Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] For Christians only: Do you accept a 6 day creation 6,000 YA

Do you believe that God created everything in six 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago just like the B

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
K

Khristeeanos

Guest
Please, this is for Christians only. I already know that athiests don't accept the Biblical account as literal.

Do you believe that God created everything in six 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago just like the Bible says?

Tell us if you believe in non-biblical things like the gap theory, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc...
 
Interesting question. I think it is valuable and informative to restrict the poll to Christians.

I voted no - I do not believe in the 24 / 6000 idea. My view is based in part on stuff I learned at University, particularly in the area of cosmology -the big bang, etc. I know diddly about evolutionary theory. What I do know of cosmology makes it almost impossible for me to accept the 24 / 6000 idea. Of course, one can always argue that the "experts" are either engaged in a massive conspiracy to suppress the truth in order to deny the reality of a young universe or that they are all mistaken. For reasons that are too lengthy to go into here, I think both of these scenarios are highly unlikely.

Your choice of words in your question - "non-Biblical things like...theistic evolution" (my underline) is interesting. I would humbly suggest that there is indeed more than one way to look at the material in Genesis. One way is that it is "myth" that conveys important spiritual truths. Is such an interpretation "non-Biblical"? Why?

If someone wants to use the "if you don't believe in the literalness of 6 day / 6000, you cannot claim to believe in the literalness of the risen Christ" argument, we can go down that road if we must.....
 
1diem wrote:
Do you believe that God created everything in six 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago just like the Bible says?

Tell us if you believe in non-biblical things like the gap theory, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc…

I’m not sure if you would count the book of Jasher as a “non-biblical thing†but it is mentioned in the Bible as a reliable historical source. The translation I have comes from a publisher in Salt Lake City and may be affiliated with the Mormons but I’m sure they publish trustworthy Bibles as well. I believe that there is some un-faked evidence of evolution but the creatures were created with amazing abilities to adapt and survive built into their genetic code. Since this is not something they have to develop from non existent traits, it doesn’t take millions or even thousands of years. Men have always been men and didn't need any ape ancestors, imho.

I take the account in Genesis as a literal week of 7 days of creation about 6000 years ago. The hours may have varied some due to changes in the planet’s rotation or other factors. Evening and morning were a little vague until the development of coffee. :wink:
 
The Earth is not 6,000 years old, nor does the Bible say it is. The Earth is billions of years old, and this can be known with certainty by studying God's creation, which is a witness to us by him. The belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is only supported with a distorted and incorrect reading of the Bible, much like racism and geocentricity were supported in the past.
 
Do you realize what door has been opened by not accepting the Bible as the literal Word of God?

It means that we can tell God what He meant instead of letting Him tell us what He meant.

It just throws off the entire reason why Jesus came. He came to save us from our sins!

Death is caused by sin and there was no death before sin.

So why not just believe God instead of men?

You all are putting your confidence into men's ideas instead of putting it into God.




Psalm 118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
 
Hello IDIEM and others:

I realize where you are coming from and have a lot of empathy for such a position - I truly do wish it were that easy. But I believe we need to think critically - the idea that "when I was a child, I thought like a child, but now that I am a man....".

It is simply naive to think that there is a single literal interpretation of the Bible. The problematic examples are too numerous to list. Do you believe that the mountains will literally "clap their hands" (I forget the Scripture reference) or that we are supposed to "pick up snakes", etc? Should I really pluck out my eye when my gaze lingers on a bikini clad woman for too long (maybe I should, but I really doubt that this is God's will)? Where do we draw the line between literalness and interpretation?

It is a simple fact of the world that information delivered to us in the form of words is necessarily subject to interpretation.

Besides, I think that when God hits us over the head with empirical evidence about the age of the world, we need to "take what we are given". To me, the evidence is clear - the earth and universe have been here for billions of years.

Please tell me exactly how interpreting Genesis 1 as myth invalidates the reality of the gospel? And please, and this is not targeted at IDIEM at all, please be as specific as you can - no "argument by slogans" please (have I used the word "please" enough?). Also remember that an argument such as the one that "generations of animals could not have lived and died before Adam because death only entered the world through sin" is a form of begging the question - this kind of argument assumes what it is trying to prove - namely that Genesis is literal history.
 
The problem is that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Nor does it say literal 24 hour days.

YE creationism is not consistent with Bible-believing Christianity.
 
Drew said:
Interesting question. I think it is valuable and informative to restrict the poll to Christians.

I voted no - I do not believe in the 24 / 6000 idea. My view is based in part on stuff I learned at University, particularly in the area of cosmology -the big bang, etc.

This proves my point.

You don't allow God to tell you what He did, you must allow man to tell you what to believe, then you go to the Bible and try to make it fit what the world tells you.

unred typo wrote

I’m not sure if you would count the book of Jasher as a “non-biblical thing†but it is mentioned in the Bible as a reliable historical source.
Well, I was specifically talking about the so-called "modern science" that tells us that there is no God and everything is here because of random chance.

cubedbee wrote

The Earth is not 6,000 years old, nor does the Bible say it is. The Earth is billions of years old, and this can be known with certainty by studying God's creation, which is a witness to us by him. The belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is only supported with a distorted and incorrect reading of the Bible, much like racism and geocentricity were supported in the past.

God tells us that the earth was created by Him around 6,000 years ago. It is written in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Just add up the geanologies and you will see what I am talking about.

Drew wrote

It is simply naive to think that there is a single literal interpretation of the Bible.
The truth doesn't change because of someone's intrepretation, does it?

Say Calvinism for example. Some people believe it to be true while others don't. People's belief doesn't change the fact that it isn't true.

In the same way, we need to allow God to tell us what He did and leave it alone and not try to tell Him what He did.

The problematic examples are too numerous to list. Do you believe that the mountains will literally "clap their hands" (I forget the Scripture reference) or that we are supposed to "pick up snakes", etc? Should I really pluck out my eye when my gaze lingers on a bikini clad woman for too long (maybe I should, but I really doubt that this is God's will)? Where do we draw the line between literalness and interpretation?
The Bible does say "be holy for I am holy" doesn't it? :wink:

It is a simple fact of the world that information delivered to us in the form of words is necessarily subject to interpretation.
If you stopped by my house and wanted directions to Atlanta, I would tell you to take the highway south to the interstate and head east until you get to the city.

How likely would you get there if you doubted my directions? Say you wanted to believe that I meant to go north and then go west, how long would it take you to get to Atlanta?

You wouldn't get there because I spoke to you in a specific language and gave you precice directions and it is your problem if you didn't understand them.

Besides, I think that when God hits us over the head with empirical evidence about the age of the world, we need to "take what we are given". To me, the evidence is clear - the earth and universe have been here for billions of years.
Again, what you are doing is putting confidence in people instead of God's Word.

Have you ever done the studies yourself or have you just read in books or elsewhere that the current theory in the secular scientific community says it is billions of years old?

Please tell me exactly how interpreting Genesis 1 as myth invalidates the reality of the gospel?
Ok. It is simple.

Romans 5:14
“...death reigned from Adam to Moses...â€Â

1 Corinthians 15:21-22
“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

1 Corinthians 15:45
“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul...â€Â

These three passages clearly state that Adam was the first person to ever live and we already know that there was no curse before Adam's sin.

Adam's sin caused the curse and that means death.

So to believe that the earth is old, you put death before Adam's sin, which means that God is the author of death instead of the author of life.

I know that you didn't want this answer, but it is the clear meaning of the Word of God.

The Barbarian wrote

The problem is that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Nor does it say literal 24 hour days.

YE creationism is not consistent with Bible-believing Christianity.
What? Add up the dates from Adam to Noah (about 1,565 years) and then from Noah to Moses and then from Moses to Christ. It adds up to 4,000 years and it has been 2,000 since then, thus it is 6,000 years.

Genesis 1 uses the term "evening and morning the first day" and so on, telling us it was an ordinary day.
 
I accept the six day, approx. six thousand years ago theory. I'll expand on that in a minute.

Tell us if you believe in non-biblical things like the gap theory, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc...

Theistic evolution is too vague. Evolution can be defined or claimed to be true by several distinctions or definitions. I can say microevolution happens and be a TE, or claim macroevolution happen(s/ed) and be a TE.

Progressive creation, and gap theory, and others, I am undecided. The Bible does not contain every single bit of true information. I.e. -My favorite color is green.

Now, about the 6 day/6 thousand year theory: It can correspond to prophecy for instance, suggesting that it is true simply because God is trying to convey a prophetic interpretation to it. Now, one can claim that the earth is X number of years old, but that does not mean the earth was created said number of years ago, just that the material is old. The age of the 'building material' suggests nothing about when it was built. For example, some legos were created 10 years ago. I build something out of Legos now. The Lego creation was not made 10 years ago.

The Bible does not "say" that the earth is 6000 y/o outright, but it is strongly implied through geneology.


I think that covers everything.....
 
1DIEM said:
.

Drew wrote

It is simply naive to think that there is a single literal interpretation of the Bible.
The truth doesn't change because of someone's intrepretation, does it?

This seems like an example of "arguing by slogan". Of course, it is true that truth does not change because of interpretation - if we agree on what the content of the claim is in the first place. But we are simply not there yet. To me it seems clear that the relevant question is = "What exactly is being asserted in Genesis 1, what is the writer's intent?" Is it to communicate a transcript of factual events or is it to use the literary device of myth to communicate general truths about God and man?

Surely you must agree that agree that ideas about truth can be communicated by metaphor (such as "the mountains clap their hands"). So the issue here is not the self-evident fact that the "truth is what it is", but rather whether Genesis 1 is using the literary device of metaphor (or allegory). If you are confident that this material is to be taken literally, please give your reasons (since we surely must agree that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally - do you pick up snakes?, pluck out your eye?, etc.)

1DIEM said:
Drew said:
The problematic examples are too numerous to list. Do you believe that the mountains will literally "clap their hands" (I forget the Scripture reference) or that we are supposed to "pick up snakes", etc? Should I really pluck out my eye when my gaze lingers on a bikini clad woman for too long (maybe I should, but I really doubt that this is God's will)? Where do we draw the line between literalness and interpretation?

The Bible does say "be holy for I am holy" doesn't it? :wink:

I cannot see how this is not an evasion of the clear intent of what I have asked. Please squarely address the question: How do we decide when something is to taken literally or not?
 
1DIEM said:
Adam's sin caused the curse and that means death.

So to believe that the earth is old, you put death before Adam's sin, which means that God is the author of death instead of the author of life.

I know that you didn't want this answer, but it is the clear meaning of the Word of God.

In Genesis 1:29, God gives man plants and animals for food. And now for my key question: How can these living things be eaten by man and not suffer death? It seems pretty clear to me that this gift was given before the fall - before the forbidden fruit was consumed as per Genesis 3. So man had not yet sinned and death had not yet entered the world. And yet God was making a gift to mankind that, if accepted, would surely result in the deaths of many plants and animals - eating a plant or an animal surely ends the life of that plant or animal.

How does one solve this? Perhaps one can argue that the fall took place before God made this gift of food. It would seem that one would have to do a lot of fancy footwork to go down that route.

If some death did not occur before Adam's sin, how do you account for God's clear intent to give plants and animals to man for food on the 6th day?
 
Drew said:
1DIEM said:
Adam's sin caused the curse and that means death.

So to believe that the earth is old, you put death before Adam's sin, which means that God is the author of death instead of the author of life.

I know that you didn't want this answer, but it is the clear meaning of the Word of God.

In Genesis 1:29, God gives man plants and animals for food. And now for my key question: How can these living things be eaten by man and not suffer death? It seems pretty clear to me that this gift was given before the fall - before the forbidden fruit was consumed as per Genesis 3. So man had not yet sinned and death had not yet entered the world. And yet God was making a gift to mankind that, if accepted, would surely result in the deaths of many plants and animals - eating a plant or an animal surely ends the life of that plant or animal.

How does one solve this? Perhaps one can argue that the fall took place before God made this gift of food. It would seem that one would have to do a lot of fancy footwork to go down that route.

If some death did not occur before Adam's sin, how do you account for God's clear intent to give plants and animals to man for food on the 6th day?
Do you not understand the difference between animals and plants? :sad

The first animal that was killed was by God Himself.

And in the 10 commandments God wrote out with His finger:

In six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them.

I challenge anybody to tell me simply by reading the Bible how on earth someone could come up with the idea of billions of years.
 
No hard feelings, but I think I will be moving on from this particular back and forth in this thread. Sometime 2 participants have different expectations about what constitutes a productive debate....
 
Just a note:

In Genesis 1:29 God does not give animals as food to Adam and Eve. Their diet is plainly restricted in verse 29 to fruit and plants.

In Christ, Aiki.
 
aiki said:
Just a note:

In Genesis 1:29 God does not give animals as food to Adam and Eve. Their diet is plainly restricted in verse 29 to fruit and plants.

In Christ, Aiki.

As Ed MacMahon used to say to Johnny, "YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!!!". My mistake. However, my point still works - plants are living things and their "death" is necessary if we are to eat them. By giving them as food to man on day 6, is not God effectively setting up a situation where "death" will enter the world even if the fall never takes place.? Doesn't this jeapordize the "death is caused by Adam's (and Eve's) sin and only Adam's (and Eve's) sin" position that seems to be associated with the 6 day / 6000 year point of view?

I am interested in any and all (serious) replies to this argument of mine and to my earlier question about telling the difference between an account of factual events and the use of myth or allegory.
 
Drew said:
No hard feelings, but I think I will be moving on from this particular back and forth in this thread. Sometime 2 participants have different expectations about what constitutes a productive debate....
Your choice.

But I still think that we should look at the world through the Bible, and not allow the world to tell us how to intrepret the Bible.
 
1DIEM said:
Drew said:
No hard feelings, but I think I will be moving on from this particular back and forth in this thread. Sometime 2 participants have different expectations about what constitutes a productive debate....
Your choice.

But I still think that we should look at the world through the Bible, and not allow the world to tell us how to intrepret the Bible.

We should look at the world through the Bible. We shouldn't blind ourselves to the world because of our misconceptions about the Bible. The Earth is not 6000 years old. If God had wanted us to ignore the evidence of creation, he would not have said "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The creation is supposed to be a witness for all of God's power. However, when Christians such as yourselves deny the reality of what God created, and instead spout fairytales of the Earth being 6,000 years old, you make a bad name for Christianity by implicating that God's truth is in opposition to the natural world and that we can't trust the testimoy of the natural world. The truth of Genesis doesn't change if it isn't historically factual. Just as Jesus' parables contain the truth without being factual accounts.
 
Back
Top