[_ Old Earth _] The earth is billions of years old, except that its not.

[Featherbop]

Re: very sorry

Actually, I'm a brother.

Featherbop,I am very sorry I called you a sister when you are a brother.
please forgive me. I didn't know.
I'm really sorry about that.
may God bless you,in Jesus Christ our Lord,amen. :Fade-color

its okay. thanks. I guess 'featherbop' is a femenine sounding name.

 

[Guest]

Re: very sorry

I guess 'featherbop' is a femenine sounding name.

Well,I think it could go either way. Unless someone gives hints or clues,or comes right out and tells you,most of us would be confused about whose male and female. It's really hard to tell for me anyway.
It is a cute name "Featherbop".
:B-fly:

 

[Grace Alone]

Re: right

You know what? you are the one who will face God for your sins,so after all of this,if you can still live with yourself,then go ahead.
You are slandering my faith,and you are saying that those who don't agree with you are wrong.

Woah, is all the anger and judgement really necessary?

I haven't been on these boards for a while and I didn't read every single post in this thread, but blue, your attitude here seems a bit over the top. I understand that it can be upsetting when people don't agree with you, or you feel attacked, but we need to treat each other with Christlike love.

I don't mean any offense in what I say to you.

The earth simply cannot be billions of years old,and many scientists can tell you this. I have heard this same argument too many times before.
I know alot more about science than you can amagine,and science doesn't back you up.

Why can't it be billions of years old? Do you feel this threatens the truth of the Bible? An old earth does not mean that God didn't create it, and it doesn't even mean that He created it using evolution.

 

[mh13]

Why can't it be billions of years old? Do you feel this threatens the truth of the Bible? An old earth does not mean that God didn't create it, and it doesn't even mean that He created it using evolution.

Billions of years would effect the truth of the Bible. It would mean that we can't take the Bible at face value. It means that words don't necessarily mean anything.

If I can't take the creation account literally, than how can I be sure that I can take the plan of salvation literally. So many christians scoff the Bible taking ONLY the plan of salvation literally. I don't get that.

(when I say literally, I mean the following:"Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such." Finis Dake)

 

[Barbarian]

Billions of years would effect the truth of the Bible. It would mean that we can't take the Bible at face value. It means that words don't necessarily mean anything.

Nope. It just means that some of the Bible is figurative.

If I can't take the creation account literally, than how can I be sure that I can take the plan of salvation literally.

For one thing, the Crucifixion and Resurrection are presented as historical fact, while Genesis is phrased as an allegory.

So many christians scoff the Bible taking ONLY the plan of salvation literally. I don't get that.

Christians accept that some of the Bible is figurative and some is literal. We know this from the evidence of the text itself.

 

[Guest]

Re: right

:o I am sorry you mis-understood my posts. It appears that you would have thought John The Baptsist was too bold too from the way you make it sound. I judge no one. I do believe the entire bible and what it says.
Yes,saying the earth is billions of years old does conflict with the bible.
I am not offended by you at all.
I truly believe we need more people like John The Baptist today,this would be a good thing. The Bible speaks great things about him.
Loving kindness is a great thing to have for one another,but at the same time let us not be found sugar coating the word of God so that others don't feel they can sit on both sides of the fense.
If you rebuke a wise man,he will love you,but if you try to correct a foolish
man,he will hate you.
A soul is a very precious thing to me.
Being gentle is good,but at times rebuke may be called for.
America must wake up.

 

[Guest]

The word

:D The bible lets us know how to read it.
The Genesis account seems very real to me,and I honestly believe it should be taken literally. There is nothing in it to even hint that we should take it otherwise.

 

[Barbarian]

The text of Genesis tells us that it is not literal, because a literal interpretation of it produced logical contradictions.

For example, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet, when he does so, he lives on for many years. The "death" is not a literal death. Rather it is a figurative, spiritual death that estranges Adam from God.

 

[Guest]

The text of Genesis tells us that it is not literal, because a literal interpretation of it produced logical contradictions.

For example, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet, when he does so, he lives on for many years. The "death" is not a literal death. Rather it is a figurative, spiritual death that estranges Adam from God.

:B-fly: Wrong,there are no contradictions at all,its the way you read it.
There is nothing logical about mis-understanding the bible unless you are a baby in Christ.
As long as this world is logical to you in your mind,you cannot understand the bible.

 

[Guest]

For example, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet, when he does so, he lives on for many years. The "death" is not a literal death. Rather it is a figurative, spiritual death that estranges Adam from God.[/quote]

:angel: Wrong again. The death was a literal death,on that very day Adam and Eve's bodies did begin to die,and age. Before they ate the fruit,they could have lived forever without ever having to die.
But the soul cannot die.
The day they sinned is the day death got into their bodies. It was literal because they did not live forever on earth. They did both die physical deaths.
Remember,satan tried to fool them by twisting God's words and asked Did God say that you would surely die?
They died literally though it wasn't right away,death in their bodies began right away. They began to age,and grow old.

 

[Grace Alone]

Re: right

:o I am sorry you mis-understood my posts. It appears that you would have thought John The Baptsist was too bold too from the way you make it sound. I judge no one. I do believe the entire bible and what it says.

So you are here to preach the Truth to the rest of us with the attitude that you already have all the facts and you can't learn a think from someone with a different point of view?

There is a big difference between boldness and saying things like this to a fellow believer in Christ: "you are the one who will face God for your sins,so after all of this,if you can still live with yourself,then go ahead."
That is not the attitude of someone like John the Baptist.

Yes,saying the earth is billions of years old does conflict with the bible.

Tell me how? I'm not talking evolution or anything. Just tell me how the simple difference between a 6,000 year old earth and a 4.5 billion year old earth conflicts with the Bible. Remember - no evolution.

I truly believe we need more people like John The Baptist today,this would be a good thing. The Bible speaks great things about him.
Loving kindness is a great thing to have for one another,but at the same time let us not be found sugar coating the word of God so that others don't feel they can sit on both sides of the fense.

Lovingkindness is not about sugar coating the Word of God. There are ways to be persuasive and assertive without being offensive and insulting.

If you rebuke a wise man,he will love you,but if you try to correct a foolish man,he will hate you. A soul is a very precious thing to me. Being gentle is good,but at times rebuke may be called for.
America must wake up.

And you have the authority to rebuke others and wake people up because you've got all the facts on this issue, right?

 

[Grace Alone]

Billions of years would effect the truth of the Bible. It would mean that we can't take the Bible at face value. It means that words don't necessarily mean anything.

Saying that the earth is billions of years old doesn't effect the truth of the Bible. Nowhere are we told the age of the earth. I am an old earth creationist and I definetely take the Bible at face value, and as a literature person, words mean a lot to me. :wink: Perhaps much of the resistance to the idea of an old earth comes from the fact that we are not looking at the original Hebrew text. The word that is used for day in Genesis is "yom" and this word can be defined as both a literal 24 hour day or a period of time. Reading it as a period of time is as much a literal reading as your reading, because there is more than one use for the word.

If I can't take the creation account literally, than how can I be sure that I can take the plan of salvation literally. So many christians scoff the Bible taking ONLY the plan of salvation literally. I don't get that.

(when I say literally, I mean the following:"Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such." Finis Dake)

See, that's the thing. I do take the creation account literally. I believe God created everything in the sequence put forth in Genesis. The Bible is the literal inherrent word of God.

 

[Grace Alone]

Re: The word

:D The bible lets us know how to read it.
The Genesis account seems very real to me,and I honestly believe it should be taken literally. There is nothing in it to even hint that we should take it otherwise.

I agree 100% and I do take it literally.

 

[Barbarian]

Wrong,there are no contradictions at all,its the way you read it.

Reading the above literally certainly produces a logical contradiction. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree, and yet he lived on for many years, according to Genesis. If this is literal, then God did not tell the truth.

There is nothing logical about mis-understanding the bible unless you are a baby in Christ.

He says we must come to Him as a little child or not at all. But that does not remove the contradiction that results if you try to put a literal interpretation on Genesis.

As long as this world is logical to you in your mind,you cannot understand the bible.

God gave you a mind so that you might know the truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
For example, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree. Yet, when he does so, he lives on for many years. The "death" is not a literal death. Rather it is a figurative, spiritual death that estranges Adam from God.

Wrong again. The death was a literal death,on that very day Adam and Eve's bodies did begin to die,and age.

That's not what God said. It was not 'you will begin to die'; it was "you will die the day you eat from the tree."

So we know that the death wasn't literal, because they both would have died that day.

Before they ate the fruit,they could have lived forever without ever having to die.

No, in fact, God later expresses concern that they might become immortal...

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Remember,satan tried to fool them by twisting God's words and asked Did God say that you would surely die?

Actually....

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent was a Biblical literalist. They didn't literally die. But they died spiritually. Notice that the serpent told them a bit of the truth that God didn't tell them. They would become like God if they ate from the tree. He didn't tell them the consequences of an imperfect creature becomling like God, though. Pretty slick.

 

[mh13]

Grace Alone wrote:

Saying that the earth is billions of years old doesn't effect the truth of the Bible. Nowhere are we told the age of the earth. I am an old earth creationist and I definetely take the Bible at face value, and as a literature person, words mean a lot to me. Perhaps much of the resistance to the idea of an old earth comes from the fact that we are not looking at the original Hebrew text. The word that is used for day in Genesis is "yom" and this word can be defined as both a literal 24 hour day or a period of time. Reading it as a period of time is as much a literal reading as your reading, because there is more than one use for the word.

Yes there is more than one use for the word, but to take the order of Genesis literally with long ages and no evolution is nonsensical.

This is from an article that I wrote.

Note the order of the creation account in Genesis chapter one.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Notice the vegetation was made on day three.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Now notice the sun is made on day four. So the question we must ask is how did the grass and trees stay alive for thousands of years or eons of time without sunlight? Insects were not created until day five. Insects pollinate plants.

The day age theory is not only a compromise, but it's not even a good theory! Beyond that, billions of years would put Jesus' credibility at stake:
Matthew 19:4 (KJV)
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Did you catch that? Jesus said that people were created AT THE BEGINNING.
Look again:
Mark 10:6 (KJV)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
So then, did Jesus not know what He was talking about when He said that man was created at the beginning of creation?

 

[mh13]

As stated by Wheaton College biologist Pattle P.T. Pun, a leading progressive creationist, "It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith." [Pattle P.T. Pun, "A Theology of Progressive Creationism," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Ipswich, MA: March 1987), p. 14]

Yet Dr. Pun still holds to the old earth view...what a faithless christian!!

Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I'd hate to have to stand before the creator and explain why I refused to believe his word.

 

[Barbarian]

YE creationism is incompatible with Genesis. However, it has nothing at all to do with one's salvation.

 

[Grace Alone]

Thanks for your response.

Yes there is more than one use for the word, but to take the order of Genesis literally with long ages and no evolution is nonsensical.

Why are long days with no evolution nonsensical? You don't think God could choose to create in that manner?

Now notice the sun is made on day four. So the question we must ask is how did the grass and trees stay alive for thousands of years or eons of time without sunlight? Insects were not created until day five. Insects pollinate plants.

Actually if you read the entire text carefully you will see that the sources of light were in fact created on the first day:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters....."

We are told that the first thing God created was the heavens and the earth. What does the heavens consist of? Galaxies, stars, sun, moon......These things were all created on the first day.

We learn in Job that God place a cloud cover over the earth:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

What happens on day 4 is not the creation of the sun, stars, etc. They are merely revealed to the earth because the covering is removed. Notice that it does not say that "God created" the lights in verse 14. God says "let there be light." It is a command of appearance, not creation.

So why does the text say God made the Sun, moon, and stars in verse 16? Actually, the Hebrew verbs indicate an action completed at some time in the past. The text could be translated, "And God had made..." Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one.

As for the insects needed to pollonate the flowers, that is an interesting point and something I've not thought about before. I need to think about that, but my initial reaction to that statement is that there is not a clear indication of when the insects were actually created. The Hebrew used for the creatures in day 5 is "nephesh." This word is used for both animals and humans, and implies soulishness which would apply only to the higher animals and not things like insects. So I really don't know when insects came on the scene. I will definetely look into that.

The day age theory is not only a compromise, but it's not even a good theory! Beyond that, billions of years would put Jesus' credibility at stake:
Matthew 19:4 (KJV)
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Did you catch that? Jesus said that people were created AT THE BEGINNING.
Look again:
Mark 10:6 (KJV)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
So then, did Jesus not know what He was talking about when He said that man was created at the beginning of creation.

I don't see how that would lessen Jesus' credibility if we are looking at it from and old earth perspective. They were the first humans and the first husband and wife. They were the beginning.

 

[cubedbee]

Another alternative way of reconciling Genesis and science is by admitting that there can be a gap between Genesis 1:1-2 and the rest of the chapter. God created "the heavens and the earth" in verse 1. In verse 2, we see that the earth exists in a formless and void state, although there is water. The first day of creation doesn't actually start until verse 3. It could be claimed that these two verses are part of Day one, but every other creative act in the 6 day period begins with the phrase "And God said", which we don't first see until verse 3. If verse 1-2 occur before the "first day" of creation, then there is no indication how long before verse 3 they occur. It could easily be billions of years.