Old Testament

Actually, there are a number of different views among Christians with respect to the age of the earth. While some have charged “old earth” Christians with theological rear-guard action in the face of modern science, many early Church fathers (e. g. Augustine, etc.) accepted the view that the “days” of Genesis were not to be understood as 24 hour periods. For the sake of argument, however, it may be pointed out that nothing in Christianity is compromised if it should turn out that the current cosmological models are correct in their estimates of the earth’s age.

Though there are, of course, many different arguments one could give, the passage in Malachi 3:1 is particularly interesting. Here Israel is told that the Lord, whom they seek, will come to his temple. At the time the verse was written, “his temple” could have only referred to the temple then standing. Since this temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the Lord must have come to the temple prior to that point.

Presumably, he married one of his sisters (since Adam had many children—Genesis 5:1).  The command to abstain from incest was not given until later (Leviticus 18:6), and Romans 5:13 tells us that sin is not imputed where there is no law.

See previous question on slavery.

The questioner seems to be wondering how it is that one who knows God’s existence and goodness could ever rebel against him. While perhaps not being able to explain how this occurs, one can at least show that it poses no logical problem simply in virtue of the fact that Christians who are firmly committed to the belief that God exists and is good rebel against him each and every time they sin.

Technically, it does not seem correct to say Abraham was judged righteous for his willingness to kill his son. Abraham is deemed righteous in virtue of his willingness to trust God—how he was asked to do that is actually beside the point. The real source of the difficulty seems to come out when we consider modern-day scenarios which attempt to mirror this episode: if the mother who drowns her child cannot be excused because of her belief that she was commissioned by God for the task, why is Abraham any different?

Romans 2:12-15 indicates that the Gentiles were not in possession of the law of Moses, and were not judged on that basis (instead, they were judged on how they responded to the dictates of conscience, or what is sometimes called “natural law”). In virtue of this, one may infer that Gentiles in the Old Testament period would not have been obliged to impose the penal sanctions of the Mosaic covenant. How much more, then, is it the case that non-Jews living after the Old Testament period would be free from imposing such sanctions?

The primary logistical obstacles to an account such as the one found in Genesis have concerned the mechanics of accounting for every species.  However, given the reality of speciation (Christians need object only to theories of common ancestry, which is a logically distinct body of hypotheses), there is no reason to think that the original number of species could not have been much smaller than it is now (thus minimizing and perhaps eliminating the alleged difficulty).

Richard Dawkins (from whom the above is taken) certainly writes with the vigor and forthrightness one can appreciate, his forays into the realm of theology and philosophy leave much to be desired. The central issue in a question like the above is whether God has the inherent right to take life. If so, the objection disappears; given his sovereignty over life in general, no justification for the taking of any particular life is even required.

This question can be answered by way of considering a similar problem in the New Testament. How is it that the Corinthian Church, for example, can be addressed as “saints” and as “carnal” in the same letter? Such language becomes intelligible once the distinction is made between one’s status as they actually are and one’s status in the sight of God. Because the atonement of Jesus paid the debt man incurs in virtue of their sin, God rightly treats the one to whom the atonement is applied as though he were blameless (or righteous).