ChristiansUnite Forums

 why is it that so many christians think that we must have blind faith? why are so many christians uncomfortable when it comes to evidence that supports the christian faith? somehow, people got the idea that when they come to Christ, they have to leave their intellect at the door. people think that evidence is worthless and that because they have faith, they don't want to even acknowledge that the evidence exists. the bible never tells us to have 'blind' faith. that's not what it means when it says to "walk by faith and not by sight". when John the baptist was in prison & he began to have doubts about Jesus being the Christ, Jesus did not say, "just stop thinking about it. you don't need a reason to beleive, just do it!" He did not say, "how dare you john! repent of your unbeleif and beleive in Me because I said so!"  what did He say? He said, "Go and report to john what you have seen and heard:the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over Me." Jesus told the men to tell john about the 'evidence' that supported His claims to being the Christ. there is nothing wrong or sinful about studying the evidence. weather it be the scientific evidence for creation, or the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ & the inspiration of Scripture. yes, true, faith is not merely intellectual, it is an act of the will. never the less, there is nothing wrong with evidence, and it can prove very effective when defending the faith in an unbeleiving and very skeptical age.  

I have never met any Christian that didn't want evidence to support that God exists, there is nothing wrong with that.  It is when you doubt that is wrong.  I think that one reason why some people might not want to search for evidence to support that God exists is because they think that if they search for evidence then they will be questioning God.  Personally I don't care if not much evidence supports that God exists, I will still always and forever believe in Him.  I have been through way to much and just had things happen to me that I can't explain, and that is all I need for proof that God exists!!  I am saved and I don't need to search for evidence because I know the truth!! :)

Kris

kris-you do bring up a good point. our faith is not 'IN' evidence. i hope nobody misunderstands me because that's not what i'm saying. our faith is 'IN' God & His word. also, i'm not saying that evidence will 'make' anyone have faith. faith is not merely intellectual, nor is it emotional. faith is an act of the will. it is a choice. faith means being in complete submission to God's will, by your own choice. but evidence is a very good thing. it can help us more effectively defend our faith & can give us a renewed sense of confidence in the midst of the skepticism of the world.

I find this an interesting question, BDoggy. I understand that the essence of christian belief is that the risen Christ is your saviour (please correct me if that's wrong). As Kris 777 said, if you believe that, evidence is not all that important (again, please correct me if that's wrong Kris). The evidence is personal, anyway, and not easily persuasive to those who do not share your belief.

But then there's the question of the bible, and a few of the specific claims it makes - that the earth is about 6 thousand years old, for example. When people look to see if this is supported by evidence in nature, they might very well find the answers bewildering. One way to respond to this, if the bible rather than personal experience is the main source of faith, is to reject the idea of evidence altogether.

Am I right in thinking that many christians regard an excessive faith in the literalism of the bible - bibliolatory - as a serious error?

where does the bible say that the earth is 6,000 years old??

i have never read anything in the bible that makes this claim, nor do i make this claim.

We are guranteed that the earth is more than 4000 years
old. How?

From adam to Abraham is 2156 years.

And from Christ to present is 2000 years.

2156 + 2000 = 4156 years

So you are guaranteed that the earth is more than 4000 years
old. Now we have to figure out the number of years from
Abraham unto Christ. If the earth is 6000 years old, to find
out how many number of years between Abraham and Jesus,
you would have to subtract 6000 from 4156.

6000 - 4156 = 1844

So, if the earth were 6000 years old, there would be 1844
years between Abraham and Jesus.

Understand? ;D

there is no way to make the statement from Scripture that the earth is 6,000 years old. this is simply untrue. there is nothing wrong with believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, but it is not a fact. first of all, when Genesis speaks of the 'first day', the 'second day' of creation, etc... it does not necesarrily have to be a literal 24 hour period. secondly, when the bible gives generational accounts, or geneologies, when it refers to someone being someone else's 'father' it does not necesarrily mean their literal biological father. it could just mean an ancestor. even in the new testament, Jews referred to Abraham as their 'father', so where in the bible do you get that the earth is 6,000 years old??

Quote from Bdoggy:



Brother, I think you missed my point. I said "if" the world lasted 6000 years. If the seven days are not literal, what
about the six days and sabbatical day? The Jews were to
work 6000 years, and then rest? Or 6000000 years, and rest?

And about the genealogies, if you read the genealogies, it says not "the father of" but "begat", which means "birth", "bore", or "give birth to". So, unless Seth gave birth to Jacob, "father" referring to ancestors is wrong.

so your saying that the earth is 6,000 yrs old then?

No bro. I'm saying that the seven days were most likely seven
of our days. Wouldn't that make the most sense? Our week is
like the seven days of creation. If it weren't literal, it would seem very strange.

Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Can't God do it quicker than we imagine? It might be to us
seven days, but to God, there is no time. How can God have created it in seven days, if to God, there is no time?  

7-tides-oh, ok that makes sense. honestly, i don't know how old the earth is, and it really doesn't matter. i personally think it's older than 6,000 yrs, but i could be wrong, i don't know. in any case, this is not something to divide over. i've talked to you before on this forum, and i know that we agree on essentials, so i do consider you my brother in the Lord. weather the earth is old or young, this is defenitely something we could 'aree to disagree' on.

---BDoggy

Quote from BDoggy:



You're right brother. We should not be divided by things like
this. And you are also right about the age of the Earth not
mattering. I agree with you whole heartedly. Maybe we should
wait to ask the One who created the Earth how old it is?

God bless you brother in faith.

Peace bro. ;D

AMEN BROTHER ;)

Now that we've got that all settled, where do we go from here? ??? ;D

Well, I think it's commendably sensible of you not to be dogmatic about the earth's age. However many young earth creationists are convinced that it is only a few thousands of years old, and a substantial number seem to go for the archbishop Ussher figure of 4004 BC. It is easy for me to imagine that the cognitative dissonance of learning that an age of 4.6 billion years is well supported, might be hard for some people to take, and lead them into a state of denial