[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[jasoncran]

sorry free, for the record st augustine wasnt so well educated in greek nor latin and got it wrong.
he admited that he didnt understand greek


well gee free the men that went away from christ did so at the teachings of seminaires that taught evolution and local flood and genesis was a myth.

the bible is fully of simplicity and also depth

surely free you wouldnt want me to say the act of repentance and salvation is too hard for the lay person to grasp and it take years to even get to the level to understand.


yet when one does come to christ its a simple thing and yet it grows. but it is simple we men complicate that

how do we know the paul even understood the resurrection if any word cant be taken as its written

you argue the trinity free all day long with the non-trinitarians, i say a waste of time.

as former non-trinitarian no argument got me to believe in it.i asked and was told by the lord that is what he is and just believed. simple really but they have to do that.

the trinity, the cross and miracles(and in fact the entire bible) wont make sense to the lost. it wasnt meant to. only god can reveal his nature and cause men to repent.

in fact i will go on the record to say that this very sight at time has hindered my walk and i wasnt going to bother with this section much longer. why? se in reality its all knowledge stuff and no heart stuff.

in america the seminaries are taught by men (for the most part) that dont know christ and just have phd in divinity.

i will take an illerate heart broken man of god over a barbarian claiming science all day long.

i have learned far more from those with worn out knees and also limited sophisication then from any seminary educated man.

our faith is simple and was meant to be, yes it has depth but really?

is it that hard to trust the word given?NO

the cross and words of god make no sense. they never would nor will make sense to the mind that isnt doused with the nature of god.

i learn more from my son nathan when i teach him the word then here. go figure.and he asks hard questions at times.

we are in genesis and i let him read the bible and read it without any bias. he hasnt asked much on genesis yet, only what the serpent is.

or should i confuse a twelve year old with a oec and(i meant earlier with thiestic evolution) and all these arguments.

 

[jasoncran]

on that note free
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2901/jewish/How-Old-is-the-Universe.htm

hmm they have that about the same. we go by genealogies and so if the earth is fully formed and aged what then?

is it a billion or so in appearance of a day old? if you say deception then what.

and it about by the genealogies, we arent saying that it dated by that but by the time of adam we get about when he did do it and believed it was fully made and pre aged, that is all. why is it so hard to get that?

now then im done with the science section here.

 

[Barbarian]

Why is it easier to believe that God took millions of years to create the earth, rather than six days?

Logical inconsistencies introduced by re-interpreting Genesis as a literal history.

The Almighty God, who breathed life into Adam, who spoke the universe into existence and most of all, whose Word is our salvation yet, must put more effort than merely breathing & speaking to create ONE planet in ONE solar system in ONE galaxy?

One thing is as easy as another for an omnipotent God. What we think of as objections, mean nothing to Him.

Sorry, not buying it.

God isn't limited in power or intelligence. So it's not an objection.

 

[jasoncran]

you mean like barbarians position that by the magisterium postion that contradicts science that adam and eve can be the only human couple?

seth dated his sister and there was no defects?

that takes some faith barb if you believe that all was the same then as it is know on genetics.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Logical inconsistencies introduced by re-interpreting Genesis as a literal history.

What is inconsistent about interpreting "the sun came up, the sun went down" as anything but literal?

One thing is as easy as another for an omnipotent God. What we think of as objections, mean nothing to Him.
God isn't limited in power or intelligence. So it's not an objection.

if God isn't limited in power/intelligence, why did it take Him longer to create the Earth than to "breathe life" into Adam?

 

[Barbarian]

you mean like barbarians position that by the magisterium postion that contradicts science that adam and eve can be the only human couple?

There's nothing in science that rules out humans descending from a single pair.

seth dated his sister and there was no defects?

Could have been. Most bottlenecks result in extinction. But not all of them.

that takes some faith barb if you believe that all was the same then as it is know on genetics.

Divine providence can work by contingency just as easily as necessity.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Logical inconsistencies introduced by re-interpreting Genesis as a literal history.

What is inconsistent about interpreting "the sun came up, the sun went down" as anything but literal?

Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them are logical absurdities.

Barbarian observes:
One thing is as easy as another for an omnipotent God. What we think of as objections, mean nothing to Him.
God isn't limited in power or intelligence. So it's not an objection.

if God isn't limited in power/intelligence, why did it take Him longer to create the Earth than to "breathe life" into Adam?

It's what He chose to do. I think He got it right.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them are logical absurdities.

You're misunderstanding the Hebrew concept of day/night. Even Jesus understood that the next "day" did not start until the sun went down. For example Tuesday morning begins when the sun goes down Monday night. "Shabbat" begins Friday night (after the sun has set) not 12am Saturday.

Barbarian observes:
One thing is as easy as another for an omnipotent God. What we think of as objections, mean nothing to Him.
God isn't limited in power or intelligence. So it's not an objection.
It's what He chose to do. I think He got it right.

Scripture makes it clear that God "choose" to instantaneously speak things into existence. Not tinker with them for millennia.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them are logical absurdities.

You're misunderstanding the Hebrew concept of day/night. Even Jesus understood that the next "day" did not start until the sun went down.

Sorry, that won't work. No Sun, remember?

Barbarian observes:
One thing is as easy as another for an omnipotent God. What we think of as objections, mean nothing to Him.
God isn't limited in power or intelligence. So it's not an objection.
It's what He chose to do. I think He got it right.

Scripture makes it clear that God "choose" to instantaneously speak things into existence.

Sorry, it doesn't say that. Not even if you re-interpret it as a literal history.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Sorry, that won't work. No Sun, remember?

No Sun before the end of the first day?

Sorry, it doesn't say that. Not even if you re-interpret it as a literal history.

Didn't instantaneously speak things into existence?


Genesis 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"

 

[jasoncran]

it takes faith barb, we wont be able to grasp how that could be but that is how its written

how does one rise from the dead., will it take eons for the new body to form after the total destruction of all life on earth?

or will it take a second as god is able to do what he says.

 

[Free]

No Sun before the end of the first day?

No, it would seem there was no Sun, just light.

Gen 1:14-16, 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. (ESV)

Didn't instantaneously speak things into existence?


Genesis 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"

That God spoke and then something happened does not mean that his commands resulted in everything happening instantaneously. For example, when he said to "let the earth sprout vegetation," does not mean that all vegetation every suddenly appeared full and mature. Yes, "the earth brought forth vegetation" according to the next verse, even within the same day, but the Bible simply does not state how long that process took.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

No, it would seem there was no Sun, just light.

Gen 1:14-16, 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.

Gen 1:4-5 states that God separated the light from the darkness and, called the light "day" & the darkness "night".

That God spoke and then something happened does not mean that his commands resulted in everything happening instantaneously. For example, when he said to "let the earth sprout vegetation," does not mean that all vegetation every suddenly appeared full and mature. Yes, "the earth brought forth vegetation" according to the next verse, even within the same day, but the Bible simply does not state how long that process took.

Gen 1:12-13 The Earth brought forth vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kind and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kind. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning- the third day.

Fully developed, mature vegetation created instantaneously.

Neither Adam & Eve; the animals of the sky, sea, and land; nor vegetation were created as an embryo/seed that developed to full maturity.

 

[Free]

Gen 1:4-5 states that God separated the light from the darkness and, called the light "day" & the darkness "night".

Yes, it does, but the passage I gave shows that the sun and moon themselves seem to have been made on the third day, not the first.

Fully developed, mature vegetation created instantaneously.

But Scripture doesn't actually say that. That could be one meaning but there are other ways of understanding the text, as it is written, which allows for very long periods of time.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Yes, it does, but the passage I gave shows that the sun and moon themselves seem to have been made on the third day, not the first.

The passage you quoted states the roles created for the "greater" & "lesser" lights. In other words, God created "day" & "night" first, before He ordained the respective "lights" to govern them.

But Scripture doesn't actually say that. That could be one meaning but there are other ways of understanding the text, as it is written, which allows for very long periods of time.

All six days of creation contain the narrative of "And God said x..... And it was so." "God saw x, and it was good." "there was evening, and there was morning- the x day"

The notion of God instantaneously speaking creation into existence is not unique to Genesis:

Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Barbarian]

it takes faith barb, we wont be able to grasp how that could be but that is how its written

It's why so few Christians in the world are YE creationists. It doesn't fit with God's Word.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, a host of problems develop when you consider the flood worldwide and that it destroyed all the people of the world. For one, many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and have detailed written history of their lives the year preceding the flood, during the flood and after the flood and they make no mention of the flood. If the worldwide flood happened in the time period the bible gives, certainly these many great civilizations would've known about it.

As far as flood acounts that occur after the time line of Noah's flood, those can be explained as local events.

I would like to see your data on the civilizations that have any recordings of a flood that preceded the flood. To my understanding, the oldest writings we have come from the Ancient Near East and are Sumerian. Gilgamesh is a good example of these writings.

According to the Bible, Abraham came out of Ur, which is a part of Sumeria. It is obvious that he would have been very aware of the writings of Gilgamesh among other epics and creation writings surrounding the ancient near east. That these writings predate the Bible is of no great surprise. After all, Moses is credited as recording the Genesis account and it is clear that Moses did not experience the flood first hand.

We do have six surviving versions of what is referred to as the "Near East Flood" by others that would fit Noah's time period give or taking some years. These were written long before Gens. was written. None tell of all the people of the world being wiped out, but obvious some large local flood happened.

It has been some time since I have read the other ANE flood accounts, but I believe you are incorrect about it {Edit} NOT being a global event. I beleive the texts say that all the people whom the gods created (which is another topic all together) were destroyed by the flood. You will also see the struggle between the gods and man. It is rather chaotic. If memory serves me well, it was not Gilgamesh who experiences the flood either. In Gilgamesh's quest for immortality, he comes across a "seer" who recites the global flood account to Gilgamesh.

We also know mountains existed miles above sea level, the bible says the flood was about 22ft deep, that's a flood, but it certainly didn't rise to the heights of mountains. Some try to say it rose 22ft above the mountains, that clearly isn't what the bible says

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

We understand that "the windows of heaven were opened." refers to rainfall. However, what does it mean, "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" and what might this event look like?

We have many verses in the OT and new that use the "earth" as local events.

If you can ignore all the written history of the many people that lived during Noah's world flood, that's some faith.

I believe Peter makes it clear, as has been posted by others that only 8 survived the flood.

And we ought not ignore the other writings of the ANE which depict the flood account. Again, I await anything written prior to the ANE texts that speaks of a flood that predates Noah's flood. You won't find them, that I'm sure of.

 

[stovebolts]

It's why so few Christians in the world are YE creationists. It doesn't fit with God's Word.

I disagree. They have been taught flawed science in their schools where theories have been touted as fact. Additionally, they have been given a choice to either throw their intellect away or throw the bible away. Not wanting to do either, they compromise.

There is much science that supports young earth that is not being taught in schools.

 

[Barbarian]

Since it doesn't matter a bit to your salvation, I don't worry about it, unless someone says that you have to believe it this way to be a Christian.

That's no longer Christianity.

 

[lordkalvan]

I disagree. They have been taught flawed science in their schools where theories have been touted as fact.

Can you explain what 'flawed science' has been taught, why it is 'flawed' and what 'theories have been touted as fact' and why they are not 'fact'?

Additionally, they have been given a choice to either throw their intellect away or throw the bible away. Not wanting to do either, they compromise.

Please explain how intellectual honesty and the Bible conflict?

There is much science that supports young earth that is not being taught in schools.

Can you show us some of this alleged science?