Young Earth/Old Earth - Geocentric/Heliocentric

[Yankee Candle]

yankee candle,

Genesis 1, which is clearly chronological, lists the creation of man after the creation of the animals. Chapter 2, which is also clearly chronological, reverses this order.

So what if it reverses the order? It's still on the same day. Why would you agree in this matter with hate filled atheists and skeptics who do not love God? I have fought many of battle with those who despise Christianity on this VERY point and they display such a contempt for the Bible!

What a shame for professing Christians to attack the words of Jesus Christ that 'the scripture cannot be broken' and be so blind in the doing of it.

Example: "I arrived last Friday with my kids and we had a great time."

"I had a great time with my kids. We arrived last Friday."

Now, which came first? And can we tell by the context of what I said that 'we had a great time' is subsequent to 'I arrived ...with my kids'? Nothing in the context of each statement forbids both events from being contemporaneous.

Genesis 2 is not chronological. After the seventh day is mentioned further details about the creation are given. The language is distinct: "on the seventh day...: in vs. 2 becomes, "And these are the generations of..." in verse 4 and then Moses goes on to describe in more detail what the Lord did in Chapter one.

[Old Earther]

What makes you think Genesis 1 is chronological? Just because 'day one' comes before 'day two' and so on does not mean it's meant to be read chronologically.

Good one!

[Old Earther]

So what if it reverses the order?

So, there's a contradiction.

Why would you agree in this matter with hate filled atheists and skeptics who do not love God?

Must I disagree with everything atheists and skeptics say?

I have fought many of battle with those who despise Christianity on this VERY point and they display such a contempt for the Bible!

I have not displayed contempt for the Bible.

What a shame for professing Christians to attack the words of Jesus Christ that 'the scripture cannot be broken' and be so blind in the doing of it.

I'm not attacking the words of Jesus. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency that any child can readily see. But you see, the Genesis creation accounts were not intended to be read literally.

Example: "I arrived last Friday with my kids and we had a great time."

"I had a great time with my kids. We arrived last Friday."

Now, which came first? And can we tell by the context of what I said that 'we had a great time' is subsequent to 'I arrived ...with my kids'? Nothing in the context of each statement forbids both events from being contemporaneous.

You and your silly analogies. Does anyone here take you seriously?

Genesis 2 is not chronological. After the seventh day is mentioned further details about the creation are given. The language is distinct: "on the seventh day...: in vs. 2 becomes, "And these are the generations of..." in verse 4 and then Moses goes on to describe in more detail what the Lord did in Chapter one.

Really?

I will number the events, and it will remain for you to place them in their proper chronological order.

1.God places Adam in the garden.
2.God tells Adam that he can eat from every tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
3.God says that it is not good for Adam to be alone and declares that He will provide Adam with companionship.
4.God creates the animals.
5. God brings the animals to Adam and Adam names them.
6. God puts Adam to sleep.
7. God removes one of his ribs and makes Eve out it.
8. God brings Eve to Adam.

[BrckBrln]

Good one!

I was being serious. I don't believe Genesis 1 to be chronological.

[Old Earther]

Brck,

You don't think the presents a chronological sequence of "days"?

[BrckBrln]

Brck,

You don't think the presents a chronological sequence of "days"?

No. I don't believe the 'days' are 24 hour literal days nor do I think they are chronological. I subscribe to the framework interpretation. It fits best in my opinion.

[Romber]

Actually, Rhomber, the creation stories do contradict one another. Tell me, were the animals created before or after adam?

It's Romber

Anyways, the verb used in Chapter 2 that says formed can also be used as "had formed". Had being past tense. Animals were created before man, as chapter 1 indicates.

If the stories contradict each other then why do you believe in the Bible?

It is only what one would expect. If Old Earther implies anything, it has shown that he doesn't take Genesis 1-11 literally. It's a slippery slope he is on, already claiming there is a contradiction in God's word.

[Yankee Candle]

It really sickens my heart to see someone treat God's Word this way. By 'chronological' I meant that it was not given in the same sense as chapter one. My do you theistic evol's have a problem grasping inspiration and inerrancy matters in the Bible. You just don't believe in it. You seem to have no trust in the words of the Lord Jesus nor his servants who gave us the Bible.

Notice: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," It is plain as day to honest people who trust that God gave us those words that we have a re-statement of what had already been mentioned plus new details that we were not given in chapter one.

The most evil thing about the critics who claim that chapters one and two are contradictory is that it insults the author who wrote it; as if he didn't have enough brains nor common sense to see what the critics are claiming is a 'problem'. What a lie. What an insult to the blessed Holy Spirit.

I won't comment on this so-called problem again. It's really a pretty dumb argument anyway. But the dumbest thing that was said was this:

"You and your silly analogies. Does anyone here take you seriously?"

Oh, only about 20 to 40 million people in this country that believe that Genesis is literally true. I think they would agree with me.

[Old Earther]

brckbrln,

What is the "framework interpretation"?

[Old Earther]

It really sickens my heart to see someone treat God's Word this way.

What way?

By 'chronological' I meant that it was not given in the same sense as chapter one.

The honest reader can see that chapter 2 most certainly is chronological: God creates man, sees that man is lonely and so creates the animals and brings them to man, and then creates the woman. Is your reading comprehension so poor that you can't see this?

do you theistic evol's have a problem grasping inspiration and inerrancy matters in the Bible.

I am not an evolutionist, thank you. I totally accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, fella. I also accept that not all of it is to be taken literally.

<snip>

The most evil thing about the critics who claim that chapters one and two are contradictory is that it insults the author who wrote it; as if he didn't have enough brains nor common sense to see what the critics are claiming is a 'problem'. What a lie. What an insult to the blessed Holy Spirit.

Get with the program, sir. The creation narratives were not written by the same author(s), as is clearly indicated by the stylistic changes from one text to the next. This is old hat, dude. Reasonable and informed Christians accept this fact.

Yankee, how many people here take you seriously? should I start a poll?

[Alaska]

Why can't those scriptures really be true?
Why can't an unproven theory be wrong?

Because it has been proven wrong, so so so many times. I'll repost what I wrote before about geocentrism since you never responded.

Nope, there is no valid argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You can't wish away Earth's equatorial bulge, starlight aberrations, or the coriolis effect.

It's simple observation. Gravity is determined by mass, the sun is more than a million times more massive than the earth therefore the sun generates more gravity. Even if you somehow claimed this wasn't true, look around. . .do we see massive objects orbiting small ones anywhere else in the universe? Do we orbit the moon?

Take it a step further, if the earth is stationary that means that the visible universe whips around us every 24 hours which would mean that anything beyond 4.1 billion kilometers should be moving faster than the speed of light. Even the sun would be wizzing around somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.4% the speed of light and would display measurable relativistic length contraction. Curiously, we should have expected the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to have accelerated beyond the speed of light a while ago if the universe is truly flying around a stationary earth. . .isn't it kind of odd that we see no evidence of this?



Quote:
If they are able to prove that the earth really isn't moving, a lot of Christians are gonna feel real stupid for not being "stupid".
That's an awful lot of "stupid" to throw around. . .and I daresay it's misdirected.

The points you bring up show a deduction of reason and not proof.
Any truly competent astronomer will tell you that though almost all astronomers believe that the sun is central in our system, there is no actual testable proof, since there are other hypothesi (is that the right word?) which cannot be disproved. Your use of the term "proven wrong" is not true after the understanding that "prove" means having the means to demonstrate that it is not so. The deductions in your "proof" are reasonable but the claim that geo has been proven wrong is simply outside of reality since it cannot be demonstrated.
By such reasons you give and the assumptions connected to them, it is more honest to say that it is overwhelmingly agreed upon by virtue of such reasons and assumptions that the model agreed upon as the truth is the helio model. But to be absolutely fair to what constitutes absoluteness with regard to proof and not mere intellectual deduction, a real astronomer will admit that helio is understood and generally accepted to be the best hypothesis.

If you were familiar with the geo model you would not have supposed some of what you have supposed in your above paragraph.
In the geo model that accomodates all the predictable positioning of any celestial body, (which helio also does) some of the planets orbit the sun as the sun orbits the earth. This model places all the bodies in the same position (being seen from earth) as supposed that only a helio model can accomodate.
If you were familiar with the extensive scientific arguments in this long but not resolved debate, you would not have so flippantly dismissed geo as "stupid".
There are computer programs for studying and understanding positioning of bodies in the firmament. These programs also accomodate using the geocentristic hypothesis.

Just because so called science tells us that evolution is proven fact (meaning after their definition of "proven" meaning a deduction of reasoning they believe to be unquestionable) doesn't mean that evolution really is proven fact.
Just because so called science says geo cannot be true, that doesn't mean it cannot be true.

I refer you to the two short questions at the top of this post.

[BrckBrln]

brckbrln,

What is the "framework interpretation"?

Lee Irons gives a good overview.

http://www.upper-register.com/papers...pretation.html

[Old Earther]

Thanks Brck,

I find the framework interpretation to be untenable. What attracts you to it?

[BrckBrln]

Thanks Brck,

I find the framework interpretation to be untenable. What attracts you to it?

Why do you find it untenable? What attracts me to it is the exegesis that happens to fit somewhat with science.

[Old Earther]

Brck,

I find it untenable because it completely ignores the obvious chronological structure of the text. Can you give me one reason to ignore this structure?