bible scholar (Archbishop James Ussher) claims is reliable. It was he who in the seventeenth century established the date of creation as 9 AM, Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. (There are some questions as to whether John Lightfoot did this first). But this is where it roughly started. So this is primarily based upon what a "scholar" says.
Immediately, there is a problem. If the earth was created at 9 AM, that means there was morning before evening, but Genesis consistently says evening first.
So what we have here is one believer agreeing with one set of Bible scholars and another agreeing with another set. What is clear is that the Bible does not say what Ussher says. There are also other issues with some of his dates when compared to well established historical data such as his date for the flood.less

Here is an example of the problem with dating by genealogies from the Bible (copied from a website). This is in good faith and anyone can go to the scriptures and check. "…modern study of genealogies, both in the Bible and in the Ancient Near Eastern world in general, have shown that this way of reading the genealogies is wrong. …William Henry Green [in the essay “Primeval Chronology” ...more

Here is an example of the problem with dating by genealogies from the Bible (copied from a website). This is in good faith and anyone can go to the scriptures and check.

"…modern study of genealogies, both in the Bible and in the Ancient Near Eastern world in general, have shown that this way of reading the genealogies is wrong. …William Henry Green [in the essay “Primeval Chronology” in 1890]…noticed that the genealogies in the Bible have gaps: for example, in the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew tells us that “Joram fathered Uzziah” (Matt. 1:8, using the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word in Genesis 5). However, if you read 2 Kings, you see that Uzziah was actually Joram’s great-great grandson. Apparently “A fathered B” may mean “A fathered an ancestor of B.”

"We can find other examples of compressed genealogies in the Bible: for example, if we look at Exodus 6:14-27, we read that Moses was the son of Amram, who was the son of Kohath, who was the son of Levi (who was the son of Jacob): that is, you have four generations from Jacob to Moses. However, Kohath was born before Jacob took his family down to Egypt (Gen.46:11); and if the Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt (Ex. 12:40-41 is pretty explicit), and if Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 7:7), then Kohath was born at least 350 years before Moses was. That’s a bit long if Kohath was Moses’ grandfather… Not only that, but Kohath’s descendants numbered 8,600 males over the age of one month (Num. 3:27-28), and 2,750 of them were between the ages of 30 and 50 (Num. 4:34-37)—and this just a month after the Israelites left Egypt (Num. 1:1). That is phenomenal fertility if Kohath was Moses’ grandfather…

The solution becomes clear if we look at the genealogy of Joshua, who was about half Moses’ age, in 1 Chronicles 7:23-27. Joshua was the son of Nun who was the son of Elishama who was the son of Ammihud who was the son of Ladan who was the son of Tahan who was the son of Telah who was the son of Resheph who was the son of Rephah who was the son of Beriah who was the son of Ephraim (who was the son of Joseph who was the son of Jacob). That gives twelve generations from Jacob to Joshua…

So the genealogies in the books of Moses are not there to give us lengths of time—in fact, no biblical author ever reckons up a length of time based on them. What was there purpose? Primarily they aim to give us the line of descent for the people they list." -- Old Testament Scholar (and MIT Graduate) C. John Collinsless

revran - I do not see any errors in God's word. That is not what this is about. Also, it is not a matter of "missing" generations, it was the customary way of recording lineages. What I am saying is that I do not know and, since it would take questionable mathematical calculations to determine, and since the Bible is not as explicit as "God created Adam", on this matter, I cannot say cate...more

revran -

I do not see any errors in God's word. That is not what this is about. Also, it is not a matter of "missing" generations, it was the customary way of recording lineages.

What I am saying is that I do not know and, since it would take questionable mathematical calculations to determine, and since the Bible is not as explicit as "God created Adam", on this matter, I cannot say categorically that it is so. Harold Camping has used the same method of calculating the age of the earth and now declares that the world will end in May of 2011. No ifs, ands or buts; he is certain that this is so. He believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and everything is to be taken at face value. Is he correct in his prediction?less

Revran - But as I implied before, some genreations may well have been omitted. I am at work and cannot get to references to direct you, but in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" this is aptly dealt with. There are also OT surveys that deal thoroughly with the subject, as well as some good works on apologetics.

idoubtit8o - I am unable to reply directly from this location, so I'll submit a new post as my response. Look, I have no reason to believe that Adam was not created with age and I will not speculate otherwise. God can do that as well as create the earth to look likt it is aged. But we need to exercise some epistemic humility. How do we know that Adam was not created as a child? Could God do th...more

idoubtit8o - I am unable to reply directly from this location, so I'll submit a new post as my response.

Look, I have no reason to believe that Adam was not created with age and I will not speculate otherwise. God can do that as well as create the earth to look likt it is aged. But we need to exercise some epistemic humility. How do we know that Adam was not created as a child? Could God do that? Of course, but the Bible does not say. Genesis 2:4-25 tells us that because God did not yet let it rain and because there was no one to tend them, no plants grew. Why didn't God make the plants with age consistent with creating an aged earth? And how long did it take to nurture the plants to maturity once Adam was created? How long after Adam was created that Eve was created? Remember Adam named all the animals. Did they gather before him in one sitting to be named? How long did that take? Did this all take place in 24 literal hours? The Bible does not say. Neither will I.less

@Revran I understand that some Christians use genealogies to help put an age to the creation of the earth. But we must be careful to also understand that genealogies are not reliable dating methods. For example, back in Moses’ time, there were no Hebrew words for grandfather or great grandfather, or great, great, grandfather… So when it is said that a person was the son of someone, it is of...more

@Revran

I understand that some Christians use genealogies to help put an age to the creation of the earth. But we must be careful to also understand that genealogies are not reliable dating methods. For example, back in Moses’ time, there were no Hebrew words for grandfather or great grandfather, or great, great, grandfather… So when it is said that a person was the son of someone, it is often not clear whether it means an immediate son or a great, great, great grandson.

Additionally, it was customary to only list prominent members of the line of descendants regardless of where those descendants fall in the succession. Again, for example, if a king were the only prominent descendant between a prominent forebear ten generations apart, it is possible that none of the other descendants between those two would be mentioned in the genealogy. Therefore, it is possible to call Jesus the Son of David (Matt.1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:31; 21:9, 15; 22:42) with respect to his earthly lineage.

And how should we take 2 Peter 3:8? In a literalistic sense, we could say that Adam was created on the sixth day or during the 6000th year after the earth was formed and God rested on the seventh day or during the 7000th year. That would make the 6000 years calculated from Adam through genealogies possibly only six days! We would end up with possibly a twelve-day-old, or a 12000-year-old earth. Then to be consistent, we would have to take the 70 week prophesies in a literalistic sense as well (Daniel 9:20-27). Would that make the second coming of Christ 490000 years from that time?

Or we could look at the literal meaning of the text (2 Peter 3:8); taking the idiom as commonly understood by Peter’s audience (and the context of that pericope) to mean that time to God is not measured necessarily by our calendar years.

My point is that I do not see any warrant to put a number to the age of the earth based upon calculations from Biblical genealogies, which is the foundation for all such determinations. I do not think this is a lack of belief in the Bible or a lack of studying the Bible. I just think the Bible is silent on this issue.less

Don't rock the boat. The Bible says nothing about how long ago the earth was created.