Christian news - breaking headlines from around the United States and the world. Trending hot topics in Christianity.

Ben Carson Says He Believes God Created the Earth but Does Not Know When

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben Carson Says He Believes God Created the Earth but Does Not Know When

    Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said in a recent statement that he believed God created the world but does not know when the creation occurred.




    More...

  • #2
    We should pray for people like Ben Carson who have the courage and the opportunity to take a public stand for the truth of the Bible. In Carson's case we need to also pray that God will give him a better understanding of the Bible.
    Clyde Herrin's Blog
    Comment>

    • #3
      In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, Carson seemed rather stunned and speechless when O'Reilly pointed out Carson's "Gap Theory" leads to evolution. It comes as a rather "denied" surprise to me, I say denied because I have thought that it better to vote for someone of a proven track record such as Ted Cruz. Being an outspoken critic of evolution, I was rather surprised that Carson would leave the door open to such theory. To me, I would suggest to Ben Carson, that if he fears what other men think, recite what Jesus says, He hadn't a problem using Genesis as a historical record for creation. If anyone wishes to object to that and reject as to what Jesus believed 2000 years ago for what people believe today about what happened millions or billions of years ago, I would just point out that whatever theory one holds to it isn't biblical.

      Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
      Matthew 19:4 "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,"

      Both cite "in the beginning" and "from the beginning". Not some millions of years later shoe horned between Genesis 1:1-2

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Liberals hardly pretend to think rationally. Their mode of public debate is to label (e.g. "that's racist") or mock, then dismiss, the views they disagree with. Creationists generally avoid being labeled, instead liberals mock to the extreme.

        I tend to believe that Carson is a young-earth Creationist, but his refusal to openly commit to recent creation is to avoid derisive mockery.

        The "gap theory" is useless, as the bulk of creation account follows the placement of the gap.
        Comment>

        • #5
          I went and look at the interview online because I want to make sure what was said.

          O'Reilly pointed out Carson's "Gap Theory" leads to evolution
          O'Reilly never really says that. O'Reilly stated that "Intelligent design leads to evolution." He does not actually say that the Gap Theory leads to evolution. In regard to intelligent design, however, O'Reilly is wrong. Intelligent design is neutral as to that question. Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Now that could be understood in terms of evolution but not necessarily. One could hold to a view of special creation and believe the whole is a case of intelligent design.

          "He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,"
          I do not think this quote rules out the gap theory. It simply states that it was God's plan, all along (i.e. from the start), that the rule should be one man and one woman. That in no way addresses how much time has elapsed from creation till that moment.

          In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
          This quote, in and of itself, does not refute the gap theory. In fact it is the verse that those who hold that view reference. The gap theory hold that between verse 1 and verse 2 there appears to be (or at least could be) a gap of time. Thus God called into being the whole of creation, then sometime after that, he organized the whole of it. The gap theory does not lead to evolution but simply tries to offer an explanation for the apparent age of the Earth and the Universe.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Very nice clarification, Origen.

            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post
              Very nice clarification, Origen.

              God bless,
              William
              Thank you Sir. I very must appreciate that.
              Comment>

              • #8
                G'morning Origen,

                Just curious bro, what's your personal perspective concerning the Genesis creation account?

                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                O'Reilly never really says that. O'Reilly stated that "Intelligent design leads to evolution." He does not actually say that the Gap Theory leads to evolution. In regard to intelligent design, however, O'Reilly is wrong. Intelligent design is neutral as to that question. Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Now that could be understood in terms of evolution but not necessarily. One could hold to a view of special creation and believe the whole is a case of intelligent design.
                O'Reilly never says Gap Theory, but alludes to the process of evolution that spans billions of years and is still not complete. Like other old-earth theories, the Gap Theory is supposed to explain the fossil record and harmonize the biblical account with modern scientific theories about a multiple billion year old earth. As for the white space between Genesis 1:1-2... time is the hero of all the evolutionists' theories. If the universe is not billions and billions of years old, we can discard evolutionary theory from the outset. On the other hand, if we accept the evolutionists' theory that the universe has existed for countless epochs, we need adjust our interpretation of Scripture to accommodate an old earth and thereby capitulate to one of evolution's most essential dogmas.

                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                I do not think this quote rules out the gap theory. It simply states that it was God's plan, all along (i.e. from the start), that the rule should be one man and one woman. That in no way addresses how much time has elapsed from creation till that moment.
                The Gap Theory imposes enormous theological problems. For example, in Genesis 1:31, after God had completed all His creation, He declared it "very good" --which would not be a fitting description if evil had already entered the universe. Furthermore, if the fossil record is to be explained by an interval in the white space between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that means death, disease, suffering, and calamity were common many ages before Adam fell. Yet Scripture says Adam's sin was the event that introduced death and calamity into God's creation: 2 Corinthians 15:21; Romans 5:12. The Gap Theory also flatly contradicts Exodus 20:11.

                Originally posted by Origen View Post
                This quote, in and of itself, does not refute the gap theory. In fact it is the verse that those who hold that view reference. The gap theory hold that between verse 1 and verse 2 there appears to be (or at least could be) a gap of time. Thus God called into being the whole of creation, then sometime after that, he organized the whole of it. The gap theory does not lead to evolution but simply tries to offer an explanation for the apparent age of the Earth and the Universe.
                Absolutely nothing in the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3 speaks of evolution or long geological ages in the creation process. The text itself is in fact a straightforward refutation of all evolutionary principals. Theistic evolution, billion year-old earth theories, and progressive "creationism" are all refuted if we simply take the statements of Genesis at face value. Only by denying key expressions or interpreting them in a non-literal sense can the Christian read any degree of evolution or "progressive creation" into the Genesis account. Consequently, it's a very difficult tasks for any commentator or exegete to impose old-earth theories on the biblical creation account. In order to attempt it at all, they must begin by obscuring the obvious historical sense of the passage, and turning instead to literary devices such as allegory, myth, legend, and poetic expressions.

                God bless,
                William
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  G'morning Origen, just curious bro, what's your personal perspective concerning the Genesis creation account?
                  I believe in special creation. However I do not take Gen. 1 to be a scientific account of creation nor do I think it was ever meant to be understood in that way. Given the literary genre of Gen. 1 and the other creation stories around Israel, it functions as a polemic against the gods of the other nations. The point being that everything they believed about the world was wrong. The lights in the sky are not gods but luminaries place there by the God. Man was not an accident, or an after thought, or a mistake (as can been seen from other creation stories from that region) but the purpose of creation itself.

                  Therefore the point of Gen.1 was to informed Israel and the nations around them God is, was, and always be in control. Therefore put your faith in the God who created everything not the things that were created.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  If the universe is not billions and billions of years old, we can discard evolutionary theory from the outset.
                  On that point we agree. Yet I would discard evolutionary theory anyway. There are too many problems with theory as a whole.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  On the other hand, if we accept the evolutionists' theory that the universe has existed for countless epochs, we need adjust our interpretation of Scripture to accommodate an old earth and thereby capitulate to one of evolution's most essential dogmas.
                  I do not think that follows. I believe understanding the Scriptures in their cultural and historical context addresses the issues.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  The Gap Theory imposes enormous theological problems.
                  I have no love for the gap theory but merely wanted to point out what the view entails.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  For example, in Genesis 1:31, after God had completed all His creation, He declared it "very good" --which would not be a fitting description if evil had already entered the universe.
                  I see no reason why this would be a problem for those who hold the gap theory for two reason. First, I would think that they believe that evil entered the whole at the same time you do. Thus the gap that proceeded that event would have no bearing on it. Second, you seem to take the term "very good" in a moral sense (if I am wrong about this sorry). [FONT=Segoe UI]T[/FONT]he term "very good," in this case, refers to the object's quality and fitness for its purpose.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  Furthermore, if the fossil record is to be explained by an interval in the white space between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that means death, disease, suffering, and calamity were common many ages before Adam fell.
                  Once again I in way indorse the theory. If they try and use the gap theory to account for fossil record, I see no way that could be of any help. However, if the problem merely has to do with the age of the Earth and Universe, then could be helpful.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  Absolutely nothing in the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3 speaks of evolution or long geological ages in the creation process.
                  Agreed! But I would ask why would it? Gen. 1 in no way tries to give a scientific account of creation. As I said above, the problem was not one of science but thinking that created things were gods.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  The text itself is in fact a straightforward refutation of all evolutionary principals.
                  I would say the text does not really address such issues nor was that ever the intention.

                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  Theistic evolution, billion year-old earth theories, and progressive "creationism" are all refuted if we simply take the statements of Genesis at face value. Only by denying key expressions or interpreting them in a non-literal sense can the Christian read any degree of evolution or "progressive creation" into the Genesis account. Consequently, it's a very difficult tasks for any commentator or exegete to impose old-earth theories on the biblical creation account. In order to attempt it at all, they must begin by obscuring the obvious historical sense of the passage, and turning instead to literary devices such as allegory, myth, legend, and poetic expressions.
                  You bring up a number of important issues here, none of which can be address without specific examples. But to address some of the things you point out, I do not believe it is allegory, myth, or legend.

                  As I said before, I have no love for the gap theory. I also believe in special creation. However I see no reason to believe that Gen. 1 really addresses scientific concerns nor do I believe it was ever meant to do so. It is a theological polemic.
                  Last edited by Origen; 11-07-2015, 11:32 AM.
                  Comment>
                  Working...
                  X
                  Articles - News - SiteMap