PDA

View Full Version : 6,000 Reasons To Accept A Young Earth



DAS
May 15th 2008, 02:03 AM
6,000 Reasons To Accept A Young Earth

There seems to be some confusion as to wether or not The Bible means what it says concerning creation. I will now atempt to demonstrate that (1) The Bible says the earth was created in six literal days about six thousand years ago. (2) It is unbiblical to denie a young earth. (3)Science has never demonstrated this to be false. And (4) We should always base our thinking on The Bible and nothing else.

HOW LONG DOES THE BIBLE SAY CREATION TOOK?
The Bible clearly says the earth was created in six days. I don't know of anyone who would denie this. So what's the problem? People see this and think, "I know it says six days, but what does it mean?" Well, it means what it says. It has been said about The Bible that, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." Quite simply, it says six days so it means six days.

That's Just Your Interpretation.
Wrong! The dictionary says that the word "Interpret" means to "explain the meaning of". I haven't done this. All I've done is point out what it says. It says, "Six Days." I don't need to explain the meaning of "Six Days", It speaks for itself.

Day Means A Long Peroid Of Time.
Wrong! The context determines the meaning of a text, and the context has nothing in it that could suggest anything other than a literal understanding. As a matter of fact, the author went out of his way to say "the evening and the morning". Now, this is a horrible problem for someone denying the literal meaning. Why would the author go out of his way to say this if he wanted people to think a day was a long period of time. Also, if creation took more than six days, why where there such gaps between things created? In the first day was created earth and light and darkness. The second day had Heaven and water. The third had dry land, grass, and trees. And so on. Why would the earth be created, then millions of years later water, then millions more years later trees.

Trees Can't Grow That Fast.
This is a favorite arguement for old earthers who deny they interpret The Bible with flawed science theory. Here is the problem, Nowhere does it say the first trees grew. It says the earth brought them forth, but not that they grew, just that they came from the earth just like man from the dust. The next problem is assuming the first trees had to grow. Well, if they did, what did they grow from? Seeds, right? Well, seeds grow from trees. Where did the seeds grow from? You are now stuck in an endless regression of trees and seeds. You have in a sense deified trees!

Did Adam Die Before He Died?
Adam was 930 when he died. If a day in creation is a long period of time he would have had to have lived much longer, even if he was created at the minute in day six. But wait, someone will object, we could still be in the seventh day. Wrong. God "rested" at the end of creation, not "is resting". But, you will protest, you could say "I mowed the lawn and then rested" while you where still resting. Yes, but that would be grammatical skills on my part and we shouldn't presume poor writing skills on Biblical authors to determine our Theology.

A Thousand Years Is A Day.
Wait a minute, you'll protest. Peter said a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years with God. Yes, but so what. This verses is not refering to creation it is simply pointing out that God is outside of time.

Day Means A Long Period Of Time In Chapter 2.
No it doesn't. It says he created in one day the heavens and the earth. This was done in day one. Wait, you say, now you've made an error, it says the heavens where created on the second day. Wrong. It says "Heaven" was created on the second day. Paul refered to a "Third Heaven". Of course the heavens where created on the first day. Heavens refers to several things. (1) The sky, (2) Outer Space, (3) The dwelling of God. In day one of courses something was above the earth. This Heaven on the second day probably refers to the "Third Heaven" where the angels are. This would explain when the angels came to be and why it it is not seen anywhere else in the creation account.

Genesis Is Sybolic.
Says who. I see nothing in the entire Bible to suggest this. Even if it was who gets to decide what in Genesis is symbolic. Maybe Abraham is also a poetic expresion and there is no literal Jewish people. I find that hard to believe, because if it were what are you doing. This author happens to be of Jewish decent. Certainly the Jews are real or your staring at a blank screen because nobody would be writing this if the Jews where only symbolic. Wait, you say, it says elsewhere in The Bible the Jews are real. Yes, it also says elsewhere the earth was created in six days.

HOW OLD DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE EARTH IS?
It doesn't give a date. But, if you count backwards on the geneologies, you get about 4,000 B.C.

What About The Gap Theory?
Does The Bible say there was a gap? Case Closed. We shouldn't sinfully read things into the text that aren't there.

SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THE EARTH IS OLD, RIGHT?
Wrong. As a matter of fact, science does not know how old the earth is. The rock dating method they use to find the age of the rock has been tested on several rocks they knew the date of and has come up with a date about a million and a half years to high. Should we not then conclude that science can't say they know the age of the earth until they have a reliable dating method. But wait, you may object, just because it has been wrong does not mean it is always wrong. But the problem with this is it has to get it right at least once. We can't trust it to date rocks we know the age of, therefore we should not trust it to date rocks we do not know the age of.

Where Are The Scientists Who Accept A Biblical Creation?
Right here:

But Most Agree This is Wrong, Right?
So. Popular opinion does not decide truth. Once upon a time most people, including scientists, agreed the earth was flat. Most of them today also believe in evolution, and that's heretical. One thing we have to remember is that scientists are people, Bias, Fallible, People.

SO WHAT, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH BELIEVING IN AN OLD EARTH IS THERE?
Actaully, there is.

Very Good?
Are we to conclude that God created an earth where, as according to old earthers, there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall and that He would declare it very good? Someone will object, but plants died, so why could not animals? Because plants are not concise for one. Also, they probably did not die. You can eat from a plant without killing it.

Apostate Hemeneutics.
If we accept old earth hereneutics than we can't trust anything The Bible says. Why, you ask? Because the author of Genesis went out of hie way, saying morning and evening, to show he was speaking literally, and even if not my objection would still stand. Therefore, if take this as non-literal, even though the context never so much as hints as anything other than literal, then we can do this to all we read, including the crucifiction and resurrection.

SHOULD WE TRUST THE BIBLE TO FORM OUR WAY OF THINKING?
Yes, on EVERYTHING!

You Wouldn't Let A Pastor Do Surgery On You, You'd Rather Have An Athiest Doctor!
I have actaully heard this objection to my claim. This is absurd. It has nothing to do with anything. When The Bible says anything about anything, it is the final, and only authority.

You Don't Have A Degree In Anything, Your Just A Lay Person.
Yes, but read 1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...". You don't need a degree to know what your talking about. Many people with the right degrees agree with me as well. Finally, why not check everything I've said and see if I've made an error in the facts.

BUT WHAT ABOUT?
Well, you still have objections, right? What about dinosaurs, and the ice age? It is not my intention here to write an entire book. I know where dinosaurs and the ice age and plenty of other stuff you can think of fit in. I can't here answer all of the objections. It would take far to long. But let me ask you a question, Since The Bible clearly teaches a young earth and science can't refute it in any way, shouldn't you stop doubting young earth and start doubting your doubts. Of course you'll never have all the answers to anything, but clearly a young earth better answers the questions posed to it with the information alvaliable than the old earth theory can.

Let us conclude the matter. You don't have to accept a young earth, but you can't claim The Bible says anything other than a young earth. If you want to cling to this old earth theory you have to confess three things, (1) It's unbiblical, therefore, if it is true, The Bible has an error and is errent. (2) It's unscientific. (3) It's a blind faith. Plain and simple, this is the ONLY reading the text allows. The evidence is overwhelming.

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 02:51 AM
Let us conclude the matter. You don't have to accept a young earth, but you can't claim The Bible says anything other than a young earth. If you want to cling to this old earth theory you have to confess three things, (1) It's unbiblical, therefore, if it is true, The Bible has an error and is errent. (2) It's unscientific. (3) It's a blind faith. Plain and simple, this is the ONLY reading the text allows. The evidence is overwhelming.

The whole thing falls apart because the last paragraph is dead wrong. You CAN confidently claim that the bible doesn't imply a literally young earth. In fact, the much stronger case is with a non-literal creation story. YEC is a last-ditch, desperate effort to cling to the traditions of the past in the face of overwhelming evidence by those who can't handle that God is different in nature from what they have always accepted. We have gone through this over...and over...and over again throughout our 2100-year history, and as Christianity has survived, it will survive again, because our God is greater than all opposition.

I love you as my Christian brother, but I simply cannot sit by and let your inflexible post go unanswered.

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 02:54 AM
I might as well change my name to Kurt Wise.

Soupy
May 15th 2008, 08:55 AM
Good post Das :cool:

teddyv
May 15th 2008, 03:08 PM
Good post crawfish.:cool:

moonglow
May 15th 2008, 03:19 PM
good post everyone!...:lol:

It just struck me funny all the good posts to each other on here.... ;)


One day we will find out...personally I think its a young earth...after all the universe was created by God in a second with the big bang...;) I think the dating is wrong, wrong, wrong! I really do! While I enjoy science very much..its also very fallible...it once said the bible was wrong in not being able to count the stars...that the stars could be counted...until they got a stronger telescope that is...:lol: Now they know the bible is right on this..the stars are countless!


I think science is proving the bible on many fronts and one day the bible will be proven correct on this...OR our understanding of scriptures will become clearer in light of science. NOT saying the bible is incorrect, but many, many times people have been incorrect in understanding it! Such as thinking certain verses meant the earth was flat! Who's fault was it we didn't understand that right? Science? No! God? NO!...it was us! Our lack of understanding...

So one day...maybe sooner then everyone thinks...it will all come together...both the bible and science and we will go...awha! Why didn't this dawn on us before?! I think its exciting and can't wait for that aw ha, moment!

God bless

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 03:26 PM
good post everyone!...:lol:

It just struck me funny all the good posts to each other on here.... ;)


One day we will find out...personally I think its a young earth...after all the universe was created by God in a second with the big bang...;) I think the dating is wrong, wrong, wrong! I really do! While I enjoy science very much..its also very fallible...it once said the bible was wrong in not being able to count the stars...that the stars could be counted...until they got a stronger telescope that is...:lol: Now they know the bible is right on this..the stars are countless!


I think science is proving the bible on many fronts and one day the bible will be proven correct on this...OR our understanding of scriptures will become clearer in light of science. NOT saying the bible is incorrect, but many, many times people have been incorrect in understanding it! Such as thinking certain verses meant the earth was flat! Who's fault was it we didn't understand that right? Science? No! God? NO!...it was us! Our lack of understanding...

So one day...maybe sooner then everyone thinks...it will all come together...both the bible and science and we will go...awha! Why didn't this dawn on us before?! I think its exciting and can't wait for that aw ha, moment!

God bless

I think you have the right idea - openness. What is the truth, will be.

chisel
May 15th 2008, 03:29 PM
Crawfish,

Your post is literally teeming with postmodernist ideas, I'm not sure if you're even aware of it, though. Let me hightlight some of the words for you.


The whole thing falls apart because the last paragraph is dead wrong. You CAN confidently claim that the bible doesn't imply a literally young earth. In fact, the much stronger case is with a non-literal creation story. YEC is a last-ditch, desperate effort to cling to the traditions of the past in the face of overwhelming evidence by those who can't handle that God is different in nature from what they have always accepted. We have gone through this over...and over...and over again throughout our 2100-year history, and as Christianity has survived, it will survive again, because our God is greater than all opposition.

I love you as my Christian brother, but I simply cannot sit by and let your inflexible post go unanswered.

See, post modernism always marks those who aren't willing to compromise on truth as 'inflexible', 'desperate' clingers. Bad labels making the traditional Christian look like some sort of backward sheep, and those who embrace 'newness' as progressive and clever.

That kind of labling is typical and it's got nothing to do with truth or falseness. It is pure propaganda. New isn't automatically true, so the idea that traditional Christians are 'afraid to step' out the box, is simply absurd. It's not fear or tradition or closed-mindedness but plain truth.
The fact that Christians through time believed in a young earth is simply because that's what the Bible has ALWAYS said. So the labels of 'desperation', 'clinging','inflexible' etc. are simply ad hominem statements aimed at making the opposition look bad.
Truth isn't flexible and accepting it is a virtue, well atleast it used to be...

The second tell-tale concept is the 'freeing of God' idea and it's always presented in a way to make it look as if the traditional Christian doesn't really glorify God. "God is so much greater than that" is usually the argument, or "Stop putting God in a box".
Those terms are a logical fallacy because you're appealing to God's omnipotence to defend an argument instead of using evidence. You're simply re-interpreting the Bible in an attempt to harmonise scripture with your own ideas and claiming that you're honouring God by doing that.

Now you're probably not happy about this post, but think about this: any position that needs to be defended using emotive or subjective influence isn't worth defending, because it relies not on reason or evidence but on feelings.

Chances are that these very tactics convinced you of theistic evolution and that is why you're using it now to defend your position. Be careful what you read...

God bless

Vim.

teddyv
May 15th 2008, 03:30 PM
Good post moonglow!:) (hehehe)

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 04:02 PM
If someone really wants to show why Genesis can't be anything but literal, they have to show how it relates to the rest of scripture. Otherwise the discussion is going to get stuck in Genesis and drag on.
Because, hey, it has to be a literal 6 day creation. It leaves no room for evolution, or theistic evolution. But if you restrict yourself to the Genesis account then what you're doing is taking scripture in seclusion.

I agree that God could have done anything when creating the cosmos... But the point is that He told us how He did it.

moonglow
May 15th 2008, 04:39 PM
I think you have the right idea - openness. What is the truth, will be.

Oh that reminds me...my son's fifth grade class was studying the solar system and watched a film on the big bang...he said a girl next to him looked at him and said, but I thought God created the universe and Nate said, He did...this just shows us how He did it! (smart kid, huh? ;) :lol:)

I have seen atheist deny the big bang ..saying there must be more to the story...that there was something before the big bang...but science shows there was nothing...everything was created from nothing...just as the bible says...;)

I still think Einstein's theory on time slowing down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux-YD8Ky1hs) may have alot to do with the answers to all of this...I am still working on my idea for this though...:hmm:

Einstein asked what would happen if you could ride a beam of light? Nothing, it could never happen, because at the speed of light, light shrinks to zero and time stands still. How fast were things moving when the big bang happened? :hmm: If time stood still...or was slowed way, way down...then a 24 hour period could take millions of years! :cool:


teddyv Good post moonglow! (hehehe)

You too! GOOD post! :lol::lol:


Xel'Naga If someone really wants to show why Genesis can't be anything but literal, they have to show how it relates to the rest of scripture. Otherwise the discussion is going to get stuck in Genesis and drag on.
Because, hey, it has to be a literal 6 day creation. It leaves no room for evolution, or theistic evolution. But if you restrict yourself to the Genesis account then what you're doing is taking scripture in seclusion.

I agree that God could have done anything when creating the cosmos... But the point is that He told us how He did it.

yea but HOW literal, that is the question...we know things can be taken TOO literally...examples given on the other thread. Did you know there is a website called Flat Earthers? They still insist the earth is flat and the roundness is nothing but an optical illusion.

For instance we could say...the first 24 hours lasted six months as they do top of the earth...saying the sun rising and setting is 24 hours is reading into it hours to start with...could be months, years for all we know (though I think there is some verse that gives a 24 hour time frame...but not sure on that...anyone know?). The biggest mistake we as human beings make is reading into scriptures things that aren't there...of assuming it means something by OUR limited knowledge of here and now. We see it all the time on here. Shoot just read the end times forum...so many focus on the US in relation to the end times simply because they live in the US, even though the bible suggest NOTHING about the US in it at all. They never look past their own boarders at the rest of the world. They say...well this can happen now because we have the technology today we didn't have then...(not considering most of the rest of the world does NOT have this technology ) causing them to distort the meaning of those verses...

God bless

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 04:47 PM
How literal? As literal as the text makes it.

Speaking of which...

If we take Genesis 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1) and examine verse 31 what do we quickly find? The words, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good". So let us consider then, what was 'very good', if God used evolution as a means of creation:

1) Death
2) Extinction
3) Killing
4) Catastrophe

Right? The 'days' mean ages, even though there is absolutely no biblical support for the assertion. The whole description, which is poetical and allegorical doesn't matter all that much... Because God still did it, and Jesus loves you. Well who said it matters that Jesus loves you if Genesis isn't literal? Because when you read verse 31 and read that it was a very good creation, and then you realize what exactly evolution entails, you begin to wonder what sort of god is God? Which forces us to move onto Genesis 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203;&version=49;). So what were the curses? Well because of sin death entered into the world... But I thought death was a necessary part of evolution? So why is God cursing man with something that's already been around for 11 billion years? And man is supposed to toil the ground? A perfect creation with death, extinction, killing and catastrophe? A God cursing Adam and Eve with death, even though it's been around much longer than they have? What sense does that make?

Make no mistake, the meaning of 'yom' in Genesis 1:31 is extremely clear. The only people re-interpreting the account are doing so on account of the evolutionary theory. However, Judaism has always viewed the account as literal (they even take it a bit too far), traditional Christianity has always viewed the account as literal. The reason we both view the account as literal... Is because the language used makes it literal. I would even concede, just to be a nice guy, that the days of Genesis were one thousand years each; that still only leaves me with seven thousand years. I'm 15 billion 399 million 993 thousand years off the mark. And that's assuming the age of the universe doesn't change... Again.

If you look at Romans 5:12 you read, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" it's obvious now that this needs to be reinterpreted, because sin couldn't have come by Adam--it was around much longer than him; in fact, there were many more people than Adam; he's more of a metaphor. That's fine and all except for what Luke 3:38 says. Jesus is apparently descended from a very literal person... named Adam, the son of God. So now this needs to be re-interpreted, because it does fit in with our interpretation of Genesis and Jesus can't be descended from a myth. But before we do that we have to remember Romans 5:12, "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Mistakes and death are a consequence of sin, not God's means of creation. So that needs to be re-interpreted again. All the while keeping in mind that Romans 5:13 says though one man sin entered into the world.

Now I wonder; if sin didn't enter the world through Adam; as the consequences of sin are present in the world before Adam, therefore sin must have necessarily been present in the world. Then why are we sinful creatures? Well it occurs to me that God would have had to have made a corrupted creation. We are now absolved of all responsibility for being sinners; God made us this way! So what does Christ matter? It's only God fixing up the creation He screwed up to begin with. I mean, sure he died for our sins and all... But they're only our sins because God forced them on us.

There's even Exodus 20:11 says God created the world in six days; so we have to go re-interpreting that as well.... Genesis 1-11 cannot be literal; we might be responsible for something.

I mean you're left re-interpreting many things...

1) The entire first 11 chapters of the Bible
2) Our Adamic Nature
3) The nature and origin of Sin
4) The entrance of sin in creation
5) The reason for Jesus
6) God's character
7) The inerrancy (or errancy?) of scripture...

moonglow
May 15th 2008, 04:56 PM
How literal? As literal as the text makes it.

Speaking of which...

If we take Genesis 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1) and examine verse 31 what do we quickly find? The words, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good". So let us consider then, what was 'very good', if God used evolution as a means of creation:

1) Death
2) Extinction
3) Killing
4) Catastrophe

Right? The 'days' mean ages, even though there is absolutely no biblical support for the assertion. The whole description, which is poetical and allegorical doesn't matter all that much... Because God still did it, and Jesus loves you. Well who said it matters that Jesus loves you if Genesis isn't literal? Because when you read verse 31 and read that it was a very good creation, and then you realize what exactly evolution entails, you begin to wonder what sort of god is God? Which forces us to move onto Genesis 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203;&version=49;). So what were the curses? Well because of sin death entered into the world... But I thought death was a necessary part of evolution? So why is God cursing man with something that's already been around for 11 billion years? And man is supposed to toil the ground? A perfect creation with death, extinction, killing and catastrophe? A God cursing Adam and Eve with death, even though it's been around much longer than they have? What sense does that make?

Make no mistake, the meaning of 'yom' in Genesis 1:31 is extremely clear. The only people re-interpreting the account are doing so on account of the evolutionary theory. However, Judaism has always viewed the account as literal (they even take it a bit too far), traditional Christianity has always viewed the account as literal. The reason we both view the account as literal... Is because the language used makes it literal. I would even concede, just to be a nice guy, that the days of Genesis were one thousand years each; that still only leaves me with seven thousand years. I'm 15 billion 399 million 993 thousand years off the mark. And that's assuming the age of the universe doesn't change... Again.

If you look at Romans 5:12 you read, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" it's obvious now that this needs to be reinterpreted, because sin couldn't have come by Adam--it was around much longer than him; in fact, there were many more people than Adam; he's more of a metaphor. That's fine and all except for what Luke 3:38 says. Jesus is apparently descended from a very literal person... named Adam, the son of God. So now this needs to be re-interpreted, because it does fit in with our interpretation of Genesis and Jesus can't be descended from a myth. But before we do that we have to remember Romans 5:12, "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Mistakes and death are a consequence of sin, not God's means of creation. So that needs to be re-interpreted again. All the while keeping in mind that Romans 5:13 says though one man sin entered into the world.

Now I wonder; if sin didn't enter the world through Adam; as the consequences of sin are present in the world before Adam, therefore sin must have necessarily been present in the world. Then why are we sinful creatures? Well it occurs to me that God would have had to have made a corrupted creation. We are now absolved of all responsibility for being sinners; God made us this way! So what does Christ matter? It's only God fixing up the creation He screwed up to begin with. I mean, sure he died for our sins and all... But they're only our sins because God forced them on us.

There's even Exodus 20:11 says God created the world in six days; so we have to go re-interpreting that as well.... Genesis 1-11 cannot be literal; we might be responsible for something.

I mean you're left re-interpreting many things...

1) The entire first 11 chapters of the Bible
2) Our Adamic Nature
3) The nature and origin of Sin
4) The entrance of sin in creation
5) The reason for Jesus
6) God's character
7) The inerrancy (or errancy?) of scripture...

Xel'Naga you are preaching to the choir here and didn't answer my question...I never said a thing about believing in evolution..in fact I said I believed science has the dating wrong! I already know by heart everything you said here...ok...tell me something I don't know. I do NOT believe in evolution! Not macro evolution.

I gave the example of the group that believes that the earth is still flat...they take those verses in regards to the shape of the earth TOO literally. That is what I was talking about. And I asked for scriptures that shows a day is 24 hours long...as in some places on earth its longer...I think there is scripture on this but I have no idea where. I already know the story of sin, the fall of man, etc, why Jesus came..this isn't the topic of this thread so I don't know why you are bringing this up...I post these same things elsewhere on here in fact...:confused

AND I am a saved born again Christian and actually found your post rather offensive to talk to me as if I were an atheist...:( Talk about a slap in the face just for asking a couple of questions...:(

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 05:25 PM
Xel'Naga you are preaching to the choir here and didn't answer my question...I never said a thing about believing in evolution..in fact I said I believed science has the dating wrong! I already know by heart everything you said here...ok...tell me something I don't know. I do NOT believe in evolution! Not macro evolution.

I gave the example of the group that believes that the earth is still flat...they take those verses in regards to the shape of the earth TOO literally. That is what I was talking about. And I asked for scriptures that shows a day is 24 hours long...as in some places on earth its longer...I think there is scripture on this but I have no idea where. I already know the story of sin, the fall of man, etc, why Jesus came..this isn't the topic of this thread so I don't know why you are bringing this up...I post these same things elsewhere on here in fact...:confused

AND I am a saved born again Christian and actually found your post rather offensive to talk to me as if I were an atheist...:( Talk about a slap in the face just for asking a couple of questions...:(

It's actually in response to someone else... Perhaps I should have quoted him :P

But in regards to the day question; it's in Genesis 1. You have to have a basic understanding of Hebrew grammar, but simply put. The word 'day' (yom), when put with 'morning' and 'evening' means a 24 hour period; a literal one day.

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 05:44 PM
Crawfish,

Your post is literally teeming with postmodernist ideas, I'm not sure if you're even aware of it, though. Let me hightlight some of the words for you.

I don't regard postmodernism as a general philosophy, but it has some good points to it. The graying of some black-and-white lines; re-evaluation of what is truth and what is tradition. Good restoration must have some level of "postmodern" thought in it.



See, post modernism always marks those who aren't willing to compromise on truth as 'inflexible', 'desperate' clingers. Bad labels making the traditional Christian look like some sort of backward sheep, and those who embrace 'newness' as progressive and clever.

That kind of labling is typical and it's got nothing to do with truth or falseness. It is pure propaganda. New isn't automatically true, so the idea that traditional Christians are 'afraid to step' out the box, is simply absurd. It's not fear or tradition or closed-mindedness but plain truth.
The fact that Christians through time believed in a young earth is simply because that's what the Bible has ALWAYS said. So the labels of 'desperation', 'clinging','inflexible' etc. are simply ad hominem statements aimed at making the opposition look bad.
Truth isn't flexible and accepting it is a virtue, well atleast it used to be...

The second tell-tale concept is the 'freeing of God' idea and it's always presented in a way to make it look as if the traditional Christian doesn't really glorify God. "God is so much greater than that" is usually the argument, or "Stop putting God in a box".
Those terms are a logical fallacy because you're appealing to God's omnipotence to defend an argument instead of using evidence. You're simply re-interpreting the Bible in an attempt to harmonise scripture with your own ideas and claiming that you're honouring God by doing that.

False dichotomies. While "new" doesn't necessarily equal true, neither does "old". The church has been steeped in man-made traditions over its long history; we go through cycles of restoration every so often to try and separate the traditions of men from the truth of God's word, but inevitably new traditions sneak back in.

Throughout history, we have altered our view of scripture and our ideas of God based on new discovery. It has not altered God's word in any way, but it has made more clear God's true intent. It has also not made us any less Christian.

Traditions are nice in that they help build churches and communities, but they can become stifling when they move into the area of dogma. They hold us back. It is NECESSARY to continually question our understandings of God's word; that is how it stays vital in our lives.




Now you're probably not happy about this post, but think about this: any position that needs to be defended using emotive or subjective influence isn't worth defending, because it relies not on reason or evidence but on feelings.

Hey, I'm as happy as punch over your post because it gives me something new to talk about. :)


Chances are that these very tactics convinced you of theistic evolution and that is why you're using it now to defend your position. Be careful what you read...

I finally accepted my current point of view based on years - decades - of study, prayer and honest introspection. I am more of an independent thinker than anyone I know; I feel the constant need to question, reevaluate and expand my knowledge base. I read a lot of different things from a lot of different sources, and rebuttals of those things from opposing sources. I'm not usually satisfied to blindly accept anybody's word on anything - I want to know and understand for myself, while prayerfully asking God to guide my understanding.

You seem to think theistic evolutionists are some kind of sheep, blindly following the guesses of science and sacrificing scripture. This is so far from the truth it's funny. TE is a default position for NOBODY. It is a difficult theology, without much vocal support. It puts us at odds with the most vocal members of our brotherhood. It gets us scant appreciation from the atheist/agnostic community, who feel we're just hanging onto some false hope through unwillingness to accept the evidence. In other words, holding that position doesn't make us many friends. There are no formal organizations, no support groups, no Christian denomination willing to accept its ideas in any official manner. What we are is a group of lightly affiliated, highly independent, extremely rational, thick-skinned people with very strong faith. If we let our feelings guide us we would NOT be TE's; we would either let our faith take over and blindly accept things we know aren't true, or we'd lose our faith altogether. However, just like the early American pioneers, I am sure we are a select group who are leading the way to where the rest, someday, must go.

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 05:48 PM
Yeah I don't think I'd compare TE's to early American pioneer's..

moonglow
May 15th 2008, 05:57 PM
It's actually in response to someone else... Perhaps I should have quoted him :P

But in regards to the day question; it's in Genesis 1. You have to have a basic understanding of Hebrew grammar, but simply put. The word 'day' (yom), when put with 'morning' and 'evening' means a 24 hour period; a literal one day.

Well yea...since I asked about the possibility of things being taken too literally and you started your post that way...of course I thought it was directed towards me. :P:P:P Here I was ready to slap you upside the head with a wet fish! (from a veggie tale movie...;)..have children and you will understand...:lol:)

Ok I found it..about day being literal OR figuratively in the bible!

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
(2) Day also means a period of 24 hours, or the time from sunset to sunset. In Bible usage the day begins with sunset (see Leviticus 23:32; Exodus 12:15-20; 2 Corinthians 11:25, where night is put before day). See DAY AND NIGHT.

(3) The word "day" is also used of an indefinite period, e. g "the day" or "day that" means in general "that time" (see Genesis 2:4; Leviticus 14:2); "day of trouble" (Psalms 20:1); "day of his wrath" (Job 20:28); "day of Yahweh" (Isaiah 2:12); "day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10); "day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2);. "day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

(4) It is used figuratively also in John 9:4, where "while it is day" means "while I have opportunity to work, as daytime is the time for work." In 1 Thessalonians 5:5,8, "sons of the day" means spiritually enlightened ones.

(5) We must also bear in mind that with God time is not reckoned as with us (see Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).

(7) On the meaning of "day" in the story of Creation we note (a) the word "day" is used of the whole period of creation (Genesis 2:4); (b) these days are days of God, with whom one day is as a thousand years; the whole age or period of salvation is called "the day of salvation"; see above. So we believe that in harmony with Bible usage we may understand the creative days as creative periods.

At any rate..if Einstein is right, it won't matter much...when everything exploded into space in the big bang they were at least traveling at the speed of light in which...time stood still...as things slowed down time would start but be going very slowly...millions of years could past but it still only be in our time, nothing more then days: E=mc2 Time and Relativity special theory of relativity 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p80IhaBz51M&feature=related)


There was no time until God created it and nothing before the big bang...showing God did indeed create everything from nothing. The faster something moves through space the slower time goes. With matter exploding outwards in the created space time slowed down Everything is still expanding outwards too. Our time on earth is also different then time on other planets. A day on Jupiter is much shorter then here. Whenever our rotation started is when our 24 period started. :hmm: still thinking...

God Bless

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 06:24 PM
If we take Genesis 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1) and examine verse 31 what do we quickly find? The words, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good". So let us consider then, what was 'very good', if God used evolution as a means of creation:

1) Death
2) Extinction
3) Killing
4) Catastrophe


Here, you make a wild assumption: that if God saw what he made as "good", that it wouldn't contain any of those items in any way. How can you possibly say that while staying purely within scripture? It seems like a leap is being made here, logical to you but definitely not binding on god. For the record the Hebrew word used for good in this passage is (towb), which is defined as:

A primitive root, to be (transitively, do or make) good (or well) in the widest sense -- be (do) better, cheer, be (do, seem) good, (make) goodly, X please, (be, do, go, play) well.

Note the term: in the widest sense. God could not have used a more generic word for "good" here.


Right? The 'days' mean ages, even though there is absolutely no biblical support for the assertion. The whole description, which is poetical and allegorical doesn't matter all that much... Because God still did it, and Jesus loves you. Well who said it matters that Jesus loves you if Genesis isn't literal? Because when you read verse 31 and read that it was a very good creation, and then you realize what exactly evolution entails, you begin to wonder what sort of god is God? Which forces us to move onto Genesis 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%203;&version=49;). So what were the curses? Well because of sin death entered into the world... But I thought death was a necessary part of evolution? So why is God cursing man with something that's already been around for 11 billion years? And man is supposed to toil the ground? A perfect creation with death, extinction, killing and catastrophe? A God cursing Adam and Eve with death, even though it's been around much longer than they have? What sense does that make?

Note: I'm not day-age, gap, or OEC. "Day" means "day" in this context, but I believe the entire context of the story is symbolic; thus, no direct ties between the order or time frame of creation with reality.

I've made the argument about "spiritual death" versus "physical death" many times in other threads, so I'm not going to expand on that here. What seems evident to me is that excluding animals or assuming a physical death is a another logical leap; by taking a bad hermeneutic of Romans 5, you end up applying meaning to Genesis that it cannot possibly have on its own. And again, trying to define "good" to be meaningful to you is hardly binding on God; his idea of good is likely very different from your own.


If you look at Romans 5:12 you read, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" it's obvious now that this needs to be reinterpreted, because sin couldn't have come by Adam--it was around much longer than him; in fact, there were many more people than Adam; he's more of a metaphor. That's fine and all except for what Luke 3:38 says. Jesus is apparently descended from a very literal person... named Adam, the son of God. So now this needs to be re-interpreted, because it does fit in with our interpretation of Genesis and Jesus can't be descended from a myth. But before we do that we have to remember Romans 5:12, "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Mistakes and death are a consequence of sin, not God's means of creation. So that needs to be re-interpreted again. All the while keeping in mind that Romans 5:13 says though one man sin entered into the world.


At some point, man moved from being a simple animal to a being with a soul - THAT is our Adam. The creation that started through "dust of the earth" and moved through various life forms until it became homo sapiens was now complete; man was given an element of the divine. Through his descendants, all of humanity derives. Through the soul came the free will to resist God; thus, sin was born.

As far as the genealogy of Jesus is concerned; Luke's purpose was to tie Jesus to ALL of mankind in the same way Matthew's was to tie him to all Jews through Abraham. Luke stretched Jesus' known genealogy back, using scripture, to Adam...it doesn't imply the truth or falsehood of that account (although I am of the opinion that it represents a true genealogy).


Now I wonder; if sin didn't enter the world through Adam; as the consequences of sin are present in the world before Adam, therefore sin must have necessarily been present in the world. Then why are we sinful creatures? Well it occurs to me that God would have had to have made a corrupted creation. We are now absolved of all responsibility for being sinners; God made us this way! So what does Christ matter? It's only God fixing up the creation He screwed up to begin with. I mean, sure he died for our sins and all... But they're only our sins because God forced them on us.

Before there were men with souls, there WAS no sin. There is no sin when a monkey copulates with multiple females. There is no sin when my dog kills a mouse. To sin, one must have free will; and animals do not have the free will in what they do.

What I believe is the SAME thing that you believe; not that God created a corrupted creation, but a corruptible creation. He created in us the ability to make choices contrary to His will; He also created Satan, and gave Satan the ability to oppose Him. Why we are sinful creatures is because we CHOOSE to be.


There's even Exodus 20:11 says God created the world in six days; so we have to go re-interpreting that as well.... Genesis 1-11 cannot be literal; we might be responsible for something.

The mistake you're making here is reading that passage with 21st-century sensibilities. God gave us the story of creation, and the Israelites would've read meaning into the numbers and symbology in the account. They would not have viewed it literally in the sense we do; they would view it literally in the sense of the ideas that symbology represented. Thus, when God wrote Exodus 20:11, he was using the symbology in a direct way to establish the Sabbath which would celebrate that account, for the purpose of creating a strong, independent community.

I'm afraid that by reading support for a literal 7 days into that passage, you are re-interpreting its meaning from its original intent.


I mean you're left re-interpreting many things...

1) The entire first 11 chapters of the Bible
2) Our Adamic Nature
3) The nature and origin of Sin
4) The entrance of sin in creation
5) The reason for Jesus
6) God's character
7) The inerrancy (or errancy?) of scripture...

If any theology is changed as a result of the re-interpretation of the account of Genesis, then that theology is based on false pretenses. The truth is, I'm probably not that far off from you in my basic belief in any of these things, other than #1; but I arrive at them using a different logic.

I like your post, though; it should give me a starting point to try and address each of these topics individually. It will take some study and thought first, though.

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 06:24 PM
As I said; the days of Genesis are literal, 24 hour days because of the grammatical syntax of Hebrew in relation to the writing of Genesis 1.

It'll take me too long to explain, and I'd be way to confusing.
Try giving this a read.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/semantic.asp

Reynolds357
May 15th 2008, 06:29 PM
6,000 Reasons To Accept A Young Earth

There seems to be some confusion as to wether or not The Bible means what it says concerning creation. I will now atempt to demonstrate that (1) The Bible says the earth was created in six literal days about six thousand years ago. (2) It is unbiblical to denie a young earth. (3)Science has never demonstrated this to be false. And (4) We should always base our thinking on The Bible and nothing else.

HOW LONG DOES THE BIBLE SAY CREATION TOOK?
The Bible clearly says the earth was created in six days. I don't know of anyone who would denie this. So what's the problem? People see this and think, "I know it says six days, but what does it mean?" Well, it means what it says. It has been said about The Bible that, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." Quite simply, it says six days so it means six days.

That's Just Your Interpretation.
Wrong! The dictionary says that the word "Interpret" means to "explain the meaning of". I haven't done this. All I've done is point out what it says. It says, "Six Days." I don't need to explain the meaning of "Six Days", It speaks for itself.

Day Means A Long Peroid Of Time.
Wrong! The context determines the meaning of a text, and the context has nothing in it that could suggest anything other than a literal understanding. As a matter of fact, the author went out of his way to say "the evening and the morning". Now, this is a horrible problem for someone denying the literal meaning. Why would the author go out of his way to say this if he wanted people to think a day was a long period of time. Also, if creation took more than six days, why where there such gaps between things created? In the first day was created earth and light and darkness. The second day had Heaven and water. The third had dry land, grass, and trees. And so on. Why would the earth be created, then millions of years later water, then millions more years later trees.

Trees Can't Grow That Fast.
This is a favorite arguement for old earthers who deny they interpret The Bible with flawed science theory. Here is the problem, Nowhere does it say the first trees grew. It says the earth brought them forth, but not that they grew, just that they came from the earth just like man from the dust. The next problem is assuming the first trees had to grow. Well, if they did, what did they grow from? Seeds, right? Well, seeds grow from trees. Where did the seeds grow from? You are now stuck in an endless regression of trees and seeds. You have in a sense deified trees!

Did Adam Die Before He Died?
Adam was 930 when he died. If a day in creation is a long period of time he would have had to have lived much longer, even if he was created at the minute in day six. But wait, someone will object, we could still be in the seventh day. Wrong. God "rested" at the end of creation, not "is resting". But, you will protest, you could say "I mowed the lawn and then rested" while you where still resting. Yes, but that would be grammatical skills on my part and we shouldn't presume poor writing skills on Biblical authors to determine our Theology.

A Thousand Years Is A Day.
Wait a minute, you'll protest. Peter said a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years with God. Yes, but so what. This verses is not refering to creation it is simply pointing out that God is outside of time.

Day Means A Long Period Of Time In Chapter 2.
No it doesn't. It says he created in one day the heavens and the earth. This was done in day one. Wait, you say, now you've made an error, it says the heavens where created on the second day. Wrong. It says "Heaven" was created on the second day. Paul refered to a "Third Heaven". Of course the heavens where created on the first day. Heavens refers to several things. (1) The sky, (2) Outer Space, (3) The dwelling of God. In day one of courses something was above the earth. This Heaven on the second day probably refers to the "Third Heaven" where the angels are. This would explain when the angels came to be and why it it is not seen anywhere else in the creation account.

Genesis Is Sybolic.
Says who. I see nothing in the entire Bible to suggest this. Even if it was who gets to decide what in Genesis is symbolic. Maybe Abraham is also a poetic expresion and there is no literal Jewish people. I find that hard to believe, because if it were what are you doing. This author happens to be of Jewish decent. Certainly the Jews are real or your staring at a blank screen because nobody would be writing this if the Jews where only symbolic. Wait, you say, it says elsewhere in The Bible the Jews are real. Yes, it also says elsewhere the earth was created in six days.

HOW OLD DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE EARTH IS?
It doesn't give a date. But, if you count backwards on the geneologies, you get about 4,000 B.C.

What About The Gap Theory?
Does The Bible say there was a gap? Case Closed. We shouldn't sinfully read things into the text that aren't there.

SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THE EARTH IS OLD, RIGHT?
Wrong. As a matter of fact, science does not know how old the earth is. The rock dating method they use to find the age of the rock has been tested on several rocks they knew the date of and has come up with a date about a million and a half years to high. Should we not then conclude that science can't say they know the age of the earth until they have a reliable dating method. But wait, you may object, just because it has been wrong does not mean it is always wrong. But the problem with this is it has to get it right at least once. We can't trust it to date rocks we know the age of, therefore we should not trust it to date rocks we do not know the age of.

Where Are The Scientists Who Accept A Biblical Creation?
Right here:

But Most Agree This is Wrong, Right?
So. Popular opinion does not decide truth. Once upon a time most people, including scientists, agreed the earth was flat. Most of them today also believe in evolution, and that's heretical. One thing we have to remember is that scientists are people, Bias, Fallible, People.

SO WHAT, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH BELIEVING IN AN OLD EARTH IS THERE?
Actaully, there is.

Very Good?
Are we to conclude that God created an earth where, as according to old earthers, there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall and that He would declare it very good? Someone will object, but plants died, so why could not animals? Because plants are not concise for one. Also, they probably did not die. You can eat from a plant without killing it.

Apostate Hemeneutics.
If we accept old earth hereneutics than we can't trust anything The Bible says. Why, you ask? Because the author of Genesis went out of hie way, saying morning and evening, to show he was speaking literally, and even if not my objection would still stand. Therefore, if take this as non-literal, even though the context never so much as hints as anything other than literal, then we can do this to all we read, including the crucifiction and resurrection.

SHOULD WE TRUST THE BIBLE TO FORM OUR WAY OF THINKING?
Yes, on EVERYTHING!

You Wouldn't Let A Pastor Do Surgery On You, You'd Rather Have An Athiest Doctor!
I have actaully heard this objection to my claim. This is absurd. It has nothing to do with anything. When The Bible says anything about anything, it is the final, and only authority.

You Don't Have A Degree In Anything, Your Just A Lay Person.
Yes, but read 1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...". You don't need a degree to know what your talking about. Many people with the right degrees agree with me as well. Finally, why not check everything I've said and see if I've made an error in the facts.

BUT WHAT ABOUT?
Well, you still have objections, right? What about dinosaurs, and the ice age? It is not my intention here to write an entire book. I know where dinosaurs and the ice age and plenty of other stuff you can think of fit in. I can't here answer all of the objections. It would take far to long. But let me ask you a question, Since The Bible clearly teaches a young earth and science can't refute it in any way, shouldn't you stop doubting young earth and start doubting your doubts. Of course you'll never have all the answers to anything, but clearly a young earth better answers the questions posed to it with the information alvaliable than the old earth theory can.

Let us conclude the matter. You don't have to accept a young earth, but you can't claim The Bible says anything other than a young earth. If you want to cling to this old earth theory you have to confess three things, (1) It's unbiblical, therefore, if it is true, The Bible has an error and is errent. (2) It's unscientific. (3) It's a blind faith. Plain and simple, this is the ONLY reading the text allows. The evidence is overwhelming.


Without dealing with your premise piece by piece, I will simply state that the vast majority of protestant bible scholars hold to one of the old Earth models. The Catholic Church almost universally holds to an old Earth model. The reasons are biblical, not scientific. I do not read Hebrew, so I must look to those who are true experts on the language. The true experts on the Hebrew language almost universally agree on an old Earth.
From the English text, we can not be dogmatic as to whether the Earth is or is not old. However, most Hebrew scholars assure us that in the Hebrew, the text is plainly interpreted old Earth.
My problem with young Earth is that I can not place the fall of Satan into the young Earth model.

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 06:50 PM
Yeah I don't think I'd compare TE's to early American pioneer's..

You obviously haven't seen my awesome schooner...

:bounce:

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 06:53 PM
Here, you make a wild assumption: that if God saw what he made as "good", that it wouldn't contain any of those items in any way. How can you possibly say that while staying purely within scripture? It seems like a leap is being made here, logical to you but definitely not binding on god. For the record the Hebrew word used for good in this passage is (towb), which is defined as:

A primitive root, to be (transitively, do or make) good (or well) in the widest sense -- be (do) better, cheer, be (do, seem) good, (make) goodly, X please, (be, do, go, play) well.

Note the term: in the widest sense. God could not have used a more generic word for "good" here.

Eh, god? I wasn't talking Satan.

Genesis 3; death is a result of sin. Theistic evolution; death, extinction, killing, catastrophe etc. were all necessary parts of creation, leading up to modern man. God can't be in the presence of sin, and death is the result of sin. So, why would God be calling death good, if death were the result of sin, and death is what humankind was cursed with for disobedience? Now that wasn't so hard? I stayed completely within scripture.

Well when I look up towb in Strong's concordance I find myself looking at:

1) good, pleasant, agreeable
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
e) good, appropriate, becoming
f) better (comparative)
g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)
h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)
i) good, kind, benign
j) good, right (ethical)
Nothing about the 'widest sense'. Which doesn't even matter, this is some what irrelevant. The fact is that God still called it good; and what he called good is what he later cursed Adam and Eve with as a result of sin and disobedience. There's no escaping that God called this process good... Death, extinction, killing, catastrophe.




Note: I'm not day-age, gap, or OEC. "Day" means "day" in this context, but I believe the entire context of the story is symbolic; thus, no direct ties between the order or time frame of creation with reality.

Well then the cross isn't necessary. I mean I have no doubt you're saved; it's just there's no reason for it, really.



I've made the argument about "spiritual death" versus "physical death" many times in other threads, so I'm not going to expand on that here. What seems evident to me is that excluding animals or assuming a physical death is a another logical leap; by taking a bad hermeneutic of Romans 5, you end up applying meaning to Genesis that it cannot possibly have on its own. And again, trying to define "good" to be meaningful to you is hardly binding on God; his idea of good is likely very different from your own.

Unfortunately to have to decide between 'spiritual' and 'physical' death presents a false dichotomy. Adam and Eve (and all creation) died physically and spiritually. The latter death was immediate, the former was prolonged. There's no bad hermeneutic concerning Romans 5, on my part, anyway. Sin entered the world through one man; Adam. Once again, if you don't want to believe it, then you can be saved all you want; there's really no reason for it.



At some point, man moved from being a simple animal to a being with a soul - THAT is our Adam. The creation that started through "dust of the earth" and moved through various life forms until it became homo sapiens was now complete; man was given an element of the divine. Through his descendants, all of humanity derives. Through the soul came the free will to resist God; thus, sin was born.

You know I've been meaning to say. You accuse me above of making claims outside of scripture, but here you are doing what you accused me of? That's almost unbelievable.

As I've shown above; if death is present in the world, sin must necessarily be present in the world. Sin was not born because of man, but because God's creation was one of creation through sin.



As far as the genealogy of Jesus is concerned; Luke's purpose was to tie Jesus to ALL of mankind in the same way Matthew's was to tie him to all Jews through Abraham. Luke stretched Jesus' known genealogy back, using scripture, to Adam...it doesn't imply the truth or falsehood of that account (although I am of the opinion that it represents a true genealogy).

If it represents a true genealogy, then it is much more than Luke's attempt to tie Jesus to ALL mankind. Jesus would have descended from a very literal Adam, who didn't evolve, and who brought sin into the world through disobedience.



Before there were men with souls, there WAS no sin. There is no sin when a monkey copulates with multiple females. There is no sin when my dog kills a mouse. To sin, one must have free will; and animals do not have the free will in what they do.

Yes but here's the really simple thing about it: death is a consequence of sin--both physical and spiritual death. If there was death in creation, there was necessarily sin in creation as well. Therefore, there was sin. Our being aware of it or not would only mean one thing: we were created to sin; our disobedience is solely the result of God's inability to create a perfect cosmos.



What I believe is the SAME thing that you believe; not that God created a corrupted creation, but a corruptible creation. He created in us the ability to make choices contrary to His will; He also created Satan, and gave Satan the ability to oppose Him. Why we are sinful creatures is because we CHOOSE to be.

I agree with this statement. But this statement does not agree with the implications of TE teaching.



The mistake you're making here is reading that passage with 21st-century sensibilities. God gave us the story of creation, and the Israelites would've read meaning into the numbers and symbology in the account. They would not have viewed it literally in the sense we do; they would view it literally in the sense of the ideas that symbology represented. Thus, when God wrote Exodus 20:11, he was using the symbology in a direct way to establish the Sabbath which would celebrate that account, for the purpose of creating a strong, independent community.

Well it's not my 21st-century sensibility. I'm more or less agree with many prior Jewish Rabbis, sorry.

Moses wrote Exodus 20:11, by the way :P And while I agree there is a duplicity to the meaning. That is to say, it is a description of a literal event which set the standard for cultural observance, it was still the description of a literal event; a 6 day creation.



I'm afraid that by reading support for a literal 7 days into that passage, you are re-interpreting its meaning from its original intent.

Hmmmmm... Nope, don't think so.



If any theology is changed as a result of the re-interpretation of the account of Genesis, then that theology is based on false pretenses. The truth is, I'm probably not that far off from you in my basic belief in any of these things, other than #1; but I arrive at them using a different logic.

Yes but the thing is that where you come to the same point; you have absolutely no reason to. We might agree, but that agreement doesn't agree with TE.


You obviously haven't seen my awesome schooner...

:bounce:

I don't even know what a schooner is :O

IamBill
May 15th 2008, 07:30 PM
Good thing Martin Luther used his head ;)

crawfish
May 15th 2008, 07:36 PM
Eh, god? I wasn't talking Satan.

Genesis 3; death is a result of sin. Theistic evolution; death, extinction, killing, catastrophe etc. were all necessary parts of creation, leading up to modern man. God can't be in the presence of sin, and death is the result of sin. So, why would God be calling death good, if death were the result of sin, and death is what humankind was cursed with for disobedience? Now that wasn't so hard? I stayed completely within scripture.

Well when I look up towb in Strong's concordance I find myself looking at:

1) good, pleasant, agreeable
a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
c) good, excellent (of its kind)
d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
e) good, appropriate, becoming
f) better (comparative)
g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)
h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)
i) good, kind, benign
j) good, right (ethical)
Nothing about the 'widest sense'. Which doesn't even matter, this is some what irrelevant. The fact is that God still called it good; and what he called good is what he later cursed Adam and Eve with as a result of sin and disobedience. There's no escaping that God called this process good... Death, extinction, killing, catastrophe.

Plant death. Cell death. Microbe death. These are all parts of the YEC Eden, unless you're willing to accept that the fundamental physical makeup of Eden was far different from our world, which, of course, opens up a few cans of worms.

You're still trying to define the word "good" on your own terms. You're also trying to define "death" as a physical death when there is much to indicate that it's referring to spiritual death - separation from God. Tell me - which happened immediately? The separation from God or the physical death? The mere existence of the Tree of Life (what must have been the most impotent tree in the garden until they ate the other one) throws a huge monkey wrench into your interpretation.


Well then the cross isn't necessary. I mean I have no doubt you're saved; it's just there's no reason for it, really.

Unfortunately to have to decide between 'spiritual' and 'physical' death presents a false dichotomy. Adam and Eve (and all creation) died physically and spiritually. The latter death was immediate, the former was prolonged. There's no bad hermeneutic concerning Romans 5, on my part, anyway. Sin entered the world through one man; Adam. Once again, if you don't want to believe it, then you can be saved all you want; there's really no reason for it.


It's not a false dichotomy because the comparative in that chapter - life - is purely spiritual because physical death was still present.



You know I've been meaning to say. You accuse me above of making claims outside of scripture, but here you are doing what you accused me of? That's almost unbelievable.

I should have clarified; that's a personal belief. I put no stock in it, it just makes sense to me. Adam could be purely symbolic as far as my faith goes and it would make no difference.


As I've shown above; if death is present in the world, sin must necessarily be present in the world. Sin was not born because of man, but because God's creation was one of creation through sin.

Well, there still seems to be some disagreement on that. ;)


If it represents a true genealogy, then it is much more than Luke's attempt to tie Jesus to ALL mankind. Jesus would have descended from a very literal Adam, who didn't evolve, and who brought sin into the world through disobedience.

Have you compared Luke's genealogy to that in Matthew, and to the genealogies in the OT? I've never seen the discrepancies explained in a fully satisfying manner.



Yes but here's the really simple thing about it: death is a consequence of sin--both physical and spiritual death. If there was death in creation, there was necessarily sin in creation as well. Therefore, there was sin. Our being aware of it or not would only mean one thing: we were created to sin; our disobedience is solely the result of God's inability to create a perfect cosmos.

Without convincing me of the tie to physical death, that entire line of logic is meaningless.

What we see as "flaws" - catastrophes, extinction, death, etc. - are, in reality, part of the beauty and overall plan of our universe. Why is the "balance of nature" not beautiful? While the predators and prey stay in balance all is well; when one gets the upper hand, other forces interfere to put things right, or some new balance is struck. You might seem a violent death of some animal by a predator, I see the beauty of God's handiwork in a world that operates with amazing complexity and subtlety.


I agree with this statement. But this statement does not agree with the implications of TE teaching.

Then...perhaps...you don't understand TE teaching. Or, you may not realize that "TE" infers to a very wide range of beliefs; the total span is probably larger than the differences between YEC and OEC, the two polar ends of Creationism.


Well it's not my 21st-century sensibility. I'm more or less agree with many prior Jewish Rabbis, sorry.


...and disagree with many. None of which were inspired. :)


Yes but the thing is that where you come to the same point; you have absolutely no reason to. We might agree, but that agreement doesn't agree with TE.

What I hope to get you to understand is that you really don't understand us very well. You're making a lot of assumptions that, quite frankly, aren't true.



I don't even know what a schooner is :O

It's a covered wagon. ;)

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 07:48 PM
It's a covered wagon. ;)

Interesting... I gotta eat, will get back to you later on.

ilovemetal
May 16th 2008, 12:38 AM
i thought i scooner is a sailboat...like in mallrats.

anyways, check this verse out.

Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.


i take this literally. why not?

crawfish
May 16th 2008, 01:59 AM
i thought i scooner is a sailboat...like in mallrats.

anyways, check this verse out.

Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.


i take this literally. why not?

Well...the technical term for a covered wagon is "prairie schooner". Forgive me, I'm an Okie and a Sooner fan (if you're into college football you're probably familiar with the Sooner Schooner).

I addressed Exodus 20:11 in a post above. I think it is using the familiar Genesis account to place the Sabbath as a symbolic day to honor the Lord. Because the Israelites viewed numbers in a different way than we do, "literal" to them meant something different than "literal" to us. To them, seven was a holy number so the seventh day would signify a holy day.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 02:07 AM
HOW LONG DOES THE BIBLE SAY CREATION TOOK?
The Bible clearly says the earth was created in six days. I don't know of anyone who would denie this. So what's the problem? People see this and think, "I know it says six days, but what does it mean?" Well, it means what it says. It has been said about The Bible that, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." Quite simply, it says six days so it means six days.

Song of Solomon 1:15
"Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast dovesí eyes."
Does not use "like" or "as". Quite plainly states she has doves eyes. She did not have human eyes.

Song of Solomon 2:1
"I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys."
She is not a human. She is both literally a rose and literally a lily, simultaneously.

Psalm 95:1
"O come, let us sing to the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!"
Is God's manifest presence a stone?


Is the bible completely incapable of metaphor (comparisons not using LIKE or AS)

moonglow
May 16th 2008, 02:26 AM
Without dealing with your premise piece by piece, I will simply state that the vast majority of protestant bible scholars hold to one of the old Earth models. The Catholic Church almost universally holds to an old Earth model. The reasons are biblical, not scientific. I do not read Hebrew, so I must look to those who are true experts on the language. The true experts on the Hebrew language almost universally agree on an old Earth.
From the English text, we can not be dogmatic as to whether the Earth is or is not old. However, most Hebrew scholars assure us that in the Hebrew, the text is plainly interpreted old Earth.
My problem with young Earth is that I can not place the fall of Satan into the young Earth model.

Interesting....do you have any links with this information on it? thanks.

God bless

DAS
May 16th 2008, 02:42 AM
Song of Solomon 1:15
"Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast dovesí eyes."
Does not use "like" or "as". Quite plainly states she has doves eyes. She did not have human eyes.

Song of Solomon 2:1
"I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys."
She is not a human. She is both literally a rose and literally a lily, simultaneously.

Psalm 95:1
"O come, let us sing to the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!"
Is God's manifest presence a stone?


Is the bible completely incapable of metaphor (comparisons not using LIKE or AS)



Your reading poetry and not historical naritive like Genesis!

DAS
May 16th 2008, 02:47 AM
So, some of you seem to think that Genesis is symbolic (Even though I adressed this already). My question to you if your one of them is what decides that it's symbolic? Nothing says it is , everything says it's not, and why is only creation sybolic and not the rest of the book? And, why not make everything symbolic then? If you do, you'll be a heretic.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 02:59 AM
Your reading poetry and not historical naritive like Genesis!

To use the same methodology from your first post: "who said they're poetry". The words are plainly stated.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 03:02 AM
So, some of you seem to think that Genesis is symbolic (Even though I adressed this already). My question to you if your one of them is what decides that it's symbolic? Nothing says it is , everything says it's not, and why is only creation sybolic and not the rest of the book? And, why not make everything symbolic then? If you do, you'll be a heretic.

http://www.thiscenturysucks.com/images/strawman.jpg

Mighty nice straw man!

Nobody here said the whole Bible is a symbol, but to deny the Bible uses metaphor at all is foolish.

I for one, wasn't there to see creation, and neither was the person who wrote Genesis. I know for a fact there's metaphors in scripture, even in plainly stated text, so at best I'm on the fence. I've been called a heretic here for far better reasons than how old I think the earth is.

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 03:19 AM
Plant death. Cell death. Microbe death. These are all parts of the YEC Eden, unless you're willing to accept that the fundamental physical makeup of Eden was far different from our world, which, of course, opens up a few cans of worms.

Talk about a straw man:rolleyes:

To do this shortly,
Food in the garden:

Genesis 1:29-30
29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

In other words; plants.

Biblically speaking, are plants alive? No. What are those things affected by 'death'? Those creatures affected by death are described in the Bible with the words nephesh chayyāh (men and animals 'living soul', 'living creature
'). But this is never ascribed to plants (in fact, plants weren't even taken aboard the ark). Ergo, plants aren't alive (they aren't alive, they can't die, they can't feel, etc.).
Same goes for cell and microbe 'death'; not death in the Biblical sense. But that's what I get for making assumptions..



You're still trying to define the word "good" on your own terms. You're also trying to define "death" as a physical death when there is much to indicate that it's referring to spiritual death - separation from God. Tell me - which happened immediately? The separation from God or the physical death? The mere existence of the Tree of Life (what must have been the most impotent tree in the garden until they ate the other one) throws a huge monkey wrench into your interpretation.

It's referring to spiritual and physical death; one immediate (spiritual), one prolonged (physical). I'm also defining the word 'good' like this. Death is a result of sin, which is a curse. God doesn't like death as it's obviously a curse. God isn't going to call a curse 'good'. Ergo, God called death, good, if theistic evolution were true--it doesn't hold.

Now as for the tree of life.... I will quickly say that it didn't have the power to impart immortality, per se. But since we're only making allusions, I'll leave it at that for now :P



It's not a false dichotomy because the comparative in that chapter - life - is purely spiritual because physical death was still present.

Life was spiritual and physical--physical death not being present. Once again, what the Bible calls death, not what modern biology calls death.



I should have clarified; that's a personal belief. I put no stock in it, it just makes sense to me. Adam could be purely symbolic as far as my faith goes and it would make no difference.

I know, but it's a continuity thing :P



Well, there still seems to be some disagreement on that. ;)

As they'll always be, I suspect.



Have you compared Luke's genealogy to that in Matthew, and to the genealogies in the OT? I've never seen the discrepancies explained in a fully satisfying manner.

Yeah, I prefer the Mary/Joseph interpretation myself.



Without convincing me of the tie to physical death, that entire line of logic is meaningless.

What we see as "flaws" - catastrophes, extinction, death, etc. - are, in reality, part of the beauty and overall plan of our universe. Why is the "balance of nature" not beautiful? While the predators and prey stay in balance all is well; when one gets the upper hand, other forces interfere to put things right, or some new balance is struck. You might seem a violent death of some animal by a predator, I see the beauty of God's handiwork in a world that operates with amazing complexity and subtlety.

You've got one weird sense of beauty:rolleyes: But hey, truth is independent of our wanting to believe it or not (speaking of us both).



Then...perhaps...you don't understand TE teaching. Or, you may not realize that "TE" infers to a very wide range of beliefs; the total span is probably larger than the differences between YEC and OEC, the two polar ends of Creationism.

I'm familiar with the Ross Hugh kind of TE.



What I hope to get you to understand is that you really don't understand us very well. You're making a lot of assumptions that, quite frankly, aren't true.

No it's just that I agree with people like Emil Silvestru in that anything but a literal Genesis undermines a lot of doctrines.

crawfish
May 16th 2008, 03:21 AM
Your reading poetry and not historical naritive like Genesis!

True, Genesis 1 is not written like any other poetry in the bible. However, it's also not written like any other prose in the bible. However, it uses MANY elements of lyrical poetry - repeating themes, sentences and words, etc. - and the argument for it being poetry is incredibly strong. Genesis 1 stands alone in the biblical canon in its form and function.

Genesis 2-4 begins a "normal" narrative. Note how its order of creation differs from Genesis 1. Evidence states that it was a separate story, an alternate creation story used to describe different circumstances. However, the symbolic elements here are also strong - the serpent, the two trees.

The rest of Genesis? An historical account, but moreso than most of the rest of the bible a collection of orally transmitted stories. One event - Abram's passing of Sarai as his sister rather than his wife - is repeated three times. While I have no doubt the characters are based on real people and real history, I believe the point of that oral storytelling wasn't to portray historical accuracy but to tell truth through story. Thus, while portraying real characters, the details tend to express truth in ideas rather than literal, 100% historical accuracy.


So, some of you seem to think that Genesis is symbolic (Even though I adressed this already). My question to you if your one of them is what decides that it's symbolic? Nothing says it is , everything says it's not, and why is only creation sybolic and not the rest of the book? And, why not make everything symbolic then? If you do, you'll be a heretic.

IN YOUR OPINION nothing says it is and everything says it's not. That's hardly a consensus. Plenty of Christians and scholars - including St. Augustine, by the way - accepted other opinions.

crawfish
May 16th 2008, 03:44 AM
Some of this stuff we're beating to death, so I'll just leave that for now and tackle the rest...



Yeah, I prefer the Mary/Joseph interpretation myself.

I held that view for many years, but after some deep study I do not anymore. Perhaps it would be a good topic for another thread; seems a little off-topic here. I'll admit, I have some re-research to do to remember all the things that led me to reject it.


You've got one weird sense of beauty:rolleyes: But hey, truth is independent of our wanting to believe it or not (speaking of us both).


My beauty or your beauty doesn't matter here. Only God's perception of beauty matters; and I've never seen it proven scripturally that the YEC definition of "good" is anything but extra-scriptural bias and conjecture.



I'm familiar with the Ross Hugh kind of TE.

You mean Hugh Ross? Isn't he an OEC? Actually, a quick google search shows that yes, he is. OEC is closer to YEC than it is to TE; if you're considering him an example of TE then you're a long way off.

Look to people like Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Richard Colling for better examples of TE belief. Another fantastic book by a TE is "Beyond the Firmament" by Gordon Glover - you can even read his blog by the same name (google search brings it up first).


No it's just that I agree with people like Emil Silvestru in that anything but a literal Genesis undermines a lot of doctrines.

Hmmm...not familiar with his work. But if he's similar to the points you put forth, pretty standard YEC arguments. I believe you have the very basis of your arguments wrong (from Romans 5), so naturally anything built from that basis has little effect on me, just like anything built from an alternative view has little effect on you.

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 03:54 AM
I held that view for many years, but after some deep study I do not anymore. Perhaps it would be a good topic for another thread; seems a little off-topic here. I'll admit, I have some re-research to do to remember all the things that led me to reject it.

Haven't seen a topic on it since I signed up here; would be interesting.



My beauty or your beauty doesn't matter here. Only God's perception of beauty matters; and I've never seen it proven scripturally that the YEC definition of "good" is anything but extra-scriptural bias and conjecture.

Death = sin = bad. Basically what I'm saying, lol.



You mean Hugh Ross? Isn't he an OEC? Actually, a quick google search shows that yes, he is. OEC is closer to YEC than it is to TE; if you're considering him an example of TE then you're a long way off.

Well he's the one I'd be most familiar with.



Look to people like Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Richard Colling for better examples of TE belief. Another fantastic book by a TE is "Beyond the Firmament" by Gordon Glover - you can even read his blog by the same name (google search brings it up first).

Will do



Hmmm...not familiar with his work. But if he's similar to the points you put forth, pretty standard YEC arguments. I believe you have the very basis of your arguments wrong (from Romans 5), so naturally anything built from that basis has little effect on me, just like anything built from an alternative view has little effect on you.

Yeah, we'll end up talking past each other.

DAS
May 17th 2008, 12:03 AM
Once again I'm swamped with silly arguments. People appealing again to the heretic Augustine. People saying how do I know the psalms are poetry (They need a dictionary). Claiming my objections are a straw man without answering the objection. You people are going to give me gray hair. Unless you have something better than to say than that your failure dating methods work (Which I have not been seeing here, but it's a popular argument) and you feel like Genesis is symbolic, please stop posting here.

DAS
May 17th 2008, 12:08 AM
Let's make this easy. I'll raise an objection and you answer it.
The Bible says that death, pain, and suffering are a result of the fall. Old earth theory says it came before. I saw my cat awhile back with a dead mouse which she slung around for a while before leaving a huge blood and gore mess on the floor. Now, if it is possible for these things to happen before the fall, how could it be called "Very Good."?

crawfish
May 17th 2008, 12:26 AM
Let's make this easy. I'll raise an objection and you answer it.
The Bible says that death, pain, and suffering are a result of the fall. Old earth theory says it came before. I saw my cat awhile back with a dead mouse which she slung around for a while before leaving a huge blood and gore mess on the floor. Now, if it is possible for these things to happen before the fall, how could it be called "Very Good."?

OK, but I'll need clarification first.

What verses specifically say that "death, pain and suffering" are a result of the fall?

What is the definition of "very good"?

Where does that definition come from?

DAS
May 17th 2008, 01:03 AM
OK, but I'll need clarification first.

What verses specifically say that "death, pain and suffering" are a result of the fall?

What is the definition of "very good"?

Where does that definition come from?

Genesis 3
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Romans 5
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Death is part of the curse, and if you have ever had a loved one die you know a good God would never create death for it's own sake, it's a judgment.

Very Good.
From a dictionary.
Very-in a high degree.
Good-morally excellent; virtuous; righteous.

crawfish
May 17th 2008, 02:02 AM
All right, thanks. I wanted to get that spelled out before I started.


Genesis 3
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Note that here, it is NOT Adam that is being cursed; it is the ground. The ground will no longer spring forth its fruit easily; it will have to be worked. Because it is the ground being cursed, the allusion to death - "...until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken" - is NOT a curse, it is simply a statement of fact. It doesn't appear that death is a new concept; God is simply telling Adam that he will have to work hard all the days of his life to survive.

I want you also to note the existence of one item; the tree of life. What is its purpose? Why place a tree to grant eternal life into a garden where nothing can die anyway? What kind of impotent tree is that? If no death existed in the garden, then no tree is needed. Obviously, the tree existed for a reason, and that was that eternal life for A&E was readily available - if they made the choice to have it.

The following is an editorial comment on the tree - my opinion (thanks to XelNaga for the idea. btw). The two trees represent a choice. One is innocence and eternal life with God; the other, knowledge and understanding, but separation from God. I think they would not have been allowed to partake of the fruit of both trees; once they had chosen, they would be cut off from the other one. Note verse 22: "And the LORD God said, 'the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand to the tree of life and eat, and live forever". God was cutting man off from that eternal life through innocence because of their choice.


Romans 5
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

I've posted this many times before, but I'll go into more detail here.

First, Romans 5:12-21 is a comparison; death through Adam's sin, life through Christ's sacrifice. Our death comes from Adam, but life comes from Christ. Seems simple enough...but is it? Look at verse 17:

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

and verse 18:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

and finally, verse 21:

...so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Tell me - what "life" is Paul talking about? Do we still die? If we believe, repent, get baptized and live a blameless life, will we still not suffer a physical death? Will we still not pass from this world? Yes! But the key is - we will be raised to a NEW life through Christ! Paul is not referring to an eternal physical life, but to an eternal spiritual life with God. Thus, it is illogical to assume that Paul was ALSO referring to physical death in the comparison. He was referring to death as a spiritual disconnection from God; a death in the sense that most people were denied a personal relationship with God. Christ's resurrection restored that connection, allowing us to have that personal relationship.

For the record, the Greek word in the original language here is "thanatos (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2288.htm)". The Strong's Greek Dictionary definition of this word is:

From thnesko (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2348.htm); (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively) -- X deadly, (be...) Death.

Note that the word works both literally and figuratively. My assertion is supported by the original text.


Death is part of the curse, and if you have ever had a loved one die you know a good God would never create death for it's own sake, it's a judgment.

I have lost a number of people close to me, and suffered through my wife's cancer (she's 8 years clear, thank the Lord). I understand just how painful death can be. However, the scripture just does not support such an assertion. God's ways are different than our ways; it would be wrong of us to command men to destroy an entire city, to indiscriminately kill men, women and children. It is not wrong for God because he has a greater perspective that we cannot understand. When we try and define God's feelings about something that He doesn't clarify in scripture, we by necessity limit him because, again, we cannot understand His perspective. I will stick to scripture and not put words in God's mouth. What God has made ambiguous, I will not attempt to make clear.


Very Good.
From a dictionary.
Very-in a high degree.
Good-morally excellent; virtuous; righteous.

The word in the original Hebrew is "towb (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2896.htm)". Here is the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary definition:

From towb (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2895.htm); good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well) -- beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, -liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ((-favoured)).

Note the first definition: "good, in the widest sense". This is the most generic term for "good" that God could have used. I believe it is wrong to try and pack it with extra-biblical baggage: "absence of death", "absence of pain", "absence of suffering".

My conclusion is: the basis of YEC theology - that pain, death and suffering did not exist in the garden before the fall - is based on bad hermeneutics. For a group so intent on being strictly by the bible, it's a bit ironic that their core beliefs require that one inserts his or her own feelings about what is "good" into their theology. I welcome you to challenge this assertion, but I do require that you stick to scripture only.

Ekeak
May 17th 2008, 02:14 AM
You have a great faith my dear brother... and I admire you for it. You know what, I totally agree.

cnw
May 17th 2008, 02:31 AM
craw first of all, prais God your wife is clear of cancer, we just found out I have it.


YEC is a last-ditch, desperate effort to cling to the traditions of the past in the face of overwhelming evidence by those who can't handle that God is different in nature from what they have always accepted.

why do you feel that just because someone comes up with a theory in the last 100 yrs that it should oust the point of view that has been written or thought for the last 3000 years? Are we suddenly smarter or wiser now adays or what?
oh and the comment that jews have this holy 7 so they see the 6 days and God rested on the 7th differently than is written in their own language???? I don't get it.
Where is Fen or ACCM???

Read the Gen account again. God made man and told him to cultivate the garden. It wasn't after the curse, It was before. but I don't think there was death, just life. of course there was growth, the fruit had to grow, but why couldn't there have been fully formed trees then they would grow fruit?

interesting thot, Gen 2 says this below, but can anyone explain this? I have never read this this way. before it was in the earth and before they grew they were created.



4These 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,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

DAS
May 17th 2008, 02:44 AM
Crawfish, as much as don't like to say this, if you deny death coming about before the fall, that makes you a heretic. It's blasphemy to suggest that God would create that way. The real issue then is not the age of the earth but the character of God.

crawfish
May 17th 2008, 03:03 AM
Crawfish, as much as don't like to say this, if you deny death coming about before the fall, that makes you a heretic. It's blasphemy to suggest that God would create that way. The real issue then is not the age of the earth but the character of God.

Wow.

Just.

Wow.

I thought you'd at least try to argue scripture before you resorted to this. All I can say is, I hope God puts you and yours in a small, private part of heaven so you can pretend the rest of us aren't there. I'd hate for you to be disappointed.

Athanasius
May 17th 2008, 03:06 AM
lol yeah, I don't know many people who'd take it that far.

crawfish
May 17th 2008, 03:14 AM
craw first of all, prais God your wife is clear of cancer, we just found out I have it.

You have my prayers. That was one of the toughest times we've been through. I'll have to post the circumstances by which we discovered her cancer, it was unquestionably God intervening in our lives. May God provide you and yours comfort and protection during these days, and may he give you healing and restoration. I am truly sorry to hear this. :(


why do you feel that just because someone comes up with a theory in the last 100 yrs that it should oust the point of view that has been written or thought for the last 3000 years? Are we suddenly smarter or wiser now adays or what?
oh and the comment that jews have this holy 7 so they see the 6 days and God rested on the 7th differently than is written in their own language???? I don't get it.

I'm pretty tired, but I'll make one more post before bedtime. I don't accept taking just any theory; but we must remain open to change. We are still learning the full nature of God's creation. We are more knowledgeable nowadays than 2-3000 years ago, or even 100. It's not that we're smarter - but each generation builds on the base of the generations before it. We are working from a greater total sum of knowledge than they did; there are things we know that they had no clue of. God knew, however, and scripture will keep its meaning throughout the ages.



Read the Gen account again. God made man and told him to cultivate the garden. It wasn't after the curse, It was before. but I don't think there was death, just life. of course there was growth, the fruit had to grow, but why couldn't there have been fully formed trees then they would grow fruit?

Sure, but it was far easier, according to Genesis. I know the account pretty well, having read it literally hundreds of times. God cursed the ground, not Adam; I don't understand how you can read this any other way.


interesting thot, Gen 2 says this below, but can anyone explain this? I have never read this this way. before it was in the earth and before they grew they were created.

I'll let one of the YEC faithful answer this question. If you want my opinion, just ask, but it will be less than satisfying to you since you hold the former beliefs.

DAS
May 17th 2008, 05:49 PM
Wow.

Just.

Wow.

I thought you'd at least try to argue scripture before you resorted to this. All I can say is, I hope God puts you and yours in a small, private part of heaven so you can pretend the rest of us aren't there. I'd hate for you to be disappointed.

What good would it do, I have been and you don't listen, some people just will not accept truth for one reason or another. And concerning resorting to that, I'm not resorting to anything, it's heresy to deny death came before the fall.

DAS
May 17th 2008, 06:23 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/0302.gif

crawfish
May 17th 2008, 09:31 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/0302.gif

Do you realize how incredibly ironic this post is, knowing that I just used nothing but scripture to prove my point?


What good would it do, I have been and you don't listen, some people just will not accept truth for one reason or another. And concerning resorting to that, I'm not resorting to anything, it's heresy to deny death came before the fall.

Oh, I'm listening all right, I'm just not letting you off easy. If you can't put a solid argument forward against my scriptural claims, then perhaps it is not my view of scripture that needs to be questioned. If you can, by all means, do - you're the one who issued the challenge. If you just go off in a huff then the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that, quite simply, you can't.


Galileo was accused of heresy for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Giordano Bruni was burned at the stake for heresy for claiming that other worlds revolved around other suns.

I'm more than willing to let small minds brand me with heresy for speaking the truth. Because in the end, the truth always wins.

cnw
May 18th 2008, 07:55 PM
craw, I don't think anyone can answer that question as it doesn't follow either creation or old world. but go ahead and try.

DAS
May 18th 2008, 09:32 PM
Do you realize how incredibly ironic this post is, knowing that I just used nothing but scripture to prove my point?



Oh, I'm listening all right, I'm just not letting you off easy. If you can't put a solid argument forward against my scriptural claims, then perhaps it is not my view of scripture that needs to be questioned. If you can, by all means, do - you're the one who issued the challenge. If you just go off in a huff then the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that, quite simply, you can't.


Galileo was accused of heresy for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Giordano Bruni was burned at the stake for heresy for claiming that other worlds revolved around other suns.

I'm more than willing to let small minds brand me with heresy for speaking the truth. Because in the end, the truth always wins.

First, the cartoon had nothing to do with you. I think your getting paranoid.
Second, did you read the article or didn't you, your just regurgitating arguments I answered in it for the most part and can't answer any of the claims I made.
Third, I didn't challenge anyone to anything.
Fourth, just because some people where falsely accused of heresy does not mean that this blasphemous doctrine isn't heresy. For those who accused me of a straw man, this is what one really looks like.
Fifth, your not representing truth your representing a blasphemy.
Sixth, name calling isn't the right way to defend your position. You call me a small mind when you don't know me and are yourself clinging to an absurd blind faith.

DAS
May 18th 2008, 09:41 PM
True, Genesis 1 is not written like any other poetry in the bible. However, it's also not written like any other prose in the bible. However, it uses MANY elements of lyrical poetry - repeating themes, sentences and words, etc. - and the argument for it being poetry is incredibly strong. Genesis 1 stands alone in the biblical canon in its form and function.

Genesis 2-4 begins a "normal" narrative. Note how its order of creation differs from Genesis 1. Evidence states that it was a separate story, an alternate creation story used to describe different circumstances. However, the symbolic elements here are also strong - the serpent, the two trees.

The rest of Genesis? An historical account, but moreso than most of the rest of the bible a collection of orally transmitted stories. One event - Abram's passing of Sarai as his sister rather than his wife - is repeated three times. While I have no doubt the characters are based on real people and real history, I believe the point of that oral storytelling wasn't to portray historical accuracy but to tell truth through story. Thus, while portraying real characters, the details tend to express truth in ideas rather than literal, 100% historical accuracy.



IN YOUR OPINION nothing says it is and everything says it's not. That's hardly a consensus. Plenty of Christians and scholars - including St. Augustine, by the way - accepted other opinions.

I'm glad to see you challenged me to answer you specifically, because I hadn't read this one all the way through.
First,It does not read like poetry and the argument against it is strong like I've already shown. Repeating does not equal poetry. The Cross is repeated tons of times in the NT.
Second,Chapters two-four is not a different story. It just changes emphases.
Third,Your description of the rest of Genesis has identified the problem. I would not call just anyone this because it's a bad thing, but your a liberal.
Fourth,Consensus does not equal truth, and you appealed to a heretic.

DAS
May 18th 2008, 09:57 PM
All right, thanks. I wanted to get that spelled out before I started.



Note that here, it is NOT Adam that is being cursed; it is the ground. The ground will no longer spring forth its fruit easily; it will have to be worked. Because it is the ground being cursed, the allusion to death - "...until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken" - is NOT a curse, it is simply a statement of fact. It doesn't appear that death is a new concept; God is simply telling Adam that he will have to work hard all the days of his life to survive.

I want you also to note the existence of one item; the tree of life. What is its purpose? Why place a tree to grant eternal life into a garden where nothing can die anyway? What kind of impotent tree is that? If no death existed in the garden, then no tree is needed. Obviously, the tree existed for a reason, and that was that eternal life for A&E was readily available - if they made the choice to have it.

The following is an editorial comment on the tree - my opinion (thanks to XelNaga for the idea. btw). The two trees represent a choice. One is innocence and eternal life with God; the other, knowledge and understanding, but separation from God. I think they would not have been allowed to partake of the fruit of both trees; once they had chosen, they would be cut off from the other one. Note verse 22: "And the LORD God said, 'the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand to the tree of life and eat, and live forever". God was cutting man off from that eternal life through innocence because of their choice.



I've posted this many times before, but I'll go into more detail here.

First, Romans 5:12-21 is a comparison; death through Adam's sin, life through Christ's sacrifice. Our death comes from Adam, but life comes from Christ. Seems simple enough...but is it? Look at verse 17:

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

and verse 18:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

and finally, verse 21:

...so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Tell me - what "life" is Paul talking about? Do we still die? If we believe, repent, get baptized and live a blameless life, will we still not suffer a physical death? Will we still not pass from this world? Yes! But the key is - we will be raised to a NEW life through Christ! Paul is not referring to an eternal physical life, but to an eternal spiritual life with God. Thus, it is illogical to assume that Paul was ALSO referring to physical death in the comparison. He was referring to death as a spiritual disconnection from God; a death in the sense that most people were denied a personal relationship with God. Christ's resurrection restored that connection, allowing us to have that personal relationship.

For the record, the Greek word in the original language here is "thanatos (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2288.htm)". The Strong's Greek Dictionary definition of this word is:

From thnesko (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2348.htm); (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively) -- X deadly, (be...) Death.

Note that the word works both literally and figuratively. My assertion is supported by the original text.



I have lost a number of people close to me, and suffered through my wife's cancer (she's 8 years clear, thank the Lord). I understand just how painful death can be. However, the scripture just does not support such an assertion. God's ways are different than our ways; it would be wrong of us to command men to destroy an entire city, to indiscriminately kill men, women and children. It is not wrong for God because he has a greater perspective that we cannot understand. When we try and define God's feelings about something that He doesn't clarify in scripture, we by necessity limit him because, again, we cannot understand His perspective. I will stick to scripture and not put words in God's mouth. What God has made ambiguous, I will not attempt to make clear.



The word in the original Hebrew is "towb (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2896.htm)". Here is the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary definition:

From towb (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2895.htm); good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well) -- beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, -liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ((-favoured)).

Note the first definition: "good, in the widest sense". This is the most generic term for "good" that God could have used. I believe it is wrong to try and pack it with extra-biblical baggage: "absence of death", "absence of pain", "absence of suffering".

My conclusion is: the basis of YEC theology - that pain, death and suffering did not exist in the garden before the fall - is based on bad hermeneutics. For a group so intent on being strictly by the bible, it's a bit ironic that their core beliefs require that one inserts his or her own feelings about what is "good" into their theology. I welcome you to challenge this assertion, but I do require that you stick to scripture only.

This is very sad for several reasons. The god you seem to believe in is not The God of The Bible. He would never create an imperfect world with death in it, and if you think he did your not believing in him but a figment of your imagination.

Death is clearly a new concept since this is where he is first told he'll return to the ground. The Romans passage claims death but does not say which one. The most natural reading is for both. All died spiritual and are made alive that way, also the all die physically and are made alive that way through the resurrection of life in revelation made possible by The Cross.

When it comes to the tree, why are saying it's all figurative but a tree. If you spiritualize everything else, why not the tree. Of course it was a literal tree, but how did you come to that conclusion if it's in a poem?

You end with the most confusing part. The Bible says young earth you read into it old and accuse young earth of doing this when they refuse to blaspheme my claiming a god who creates death even though he says he hates death and all those who love it hate him.

Mograce2U
May 18th 2008, 11:14 PM
I only read the first page where somebody (Moonglow?) said one day we will have the answers. And also that science is proving the bible true on many fronts.

So apparently having the proof of creation before us and the answer to the question of how, is not enough for us to "know" unless science confirms it? The only reason that is the case is because of our unbelief - not because we don't have enough information. But knowing the truth is not the same thing as believing it. Which is something we all in here ought to know by now...

crawfish
May 18th 2008, 11:31 PM
I'm glad to see you challenged me to answer you specifically, because I hadn't read this one all the way through.
First,It does not read like poetry and the argument against it is strong like I've already shown. Repeating does not equal poetry. The Cross is repeated tons of times in the NT.
Second,Chapters two-four is not a different story. It just changes emphases.
Third,Your description of the rest of Genesis has identified the problem. I would not call just anyone this because it's a bad thing, but your a liberal.
Fourth,Consensus does not equal truth, and you appealed to a heretic.

Well, it looks pretty obviously poetic to me. If you took the story out and stuck it in the middle of Psalms, it would fit in perfectly.

Second, chapter 2 conflicts with chapter one in the order of creation. Only by reading it non-literally can you come to any other conclusion. True that it changes emphasis, but that hardly disputes my point.

Third, I'm no liberal; my theology is doctrinally conservative. Just not here.

Fourth - I think you use that word a little too freely.

crawfish
May 18th 2008, 11:58 PM
This is very sad for several reasons. The god you seem to believe in is not The God of The Bible. He would never create an imperfect world with death in it, and if you think he did your not believing in him but a figment of your imagination.

The God I believe in IS the God of the bible; it's just not necessarily the God of tradition. You still haven't answered as to why your view of a "perfect" world holds muster here. Who defines perfect? Why is your idea of perfect biblical? Why must God's idea of perfect be your idea of perfect?

Again, I provided nothing but scripture to express my point of view.


Death is clearly a new concept since this is where he is first told he'll return to the ground.

Is it the first place he's told, or the first place it is written down? It's obvious that plenty of conversation is assumed in the garden that went unrecorded. Adam's curse, if you can call it that because Adam was only indirectly cursed, is simply telling him the way it will be. Death is spoken of pretty matter-of-factly, not like it's a new concept. Think about it - if physical death was a new concept to Adam, then how was the serpent able to use the term in 3:3-4?


The Romans passage claims death but does not say which one. The most natural reading is for both. All died spiritual and are made alive that way, also the all die physically and are made alive that way through the resurrection of life in revelation made possible by The Cross.

I would disagree, again because the converse - eternal life through Christ - can ONLY be spiritual. Since Genesis indicates, as I have shown, that death DID exist before the fall, then that reading is the one that makes the most sense.


When it comes to the tree, why are saying it's all figurative but a tree. If you spiritualize everything else, why not the tree. Of course it was a literal tree, but how did you come to that conclusion if it's in a poem?

I really don't understand the point you're making here. Assuming your view of the passage - a completely literal Eden, with two literal trees - why would the tree of life be needed? That is a question to you.

From my point of view, the tree of life represents the choice untaken - stay innocent and receive eternal life. Man chose to follow his own path instead, and our lives are the consequence. It is also a strong indication that death was assumed possible in the garden, because the choice of eternal life was there to be made.


You end with the most confusing part. The Bible says young earth you read into it old and accuse young earth of doing this when they refuse to blaspheme my claiming a god who creates death even though he says he hates death and all those who love it hate him.

I assume you're talking Proverbs 8:6 here:

But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.

The word used for "death" here is different than the word used in Genesis 3:3. The Hebrew word is "maveth (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4194.htm)":

From muwth (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4191.htm); death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead((-ly)), death, die(-d).

Note that the word can also figuratively mean pestilence or ruin, and that meaning fits more precisely into the surrounding context.

The bible says flat earth; the bible says geocentric. The bible claims that there is a mountain from which you can see the entire earth. The bible claims that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. Here is the thing: sometimes, we all accept that the bible is saying something symbolic when it gives no indication that it is. We are either forced to do that or accept that the bible is flawed. There is no set of consistent rules you can hold to that will make a literal interpretation of the bible possible if you hold that only those things "obviously" symbolic are symbolic. What I do is no different than what you do, except for two things: 1) scale, and 2) I freely admit it.

crawfish
May 19th 2008, 12:13 AM
First, the cartoon had nothing to do with you. I think your getting paranoid.

That's good. I apologize for assuming otherwise. I wouldn't call myself paranoid, but I did get a chuckle out of the supposed irony. :)


Second, did you read the article or didn't you, your just regurgitating arguments I answered in it for the most part and can't answer any of the claims I made.

Third, I didn't challenge anyone to anything.
Here is your post:

Let's make this easy. I'll raise an objection and you answer it. The Bible says that death, pain, and suffering are a result of the fall. Old earth theory says it came before. I saw my cat awhile back with a dead mouse which she slung around for a while before leaving a huge blood and gore mess on the floor. Now, if it is possible for these things to happen before the fall, how could it be called "Very Good."?

How is that not a challenge? And what part of that haven't I addressed?


Fourth, just because some people where falsely accused of heresy does not mean that this blasphemous doctrine isn't heresy. For those who accused me of a straw man, this is what one really looks like.
Fifth, your not representing truth your representing a blasphemy.
Sixth, name calling isn't the right way to defend your position. You call me a small mind when you don't know me and are yourself clinging to an absurd blind faith.What it means is that some people are very quick to call "heresy" when they hear ideas that challenge their view of the nature of God or His creation. It also shows that our view of the nature of God and His creation has changed over the years. What would once be viewed as heresy is now not a problem with our belief.

You know, I've heard this from YEC's before, and it never ceases to amaze me: they call me essentially an "enemy of God" and challenge my salvation, yet they take offense at being called close-minded. I'm sorry, but I'd rather be called stupid than an antichrist.

If my faith is absurd, you certainly have failed to support that with scripture. As far as I can see the YEC theology - as well as its science - is held together with straw and duct tape.

DAS
May 19th 2008, 12:34 AM
Well, it looks pretty obviously poetic to me. If you took the story out and stuck it in the middle of Psalms, it would fit in perfectly.

Second, chapter 2 conflicts with chapter one in the order of creation. Only by reading it non-literally can you come to any other conclusion. True that it changes emphasis, but that hardly disputes my point.

Third, I'm no liberal; my theology is doctrinally conservative. Just not here.

Fourth - I think you use that word a little too freely.

First, No it would not fit.
Second, No it does not, your just can't read it right.

Third, Your account of creation and the way you describe the story of Abraham and Sara makes it clear you are a liberal. You might not be extremely so, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it?

Fourth, If it looks like a duck?

HisLeast
May 19th 2008, 12:51 AM
So apparently having the proof of creation before us and the answer to the question of how, is not enough for us to "know" unless science confirms it?

I wouldn't look to science to tell me about the heart of man, the existence of God, or the means to salvation. What I would expect to see in observing natural phenomenon across multiple disciplines, is what is true about God's creation.

DAS
May 19th 2008, 12:52 AM
The God I believe in IS the God of the bible; it's just not necessarily the God of tradition. You still haven't answered as to why your view of a "perfect" world holds muster here. Who defines perfect? Why is your idea of perfect biblical? Why must God's idea of perfect be your idea of perfect?

Again, I provided nothing but scripture to express my point of view.



Is it the first place he's told, or the first place it is written down? It's obvious that plenty of conversation is assumed in the garden that went unrecorded. Adam's curse, if you can call it that because Adam was only indirectly cursed, is simply telling him the way it will be. Death is spoken of pretty matter-of-factly, not like it's a new concept. Think about it - if physical death was a new concept to Adam, then how was the serpent able to use the term in 3:3-4?



I would disagree, again because the converse - eternal life through Christ - can ONLY be spiritual. Since Genesis indicates, as I have shown, that death DID exist before the fall, then that reading is the one that makes the most sense.



I really don't understand the point you're making here. Assuming your view of the passage - a completely literal Eden, with two literal trees - why would the tree of life be needed? That is a question to you.

From my point of view, the tree of life represents the choice untaken - stay innocent and receive eternal life. Man chose to follow his own path instead, and our lives are the consequence. It is also a strong indication that death was assumed possible in the garden, because the choice of eternal life was there to be made.



I assume you're talking Proverbs 8:6 here:

But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.

The word used for "death" here is different than the word used in Genesis 3:3. The Hebrew word is "maveth (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4194.htm)":

From muwth (http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4191.htm); death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead((-ly)), death, die(-d).

Note that the word can also figuratively mean pestilence or ruin, and that meaning fits more precisely into the surrounding context.

The bible says flat earth; the bible says geocentric. The bible claims that there is a mountain from which you can see the entire earth. The bible claims that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. Here is the thing: sometimes, we all accept that the bible is saying something symbolic when it gives no indication that it is. We are either forced to do that or accept that the bible is flawed. There is no set of consistent rules you can hold to that will make a literal interpretation of the bible possible if you hold that only those things "obviously" symbolic are symbolic. What I do is no different than what you do, except for two things: 1) scale, and 2) I freely admit it.

First, The cruel and evil god of the old earth is not The Loving and Holy God of The Bible.
Second, in Revelation death is described as an enemy and is destroyed. If death where create as a part of the "Very Good" creation why is it an enemy to be destroyed?
Third, death causes people to suffer. A good God would not cause suffering for no reason.
Fourth, Adam was warned that he would die when he ate the fruit. If he asked,as he surely would have, "What is this death?" I highly doubt the reply from heaven would be, "None of your business!"
Fifth, You have never proven the heresy that death existed before the fall.
Sixth, Don't dodge questions by asking me something. How is there a literal tree in a non-literal enviorment? If you say the tree was not literal, what was the first sin?
Seventh, Regardless of who is right on the passage you mentioned in proverbs, which is myself if you just read the plain meaning, death is still viewed as an enemy, but if it was part of a "Very Good" creation, how is it an enemy?
Eighth, You aren't reading many of those passages right, The Bible says the earth is round in several places. And when it comes to the others, they are clearly figures of speech.

crawfish
May 19th 2008, 01:47 AM
First, The cruel and evil god of the old earth is not The Loving and Holy God of The Bible.

You mean the loving and Holy God who commanded his followers to destroy cities? The one who created the natural law that destroys?

I agree that God is loving and Holy, but His definition of such things surpasses us. We suffer from pain and death; our compassion is in an immediate sense. God, however, has a greater perspective and we should not limit him with ours.


Second, in Revelation death is described as an enemy and is destroyed. If death where create as a part of the "Very Good" creation why is it an enemy to be destroyed?

Where is death mentioned as an enemy? It is used as a messenger, a deliverer, and in the end we are freed from death. But I don't see where it is referred to as an enemy. Chapter & verse, please.


Third, death causes people to suffer. A good God would not cause suffering for no reason.

We only suffer because of our separation from God? Again, your argument is weak because it requires your personal definition of good.


Fourth, Adam was warned that he would die when he ate the fruit. If he asked,as he surely would have, "What is this death?" I highly doubt the reply from heaven would be, "None of your business!"

So...death wasn't a new concept later? Adam knew about death?


Fifth, You have never proven the heresy that death existed before the fall.
Sixth, Don't dodge questions by asking me something. How is there a literal tree in a non-literal enviorment? If you say the tree was not literal, what was the first sin?

I'm proving my point by getting you to admit yours makes no sense. YOU think the tree is literal. YOU think the garden is literal. How do you explain it, then? I've answered my portion of this question, answer yours if you can.



Seventh, Regardless of who is right on the passage you mentioned in proverbs, which is myself if you just read the plain meaning, death is still viewed as an enemy, but if it was part of a "Very Good" creation, how is it an enemy?

See above. How is it an enemy, and how does God define "very good"?



Eighth, You aren't reading many of those passages right, The Bible says the earth is round in several places. And when it comes to the others, they are clearly figures of speech.

Round = flat circle <> sphere. And yes, they are clearly figures of speech - because reality states that they cannot be literal. NOTHING in the text leads you to believe that they are anything but literal.

Tell me: if you didn't know that there were smaller seeds, and someone asked you if the mustard seed was the smallest seed, would you answer yes? In the absence of other evidence, wouldn't scripture be enough to make it sure in your mind? Isn't the only reason that you know that statement was limited to the knowledge of the people hearing the message because of extra-biblical information?

Matthew
May 19th 2008, 02:24 AM
That's good. I apologize for assuming otherwise. I wouldn't call myself paranoid, but I did get a chuckle out of the supposed irony. :)

Here is your post:

Let's make this easy. I'll raise an objection and you answer it. The Bible says that death, pain, and suffering are a result of the fall. Old earth theory says it came before. I saw my cat awhile back with a dead mouse which she slung around for a while before leaving a huge blood and gore mess on the floor. Now, if it is possible for these things to happen before the fall, how could it be called "Very Good."?

How is that not a challenge? And what part of that haven't I addressed?

What it means is that some people are very quick to call "heresy" when they hear ideas that challenge their view of the nature of God or His creation. It also shows that our view of the nature of God and His creation has changed over the years. What would once be viewed as heresy is now not a problem with our belief.

You know, I've heard this from YEC's before, and it never ceases to amaze me: they call me essentially an "enemy of God" and challenge my salvation, yet they take offense at being called close-minded. I'm sorry, but I'd rather be called stupid than an antichrist.

If my faith is absurd, you certainly have failed to support that with scripture. As far as I can see the YEC theology - as well as its science - is held together with straw and duct tape.

So, you're allegedly a heretical, liberal, Sooner. As a Christian, conservative, Longhorn I should probably disagree with you, but you make too much darn sense. Nice posts!

DAS
May 19th 2008, 02:24 AM
You mean the loving and Holy God who commanded his followers to destroy cities? The one who created the natural law that destroys?

I agree that God is loving and Holy, but His definition of such things surpasses us. We suffer from pain and death; our compassion is in an immediate sense. God, however, has a greater perspective and we should not limit him with ours.

Now your getting it! These are all a result of the fall, if they were not He would not be worth worshiping.

Well, in concern to the rest of your questions, I'm tired, it's late, I have to be up really early. I'll get it eventually, it's all very simple and I'm sure most anyone could answer, but for now I'm going to bed.

crawfish
May 19th 2008, 02:30 AM
So, you're allegedly a heretical, liberal, Sooner. As a Christian, conservative, Longhorn I should probably disagree with you, but you make too much darn sense. Nice posts!

Well, we heretics need to stick together. ;):saint::D

cnw
May 19th 2008, 02:53 AM
why do some of these threads always get mean? lay off you two and get a grip. don't even post for a day till ya both cool off. your name calling and there is no love of God in your posts and so what if God did or didn't do whatever he did cause a nonbeliever reading this post isn't gonna want anything to do with him anyway if ya both don't calm down.

Ephesians
29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

crawfish
May 19th 2008, 03:21 AM
why do some of these threads always get mean? lay off you two and get a grip. don't even post for a day till ya both cool off. your name calling and there is no love of God in your posts and so what if God did or didn't do whatever he did cause a nonbeliever reading this post isn't gonna want anything to do with him anyway if ya both don't calm down.

Ephesians
29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

I apologize if I've seemed harsh. I'm really not mad; it was just trying to goad him into responding more. I promise, I have no animosity with anybody, no matter how much we may disagree, or how heavy we get into it in some thread. DAS is my brother in Christ and has my love and respect, if not my agreement.

Son_kissed
May 19th 2008, 06:04 PM
This is very sad for several reasons. The god you seem to believe in is not The God of The Bible. He would never create an imperfect world with death in it, and if you think he did your not believing in him but a figment of your imagination.



But He created a world with the potential for sin and death and that He knew would sin and die, physhically and spiritually, and still called it "very good." So, how would that be any different than if a world had been created where physical death existed from the first day? He knew it was going to happen and still called it "very good." He could call it "very good" because He knew how it would all turn out, that we would be perfected in HIM who, alone, is good (righteous). Not because He had made us perfectly righteous to begin with.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. (Of course Jesus was acknowledging here that He was, indeed, God).

Athanasius
May 19th 2008, 07:22 PM
But He created a world with the potential for sin and death and that He knew would sin and die, physhically and spiritually, and still called it "very good." So, how would that be any different than if a world had been created where physical death existed from the first day? He knew it was going to happen and still called it "very good." He could call it "very good" because He knew how it would all turn out, that we would be perfected in HIM who, alone, is good (righteous). Not because He had made us perfectly righteous to begin with.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God. (Of course Jesus was acknowledging here that He was, indeed, God).

He called it 'very good' because at the time God spoke the words (which would have existed at a specific point in time) all of creation was very good. The potential for sin and death and corruption was there, but it did not have a hold in creation. This is why God could call creation 'very good', even knowing what could happen--it had not yet happened.

DAS
May 20th 2008, 01:45 AM
He called it 'very good' because at the time God spoke the words (which would have existed at a specific point in time) all of creation was very good. The potential for sin and death and corruption was there, but it did not have a hold in creation. This is why God could call creation 'very good', even knowing what could happen--it had not yet happened.

This was a good response but I will add that without the potential for evil there is no free will, with no free will love is made impotent.

Athanasius
May 20th 2008, 02:08 AM
This was a good response but I will add that without the potential for evil there is no free will, with no free will love is made impotent.

Yes, I was thinking of that. The ability to choose is also 'very good'.

Ekeak
May 20th 2008, 02:45 AM
I think we've been around for ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i dunooooooooooooo, around 3000? 6000? this is my 2 guesses, space age doesn't count. :P

crawfish
May 20th 2008, 12:57 PM
Yes, I was thinking of that. The ability to choose is also 'very good'.

I've just got to find this dictionary you guys are using, because it seems to me this is reverse theology. You are taking an idea and building a theology of interpretation from it, rather than reading the theology from the scripture and building ideas FROM it.

One can find ways to define "good" any way they want, but I'd be uncomfortable making an unshakable dogma based on a definition not given anywhere in scripture.

Athanasius
May 20th 2008, 01:11 PM
I've just got to find this dictionary you guys are using, because it seems to me this is reverse theology. You are taking an idea and building a theology of interpretation from it, rather than reading the theology from the scripture and building ideas FROM it.

One can find ways to define "good" any way they want, but I'd be uncomfortable making an unshakable dogma based on a definition not given anywhere in scripture.

As I said, death is a curse that is a consequence of sin. Ergo, God isn't going to be calling the existence of death in creation 'good'. What is 'good' would of course be referring to Genesis 1:1-30.

Joyfilled
May 21st 2008, 12:30 PM
6,000 Reasons To Accept A Young Earth

There seems to be some confusion as to wether or not The Bible means what it says concerning creation. I will now atempt to demonstrate that (1) The Bible says the earth was created in six literal days about six thousand years ago. (2) It is unbiblical to denie a young earth. (3)Science has never demonstrated this to be false. And (4) We should always base our thinking on The Bible and nothing else.

HOW LONG DOES THE BIBLE SAY CREATION TOOK?
The Bible clearly says the earth was created in six days. I don't know of anyone who would denie this. So what's the problem? People see this and think, "I know it says six days, but what does it mean?" Well, it means what it says. It has been said about The Bible that, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." Quite simply, it says six days so it means six days.

That's Just Your Interpretation.
Wrong! The dictionary says that the word "Interpret" means to "explain the meaning of". I haven't done this. All I've done is point out what it says. It says, "Six Days." I don't need to explain the meaning of "Six Days", It speaks for itself.

Day Means A Long Peroid Of Time.
Wrong! The context determines the meaning of a text, and the context has nothing in it that could suggest anything other than a literal understanding. As a matter of fact, the author went out of his way to say "the evening and the morning". Now, this is a horrible problem for someone denying the literal meaning. Why would the author go out of his way to say this if he wanted people to think a day was a long period of time. Also, if creation took more than six days, why where there such gaps between things created? In the first day was created earth and light and darkness. The second day had Heaven and water. The third had dry land, grass, and trees. And so on. Why would the earth be created, then millions of years later water, then millions more years later trees.

Trees Can't Grow That Fast.
This is a favorite arguement for old earthers who deny they interpret The Bible with flawed science theory. Here is the problem, Nowhere does it say the first trees grew. It says the earth brought them forth, but not that they grew, just that they came from the earth just like man from the dust. The next problem is assuming the first trees had to grow. Well, if they did, what did they grow from? Seeds, right? Well, seeds grow from trees. Where did the seeds grow from? You are now stuck in an endless regression of trees and seeds. You have in a sense deified trees!

Did Adam Die Before He Died?
Adam was 930 when he died. If a day in creation is a long period of time he would have had to have lived much longer, even if he was created at the minute in day six. But wait, someone will object, we could still be in the seventh day. Wrong. God "rested" at the end of creation, not "is resting". But, you will protest, you could say "I mowed the lawn and then rested" while you where still resting. Yes, but that would be grammatical skills on my part and we shouldn't presume poor writing skills on Biblical authors to determine our Theology.

A Thousand Years Is A Day.
Wait a minute, you'll protest. Peter said a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years with God. Yes, but so what. This verses is not refering to creation it is simply pointing out that God is outside of time.

Day Means A Long Period Of Time In Chapter 2.
No it doesn't. It says he created in one day the heavens and the earth. This was done in day one. Wait, you say, now you've made an error, it says the heavens where created on the second day. Wrong. It says "Heaven" was created on the second day. Paul refered to a "Third Heaven". Of course the heavens where created on the first day. Heavens refers to several things. (1) The sky, (2) Outer Space, (3) The dwelling of God. In day one of courses something was above the earth. This Heaven on the second day probably refers to the "Third Heaven" where the angels are. This would explain when the angels came to be and why it it is not seen anywhere else in the creation account.

Genesis Is Sybolic.
Says who. I see nothing in the entire Bible to suggest this. Even if it was who gets to decide what in Genesis is symbolic. Maybe Abraham is also a poetic expresion and there is no literal Jewish people. I find that hard to believe, because if it were what are you doing. This author happens to be of Jewish decent. Certainly the Jews are real or your staring at a blank screen because nobody would be writing this if the Jews where only symbolic. Wait, you say, it says elsewhere in The Bible the Jews are real. Yes, it also says elsewhere the earth was created in six days.

HOW OLD DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE EARTH IS?
It doesn't give a date. But, if you count backwards on the geneologies, you get about 4,000 B.C.

What About The Gap Theory?
Does The Bible say there was a gap? Case Closed. We shouldn't sinfully read things into the text that aren't there.

SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THE EARTH IS OLD, RIGHT?
Wrong. As a matter of fact, science does not know how old the earth is. The rock dating method they use to find the age of the rock has been tested on several rocks they knew the date of and has come up with a date about a million and a half years to high. Should we not then conclude that science can't say they know the age of the earth until they have a reliable dating method. But wait, you may object, just because it has been wrong does not mean it is always wrong. But the problem with this is it has to get it right at least once. We can't trust it to date rocks we know the age of, therefore we should not trust it to date rocks we do not know the age of.

Where Are The Scientists Who Accept A Biblical Creation?
Right here:

But Most Agree This is Wrong, Right?
So. Popular opinion does not decide truth. Once upon a time most people, including scientists, agreed the earth was flat. Most of them today also believe in evolution, and that's heretical. One thing we have to remember is that scientists are people, Bias, Fallible, People.

SO WHAT, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH BELIEVING IN AN OLD EARTH IS THERE?
Actaully, there is.

Very Good?
Are we to conclude that God created an earth where, as according to old earthers, there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall and that He would declare it very good? Someone will object, but plants died, so why could not animals? Because plants are not concise for one. Also, they probably did not die. You can eat from a plant without killing it.

Apostate Hemeneutics.
If we accept old earth hereneutics than we can't trust anything The Bible says. Why, you ask? Because the author of Genesis went out of hie way, saying morning and evening, to show he was speaking literally, and even if not my objection would still stand. Therefore, if take this as non-literal, even though the context never so much as hints as anything other than literal, then we can do this to all we read, including the crucifiction and resurrection.

SHOULD WE TRUST THE BIBLE TO FORM OUR WAY OF THINKING?
Yes, on EVERYTHING!

You Wouldn't Let A Pastor Do Surgery On You, You'd Rather Have An Athiest Doctor!
I have actaully heard this objection to my claim. This is absurd. It has nothing to do with anything. When The Bible says anything about anything, it is the final, and only authority.

You Don't Have A Degree In Anything, Your Just A Lay Person.
Yes, but read 1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...". You don't need a degree to know what your talking about. Many people with the right degrees agree with me as well. Finally, why not check everything I've said and see if I've made an error in the facts.

BUT WHAT ABOUT?
Well, you still have objections, right? What about dinosaurs, and the ice age? It is not my intention here to write an entire book. I know where dinosaurs and the ice age and plenty of other stuff you can think of fit in. I can't here answer all of the objections. It would take far to long. But let me ask you a question, Since The Bible clearly teaches a young earth and science can't refute it in any way, shouldn't you stop doubting young earth and start doubting your doubts. Of course you'll never have all the answers to anything, but clearly a young earth better answers the questions posed to it with the information alvaliable than the old earth theory can.

Let us conclude the matter. You don't have to accept a young earth, but you can't claim The Bible says anything other than a young earth. If you want to cling to this old earth theory you have to confess three things, (1) It's unbiblical, therefore, if it is true, The Bible has an error and is errent. (2) It's unscientific. (3) It's a blind faith. Plain and simple, this is the ONLY reading the text allows. The evidence is overwhelming.

Well said! ;) Personally I'm tired of hearing "Christians" change the bible to make it agree with what secular scientists who are ruled by Satan think. God established the 24 hour day in Genesis and the only reason people want to change it is because they think scientists have to know what they're talking about. But since scientists change their minds with the seasons then people better think twice before abandoning God's word for the teachings of men.

Joyfilled
May 21st 2008, 12:36 PM
The whole thing falls apart because the last paragraph is dead wrong. You CAN confidently claim that the bible doesn't imply a literally young earth. In fact, the much stronger case is with a non-literal creation story. YEC is a last-ditch, desperate effort to cling to the traditions of the past in the face of overwhelming evidence by those who can't handle that God is different in nature from what they have always accepted. We have gone through this over...and over...and over again throughout our 2100-year history, and as Christianity has survived, it will survive again, because our God is greater than all opposition.

I love you as my Christian brother, but I simply cannot sit by and let your inflexible post go unanswered.

Sorry, but you're changing the bible to make it agree with the secular world that is run by Satan. Genesis does not say; "4,5 million years ago, God created the earth out of a great explosion." That's what you're changing it to say. And most importantly, no one ever interpreted Genesis as an old earth until scientists who are ruled by Satan came out and influenced their thinking. The reason for that is because there is zero reason to interpret the bible that way. That only shows how much Satan can entice us to be influenced by the world which will always be in the majority. So just remember what Jesus says, "What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.":) You also need to remember that scientists are not in fallible. In fact, 1 Corinthians 3:19 tells us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. All one needs to do is look at the theory of evolution to see just how foolish it is.

crawfish
May 21st 2008, 02:28 PM
Sorry, but you're changing the bible to make it agree with the secular world that is run by Satan. Genesis does not say; "4,5 million years ago, God created the earth out of a great explosion." That's what you're changing it to say. And most importantly, no one ever interpreted Genesis as an old earth until scientists who are ruled by Satan came out and influenced their thinking. The reason for that is because there is zero reason to interpret the bible that way. That only shows how much Satan can entice us to be influenced by the world which will always be in the majority. So just remember what Jesus says, "What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.":) You also need to remember that scientists are not in fallible. In fact, 1 Corinthians 3:19 tells us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. All one needs to do is look at the theory of evolution to see just how foolish it is.

This wouldn't be the first time that science caused a reevaluation of scripture, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I've given my scriptural reasons for rejecting the YEC interpretation in this thread; I see no reason to repeat them here.

RogerW
May 21st 2008, 03:33 PM
Here is a teaser from a biblical study, that is a study using the Bible to prove the age of the earth.


How old is the earth? Has God left any time clues within the scriptures? These are questions that have long been asked, and have long been problematic for theologians. Especially for those attempting to answer them with abstruse and convoluted solutions. Over the years there have been many theologians who have attempted to find the age of the world by use of the scriptures. Unfortunately, many have either polluted, or confused the timeline issue even further by their efforts.

Archbishop James Ussher (Usher) of Armagh, Ireland, attempted find the age of the earth by following the chronological genealogies in scripture. His erroneous calculations greatly influenced Christians of his day. For example, he calculated 1 BC to 1 AD, by counting the year zero. The problem was, there is no year zero. In other words, if an event occurs in 1 BC, and lasts to 1 AD, this is only 1 year. So in order to get an accurate count when crossing the year zero, we must always adjust for this. Archbishop Ussher did not, and this threw his whole calendar off. One might charitably say that this was an easy mistake to make, nevertheless it also illustrates the carelessness with which he made decisions concerning numbers.

Moreover, his calculations, deductions and interpretations were not solely based upon scripture reference. Many of his mathematical processes concerning the age of the world were based upon secular findings. Lest we forget, it is the Holy scriptures that are divinely inspired and inerrant, not secular records. Getting his dates by referencing secular documents (Middle Eastern and Mediterranean sources) he dated the creation of the earth as 4004 BC. Likewise, he placed the flood of Noah's day at around 2349 BC. It doesn't take much study for even a novice to understand that his conclusions were inconsistent, and more importantly, in direct conflict with the Biblical record. Today they only serve as remnants of a crumbling thesis of errors, or as something for mockers and Bible detractors to point to in ridicule.

Many Christians of his day quickly accepted his date of creation as 4004 BC, and unfortunately it was placed within the margin of the King James Bible as a reference. This action immediately gave it a certain credibility, authority, and widespread appeal to the public. However, it was in no way a legitimate study of the age of the earth. This episode is just another example of the many reasons why I do not believe that 'commentaries' (as opposed to Biblical references) should ever be placed on the same page as Holy Canon. They should be kept in a separate book or commentary outside of, or apart from the Bible. Because when they are together, often people confuse what is commentary and what is Bible. But I digress. The point here is, because of this action, to this very day, many Christians believe that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. All based upon these unsound calculations of Ussher.

But not only was his system of dating not based solely upon the Biblical record, in places it was blatantly contrary to it. The contradictions are staggering. So it's important to understand that his errors were "not" due to any Bible inconsistencies (though his work is often used to bring this charge), it was due to his own poor calculations, secular references, and an unsound exegesis.

Another thing that Ussher did was to look at all the genealogical records of the Bible in a strictly (immediate) father/son relationship. Then he would count backward from a known date to find Biblical dates. He obviously did not understand that the genealogies are not all strictly a literal or immediate father/son relationships.
How old is the earth? The truth is, looking at the genealogies in the scriptures, and attempting to come to "sound" Biblical conclusions concerning the age of the earth has proved difficult even for seasoned scholars. Adding to this confusion is the myriad of theological writers who in effect declare, "we really shouldn't take the numbers in the Bible seriously." This phenomenon is quite amazing to me. How can so many people professing to be Christians (even professing belief in inerrancy of scripture), believe that the numbers of the Bible are either simply wrong, are untrustworthy, or not pertinent or relevant for us today.
Still others allow Archaeologists, Paleontologists, Evolutionists and Scientists to define the scriptures for them by trying to "force God's numbers" to conform to these men's conclusions. All these mistakes can be traced to the same age-old problems. Number one, the lack of a "real" trust in the authority of God's Word. And number two, the humanist attempt to make God's word conform to man's ideas of what "seems right" in his own eyes. This is not Christianity, nor is it the way theologians will ever come to truth. The only way for us to come to a real knowledge of the truth of God's word, is if we let the word itself guide us, rather than the reasonings of men.


Proverbs 3:5

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
The key to unlock this mystery of the age of the earth will not be found in the secular evidence, it will be found in the Biblical evidence. Christians will never sort out the truth of God's genealogies by relying on secular facts (so-called), but by our humility in receiving the truth of these numbers by faith, and by considering carefully the authoritative Biblical facts.


In this Bible Study, my hope is that you might gain some insight into how God has 'always' provided us with a system for understanding the Biblical timeline of history. A system that allows us to accurately know how much time has passed. And amazingly, that system hasn't changed from the beginning. In this Biblical system, God is emphasizing that there is an arrangement that is ordained in His divine plan of existence. It is the Biblical records themselves that reveal His sovereignty and divine Providence over time itself. And the patriarchal time periods are guideposts for the age of the world. The births and death that God ordained meticulously recorded in the Biblical genealogies of history, are not without value. They are neither insular, random, nor capricious.

The far-reaching implication of a Biblical timeline becomes quite evident when we carefully study the scriptures in "light" of the scriptures. We find that not only is there a perfect time record, but that this record reaches from Christ, all the way back to the sixth day of creation when Adam was first formed from the dirt. And in this study, we hope to demonstrate this not with rhetoric, secular history, archaeology, or man's calculations, but by the witness of the word.
And may God give us the wisdom to discern His revealed truth of scripture.

If this teaser has piqued your appetite, and you would like to examine the whole study, it can be found here:http://mountainretreatorg.net/bible/timeline.shtml

If time permits, and you decide you would like to confirm the information in this study with your own study of the Scriptures, I think you will be convinced that the age of the earth, according to the biblical timeline is young.

Many Blessings,
RW

Respectable Poet
May 21st 2008, 07:43 PM
Here is a teaser from a biblical study, that is a study using the Bible to prove the age of the earth.
it can be found here:http://mountainretreatorg.net/bible/timeline.shtml


WOW! Just WOW! I'm a former Atheist. I'm going to put some time into this study. I am on the fence with how old the Earth is or is not. However, I find it kind of funny that science says the universe is 13 billion years aprox and the Bible says the Earth, created about the same time is around 13 thousand. :D

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 07:45 PM
Just another comparison... The evolutionary model of creation is very similar to the chaotic creation accounts of [ancient] Paganism.

DAS
May 21st 2008, 07:56 PM
I'm getting bored with this, it's mostly hot air. Seems alot of people want to object but never answer anything from the article that started it. I might not even check here again.

crawfish
May 21st 2008, 08:01 PM
Just another comparison... The evolutionary model of creation is very similar to the chaotic creation accounts of [ancient] Paganism.

How do you figure that? Evolutionary theory requires quite a bit of order, and consistent law over the years. "Randomness" is a misnomer because nothing is truly random; it is simply the response to stimuli so small and numerous that we have no means of detecting them all.

The ancient Mesopotamian mythologies, on the other hand, considered the chaos before as being held to no law and no order. They simply state that all existence was in that state until the gods put it in order.

Athanasius
May 22nd 2008, 04:34 PM
How do you figure that? Evolutionary theory requires quite a bit of order, and consistent law over the years. "Randomness" is a misnomer because nothing is truly random; it is simply the response to stimuli so small and numerous that we have no means of detecting them all.

That's quite a faith statement ;)
Chaos into order, that's the evolutionary model. I never said it was exactly similar.

tHbaGLORY
May 22nd 2008, 06:25 PM
When Science can accurately measure the extent that God's supernatural power affected the initial Creation I'll listen to what it has to say in regards to Creation. The fact of the matter is Science can't do that. Science must ignore the supernatural. In their attempt to reverse engineer the creation story they intentionally ignore the supernatural variable and how it may have affected Creation because there is no way they can possibly measure it. Science can do a lot of things, but there is much that the discipline will never be able to explain and IMHO Creation is one of them...

crawfish
May 22nd 2008, 06:31 PM
That's quite a faith statement ;)
Chaos into order, that's the evolutionary model. I never said it was exactly similar.

Chaos to order is also the Biblical model. :)

Yes, that's my faith. I believe that God knows the universe, and its laws, so well that he can kick something off and know the eventual results. Like a man setting up a roomful of dominoes, when God kicked the process off he knew, inevitably, where it would lead, because he designed it that way.

Athanasius
May 22nd 2008, 06:35 PM
Chaos to order is also the Biblical model. :)


Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation :P

crawfish
May 22nd 2008, 06:41 PM
When Science can accurately measure the extent that God's supernatural power affected the initial Creation I'll listen to what it has to say in regards to Creation. The fact of the matter is Science can't do that. Science must ignore the supernatural. In their attempt to reverse engineer the creation story they intentionally ignore the supernatural variable and how it may have affected Creation because there is no way they can possibly measure it. Science can do a lot of things, but there is much that the discipline will never be able to explain and IMHO Creation is one of them...

If science can measure the supernatural, then by its very definition it's not supernatural, but natural. :)

Here's how I see it: science presents every strong evidence that there is a pattern to creation, that things happened in a certain way because of natural laws. This evidence comes by exploring not the act itself, but by predicting the effects of theory and seeing how those predictions match up with reality. When the reality we discover turns out to consistently explain the predicted behavior of the theory, then the theory is strengthened.

For example: if I'm investigating a murder and make a claim at how the murderer entered a house, killed the victim and then exited, that claim gives me direction because, to be true, certain evidences must be present. If I search the house for those pieces of evidence and find most or all of them, then you will be nearly certain that my claim was true, even though neither you nor anybody else actually saw any of the events.

Those types of cases are relevant and supported in a court of law. I don't see any reason why that same logic shouldn't apply to science.

crawfish
May 22nd 2008, 08:28 PM
Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that interpretation :P

"Formless and void" to perfection? Sounds like chaos to order to me. :)

Athanasius
May 22nd 2008, 08:50 PM
"Formless and void" to perfection? Sounds like chaos to order to me. :)

Doesn't sound like chaos to me ;] I already went over the phrase in another thread :P

crawfish
May 22nd 2008, 09:15 PM
Doesn't sound like chaos to me ;] I already went over the phrase in another thread :P

It got hard to keep track when the replies hit the thousands. ;)

Athanasius
May 22nd 2008, 10:23 PM
It got hard to keep track when the replies hit the thousands. ;)

Yeah, too many people who think they've got absolutely the absolute correct truth ;]

BibleGirl02
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:48 PM
6,000 Reasons To Accept A Young Earth

There seems to be some confusion as to wether or not The Bible means what it says concerning creation. I will now atempt to demonstrate that (1) The Bible says the earth was created in six literal days about six thousand years ago. (2) It is unbiblical to denie a young earth. (3)Science has never demonstrated this to be false. And (4) We should always base our thinking on The Bible and nothing else.

HOW LONG DOES THE BIBLE SAY CREATION TOOK?
The Bible clearly says the earth was created in six days. I don't know of anyone who would denie this. So what's the problem? People see this and think, "I know it says six days, but what does it mean?" Well, it means what it says. It has been said about The Bible that, "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." Quite simply, it says six days so it means six days.

That's Just Your Interpretation.
Wrong! The dictionary says that the word "Interpret" means to "explain the meaning of". I haven't done this. All I've done is point out what it says. It says, "Six Days." I don't need to explain the meaning of "Six Days", It speaks for itself.

Day Means A Long Peroid Of Time.
Wrong! The context determines the meaning of a text, and the context has nothing in it that could suggest anything other than a literal understanding. As a matter of fact, the author went out of his way to say "the evening and the morning". Now, this is a horrible problem for someone denying the literal meaning. Why would the author go out of his way to say this if he wanted people to think a day was a long period of time. Also, if creation took more than six days, why where there such gaps between things created? In the first day was created earth and light and darkness. The second day had Heaven and water. The third had dry land, grass, and trees. And so on. Why would the earth be created, then millions of years later water, then millions more years later trees.

Trees Can't Grow That Fast.
This is a favorite arguement for old earthers who deny they interpret The Bible with flawed science theory. Here is the problem, Nowhere does it say the first trees grew. It says the earth brought them forth, but not that they grew, just that they came from the earth just like man from the dust. The next problem is assuming the first trees had to grow. Well, if they did, what did they grow from? Seeds, right? Well, seeds grow from trees. Where did the seeds grow from? You are now stuck in an endless regression of trees and seeds. You have in a sense deified trees!

Did Adam Die Before He Died?
Adam was 930 when he died. If a day in creation is a long period of time he would have had to have lived much longer, even if he was created at the minute in day six. But wait, someone will object, we could still be in the seventh day. Wrong. God "rested" at the end of creation, not "is resting". But, you will protest, you could say "I mowed the lawn and then rested" while you where still resting. Yes, but that would be grammatical skills on my part and we shouldn't presume poor writing skills on Biblical authors to determine our Theology.

A Thousand Years Is A Day.
Wait a minute, you'll protest. Peter said a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years with God. Yes, but so what. This verses is not refering to creation it is simply pointing out that God is outside of time.

Day Means A Long Period Of Time In Chapter 2.
No it doesn't. It says he created in one day the heavens and the earth. This was done in day one. Wait, you say, now you've made an error, it says the heavens where created on the second day. Wrong. It says "Heaven" was created on the second day. Paul refered to a "Third Heaven". Of course the heavens where created on the first day. Heavens refers to several things. (1) The sky, (2) Outer Space, (3) The dwelling of God. In day one of courses something was above the earth. This Heaven on the second day probably refers to the "Third Heaven" where the angels are. This would explain when the angels came to be and why it it is not seen anywhere else in the creation account.

Genesis Is Sybolic.
Says who. I see nothing in the entire Bible to suggest this. Even if it was who gets to decide what in Genesis is symbolic. Maybe Abraham is also a poetic expresion and there is no literal Jewish people. I find that hard to believe, because if it were what are you doing. This author happens to be of Jewish decent. Certainly the Jews are real or your staring at a blank screen because nobody would be writing this if the Jews where only symbolic. Wait, you say, it says elsewhere in The Bible the Jews are real. Yes, it also says elsewhere the earth was created in six days.

HOW OLD DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE EARTH IS?
It doesn't give a date. But, if you count backwards on the geneologies, you get about 4,000 B.C.

What About The Gap Theory?
Does The Bible say there was a gap? Case Closed. We shouldn't sinfully read things into the text that aren't there.

SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THE EARTH IS OLD, RIGHT?
Wrong. As a matter of fact, science does not know how old the earth is. The rock dating method they use to find the age of the rock has been tested on several rocks they knew the date of and has come up with a date about a million and a half years to high. Should we not then conclude that science can't say they know the age of the earth until they have a reliable dating method. But wait, you may object, just because it has been wrong does not mean it is always wrong. But the problem with this is it has to get it right at least once. We can't trust it to date rocks we know the age of, therefore we should not trust it to date rocks we do not know the age of.

Where Are The Scientists Who Accept A Biblical Creation?
Right here:

But Most Agree This is Wrong, Right?
So. Popular opinion does not decide truth. Once upon a time most people, including scientists, agreed the earth was flat. Most of them today also believe in evolution, and that's heretical. One thing we have to remember is that scientists are people, Bias, Fallible, People.

SO WHAT, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH BELIEVING IN AN OLD EARTH IS THERE?
Actaully, there is.

Very Good?
Are we to conclude that God created an earth where, as according to old earthers, there was death, disease, and suffering before the fall and that He would declare it very good? Someone will object, but plants died, so why could not animals? Because plants are not concise for one. Also, they probably did not die. You can eat from a plant without killing it.

Apostate Hemeneutics.
If we accept old earth hereneutics than we can't trust anything The Bible says. Why, you ask? Because the author of Genesis went out of hie way, saying morning and evening, to show he was speaking literally, and even if not my objection would still stand. Therefore, if take this as non-literal, even though the context never so much as hints as anything other than literal, then we can do this to all we read, including the crucifiction and resurrection.

SHOULD WE TRUST THE BIBLE TO FORM OUR WAY OF THINKING?
Yes, on EVERYTHING!

You Wouldn't Let A Pastor Do Surgery On You, You'd Rather Have An Athiest Doctor!
I have actaully heard this objection to my claim. This is absurd. It has nothing to do with anything. When The Bible says anything about anything, it is the final, and only authority.

You Don't Have A Degree In Anything, Your Just A Lay Person.
Yes, but read 1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...". You don't need a degree to know what your talking about. Many people with the right degrees agree with me as well. Finally, why not check everything I've said and see if I've made an error in the facts.

BUT WHAT ABOUT?
Well, you still have objections, right? What about dinosaurs, and the ice age? It is not my intention here to write an entire book. I know where dinosaurs and the ice age and plenty of other stuff you can think of fit in. I can't here answer all of the objections. It would take far to long. But let me ask you a question, Since The Bible clearly teaches a young earth and science can't refute it in any way, shouldn't you stop doubting young earth and start doubting your doubts. Of course you'll never have all the answers to anything, but clearly a young earth better answers the questions posed to it with the information alvaliable than the old earth theory can.

Let us conclude the matter. You don't have to accept a young earth, but you can't claim The Bible says anything other than a young earth. If you want to cling to this old earth theory you have to confess three things, (1) It's unbiblical, therefore, if it is true, The Bible has an error and is errent. (2) It's unscientific. (3) It's a blind faith. Plain and simple, this is the ONLY reading the text allows. The evidence is overwhelming.

Good post DAS! The Bible clearly teaches a young earth! I personally think this is proved by the fact that the Bible says (to paraphrase) "There was evening and there was morning". How can you possibly not interpret Genesis literally when it says that??? :confused

crawfish
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:12 PM
Good post DAS! The Bible clearly teaches a young earth! I personally think this is proved by the fact that the Bible says (to paraphrase) "There was evening and there was morning". How can you possibly not interpret Genesis literally when it says that??? :confused

I post and I post and I post, and then someone resets the dial back to the beginning. :(

;)

DAS
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:17 PM
I post and I post and I post, and then someone resets the dial back to the beginning. :(

;)

You need to head back, you didn't refute a single claim in the article.

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:33 PM
What About The Gap Theory?
Does The Bible say there was a gap? Case Closed. We shouldn't sinfully read things into the text that aren't there.


I went back to the original post. I can't refute most of it and agree with most all of it.

I believe the first day there was a gap, where the earth BECAME without form and void until the evening and morning came which ended the first day. However, that first day could have been a huge period of time.

The rest of the days, I have little doubt they were 5 24 hour days.

Yuke

crawfish
Jun 4th 2008, 01:53 AM
You need to head back, you didn't refute a single claim in the article.

Technically, that's not what was asked. She asked "how can...", which I have explained. Whether or not it's satisfying to you is beyond the scope of the question.

However, my answer to your snippy comment is this: :P

Athanasius
Jun 4th 2008, 05:23 AM
There's no gap in Genesis...:no:

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 06:33 PM
Gensis 1:3 begins with then.

Then implies "afterwards". Afterwards means time had to have elapsed.

I mean, how literal do you really want to go? :hmm:

Yuke

Athanasius
Jun 4th 2008, 07:45 PM
Gensis 1:3 begins with then.

Then implies "afterwards". Afterwards means time had to have elapsed.

I mean, how literal do you really want to go? :hmm:

Yuke

You're arbitrarily inserting time where the text doesn't support it.
But at least you aren't stuck on the 'and' of v2.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 09:17 PM
I believe that God did have time there and tells us so.

As for verse 2, I think you mean the was/became debate. I do believe in became, but that wasn't what I wanted to bring up.

Can I back a Young Earth Creation in Genesis? Absolutely.

Can I back an Old Earth Creation in Genesis? Absolutely.

Now to take it to an extreme, can I back evolution in Genesis? Absolutely.

Just because I can back something scripturally, it doesn't negate the other possibilities that can also be backed by Scripture.

Yuke

Athanasius
Jun 4th 2008, 10:04 PM
I believe that God did have time there and tells us so.

As for verse 2, I think you mean the was/became debate. I do believe in became, but that wasn't what I wanted to bring up.

Can I back a Young Earth Creation in Genesis? Absolutely.

Can I back an Old Earth Creation in Genesis? Absolutely.

Now to take it to an extreme, can I back evolution in Genesis? Absolutely.

Just because I can back something scripturally, it doesn't negate the other possibilities that can also be backed by Scripture.

Yuke

Alright, lets start at the beginning...

Genesis 1:1-5 (Youngs Literal translation)

1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, 5and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

Question #1 -- Where is the 'then' of verse 3? I suspect if we looked at the Hebrew, we would not find a 'then' either.

As for verse two, I meant something entirely different, I was in a rush and wrote too quickly.

Now moving on from that:

--> Can you back a Young Earth Creation? Maybe... Does it align with scripture and reality?

--> Can you back an Old Earth Creation? Maybe... Does it align with scripture and reality?

--> Can you show evolution in Genesis? Maybe... Does it align with scripture and reality?

Now, Yukerboy, you can you can absolutely back these three very different things scripturally. So assuming you can (and I know you can't, but assuming you can), then how do we find out which is truth, and is false?