Saturday, November 11, 2023

Sean McDowell Wrongly Stamps Age of the Earth as Inessential

Please note, apart from that (in the following) and apart from wrongly taking Mark as first Gospel (my comment is not yet answered), he does a good job.

Does the Age of the Earth Matter? | Guest: Dr. Sean McDowell (Part Two) | Ep 901
Allie Beth Stuckey, 2.XI.2023

2:26 "but they are areas in which Christians can disagree"

I'd say that might have been that about 100 years ago.

Given what we know about language and humanity, we cannot accept that Adam had non-human parents.

Given what we know about humanity, we cannot say he had parents somewhere between human and non-human.

Given what Adam is we cannot accept he had human parents.

Therefore, Adam having no ancestry except his Creator is an essential.

Given that Genesis is history, we cannot accept Adam lived 750 000 years ago, as William Lane Craig suggested (credits to him for admitting Adam had no ancestry and is himself ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and I'd obviously add Denisovans and Erectus -- as to Heidelbergians and Antecessor, I think they are synonyms for Denisovans).

Given what we know of carbon dates, we cannot have a recent Adam in an old universe. Especially not on an old earth. Adam (and his Neanderthal and Denisovan descendants) can well have lived not all that long ago, if the carbon 14 level was still very much lower than today (like I'd say Neanderthals and Denisovans, except mix race samples on the mainly "Sapiens" Ark population, died out in the Flood, and carbon 14 was 1.625 pmC back then, giving us 34000 extra years and add that to a Flood that was really 5000 years ago, gives 39 000 BP).

But it cannot have been much lower than today if C14 had been forming in the upper atmosphere for 100 000s or millions of years before that. Therefore a pre-Adam prolongation of the Biblical timeline has to go too.

Rob Langsdorf
When I became a Christian, Campus Crusade for Christ was using the Scofield Reference Bible. Between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 it had a footnote that inserted billions of years.

Later I learned that verse 2 was connected with an "and" term that didn't allow any time between these verses.

It probably took me 15 years to begin to discover how young our earth is.

Now it is very clear that old earthers are leading people astray by misrepresent what God has said in his Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hi, @roblangsdorf8758 !

Haydock comment is like Scofield in design, but two differences.

Overarching, it's Catholic. In this context, no insert of extra time!

3:13 Young Earth proper : Earth is 7222 years old this year, was 5199 years old when Christ was born.

sasquatch UK 🇬🇧
How ill educatated

Hans Georg Lundahl
How so, @sasquatch341?

Bc you prefer Ussher or Syncellus? Or Jewish calendar?

OK, I can respect that.

But if you consider YOUNG Earth to mean "10 000 -- 12 000 years" I am sorry to say you are ill educated about the Bible and chronological issues in it.

3:57 Earth 3.7 or 4.5 billion years old = atmosphere is old = carbon 14 can't have been still at 1.625 pmC when the Flood is Biblically speaking = Neanderthals and Denisovans are 40 000 years old as per carbon dates.

This leads to either Neanderthals and Denisovans and some Sapiens living along them were not human, or Adam lived way more than 40 000 years ago, and Genesis 3 is not recorded history, or Adam was not the first man, either way, Christianity is in worn out tatters.

4:08 "days = extended periods BUT Adam lived 7222 years ago, and no humans lived before him"

WAS an option in 1909.
IS NOT an option now.

4:19 "It's not even trying to give us a specific scientific account"

It is definitely trying to give us a historic account, though.

Young Earth is about as much about Genesis 5 and 11 as it is about days of Genesis 1.

If you add up ages at birth of relevant son in those chapters, Abraham was born between 1600 and over 3000, but not over 3500, years after Adam was created.

Abraham visited Egypt.

5:07 "We don't have time ... to divide over issues like this"

Hence, those who do take a strong position get marginalised for not taking the mark of Sean McDowell ... either on hand or forehead.

John G
It's not a gospel issue. It's not salvation by grace, sola Scriptura, or the deity of Christ for instance. It's important sure but it's a secondary issue and we shouldn't be dividing brothers and sisters over it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
I'm sorry, @myjesusisall3192 ... the question is when one can be considered as divisive.

Salvation is by grace, and not from works, but as certainly into works. Sola Scriptura is an error to a heresy, depending on what kind of authority the Council of Trent intended in defining the alternative.

The Deity of Christ actually is indirectly involved.

A) bc of how Jesus did His miracles
B) bc of what He said in Mark 10:6 about the relation between age of the world and of mankind
C) bc of a Church He founded which all the time up to 1830's was Young Earth, whatever position it had on the days in Genesis 1.

I don't mind marginalizing certain perspectives if those perspectives themselves are corrosive to the larger project of avoiding marginalization. There's nothing wrong or contradictory about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Unless, @Jimmy-iy9pl, it precisely is wrong in your choice of what you marginalise.

I think some Jews didn't want to get marginalised in their own country by the Romans, and found Jesus a liability.

Now, they were not considering Him as God anyway, even if they should have, so, to them, that was "marginalising a mere man" ... who for tactical reasons, they thought, should be marginalised.

They ended up crucifying God (through the Romans), calling Caesar their only king (to the exclusion of God), and getting their city sacked.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Btw, @Jimmy-iy9pl, check the issues I enumerated in the comment previous to yours.

5:53 Answering for the unbeliever I could have been (if I had matured without becoming a Christian at 9) and am not.

  • 1) You state that Jesus is God. God is all knowing. In Mark 10:6, your God said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Adam and Eve are closer to nearly just when Jesus spoke than at the beginning of Earth's timeline.

  • 2) You state that Adam did sth very important and ominous, in Genesis 3. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you cannot deny there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens around 40 000 years ago:

    • a) if they descend from Adam, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history
    • b) if you say Genesis 3 was revealed to God, that's not in either Bible or tradition, only Genesis 1 is by tradition held to have been a vision Moses had on Sinai
    • c) also on "very old Adam" hypothesis, Genesis 5 and 11, by being stated as basically complete history and being grossly incomplete become lies within the book you call God's word
    • d) on the hypothesis of a very much more recent Adam:
      • i) all men being Adamites is indefensible (Amerindians and Aborigines would only partly and thanks to Europeans descend from him)
      • ij) him being the first man is indefensible (Neanderthals in Shanidar were human, well before him)
      • iij) original sin coming from him to all of mankind is therefore also indefensible.

  • 3) If you think Adam had evolutionary origins, and uphold that only man can properly speaking speak, that's part of what makes us God's image, then it would follow Adam was a feral child, and God was cruel to him before he sinned. If you hold he only became human as an adult, this would change the thing, but involve him having a trauma from previous animal life into human life, unless God gave him amnesia, which in and of itself is a bad thing, which again makes Adam suffer evil before he sinned.

  • 4) Not to mention animal suffering over millions of years before there were men and before the Earth was cursed for Adam's sin. Some Church Fathers held animals could have died, as food for carnivores, none that they would have been exposed to harsh prolonged suffering, before he sinned.

And actually, this also answers for why as a believer I find Old Earth either inconsistent by pretty big inattentions, or showing a lack of faith in the Christian revelation.

6:38 "Very much smart scientists and Biblical scholars who make a case for the old earth"

I have seen a few of them, none that I cannot refute pretty soundly.

Or, there were very many smart Pharisees who made a case against Jesus being the Christ .... smartness is actually not barred from apostates.

Why do Christians want to obsess over this topic. Not that important. I keep changing my positions and was obsessed with it but now I am neutral

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neutral, @sigmanocopyrightmusic8737?

La Ferrassie 1, a Neanderthal woman, is dated to c. 40 000 BP.

Are you neutral to whether Neanderthals were people descending from Adam?

Are you neutral on whether Adam transmitted the Genesis 3 story over a credible number of intermediates up to Abraham and then Moses?

I'm not.

nicole pettit
Moses could literally talk to God though. He wouldn't necessarily have to get the account from Adam down through Abraham. He could have asked God what happened or what to write.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Could does not equal did, @nicolepettit5120 .

We know from the Bible he talked with God about the commandments on the stone tablets, and also about arranging the Exodus and lots of smaller laws.

We know from tradition, he had a vision of the six days (Book of Jubilees says it was more detailed about the spirit world than the account in Genesis 1).

We have neither tradition nor Bible for his talking to God about what happened at the fall, and, if he actually had done so, where did he get such flimsy data for Genesis 5 and 11 from? Hardly from God, right?

Cross Over Culture
You think you can refute Hugh Ross “Pretty Soundly”? Best of luck with that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It's he who needs your best luck, @Applegatestops , not I.

I have invited him for debate, over the internet, and I have had no response.

It's possible I once years ago saw him at the campus of Nanterre University, at a picknick, he'd have offered me a chat and a meal, but never a response on the debate over internet.

No comments: