[_ Old Earth _] Why I am a Young Earth Creationist

[Khristeeanos]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear - there was no death before man's sin. (Genesis 3, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)
Adam and Eve were "the beginning" of Creation. (Matthew 19:4)

If there was death before sin, than Jesus died for something that was not man's fault which defeats the entire purpose of the life, death, burial, and bodily resurrection (and ascention) of Christ.


Therefore, I believe that when we read Luke 3:23-38 and see that Jesus was a literal descendant of Adam who was created by God at "the beginning," I don't question it whatsoever.

If God said it, I believe it. End of story. :P




Psalm 118:8
It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in man.

 

[Frost Giant]

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[Imagican]

No, the problem lies in the 'literal' interpretation of 'much' of the Bible.

Often times one has to forego literal translation of the words and look beyond to the 'meaning' of the words.

The fact that God has preserved His Word for thousands of years should be proof enough that He exists. How easy would it have been for this 'religion' of God and Christ to have simply vanished in time if not for the will of God that it be preserved?

And I see few scientist willing to offer their lives for what they believe. Yes, some die from accidental deaths associated with their study and experimentation, but this is not purposeful sacrifice, just accidents. One must admit that there is something really really deep for the followers of it to offer up their lives in sacrifice to it. And I'm not talking about sleeping pills or lethal injections. I'm talking about being nailed to a cross or being fed alive to lions.

 

[Guest]

And I see few scientist willing to offer their lives for what they believe. Yes, some die from accidental deaths associated with their study and experimentation, but this is not purposeful sacrifice, just accidents. One must admit that there is something really really deep for the followers of it to offer up their lives in sacrifice to it. And I'm not talking about sleeping pills or lethal injections. I'm talking about being nailed to a cross or being fed alive to lions.

Or blowing one's self up. Or setting one's self on fire.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The fact that God has preserved His Word for thousands of years should be proof enough that He exists. How easy would it have been for this 'religion' of God and Christ to have simply vanished in time if not for the will of God that it be preserved?

That's a very interesting proposition, in that the Torah and KJV Bible can be shown to contextually different in a number of places.

 

[Barbarian]

Could you elaborate on some of these? I'm not very familiar with the Torah.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The fact that God has preserved His Word for thousands of years should be proof enough that He exists.

Using that rationale, He also preserved the Code of Hammurabi, The Iliad, the teachings of Buddha and Confucius. They are all as old or older than the Bible.

Antiquity does not prove veracity or inspiration.

 

[Loren Michael]

The fact that God has preserved His Word for thousands of years should be proof enough that He exists.

Using that rationale, He also preserved the Code of Hammurabi, The Iliad, the teachings of Buddha and Confucius. They are all as old or older than the Bible.

Antiquity does not prove veracity or inspiration.

people still believe in astrology, for example. that's been around since antiquity. it's still rubbish.

 

[Khristeeanos]

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Perhaps you have never heard of the billions of people in history who have had their lives transformed by God through the Bible?

 

[ThinkerMan]

The problem is that there's approximately no evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Perhaps you have never heard of the billions of people in history who have had their lives transformed by God through the Bible?

I have heard of them. But billions of Muslims and hundreds of millions of Buddhists, Sihks and others all say they are right, and have been transformed by their sacred texts and gods. It's not exactly a unique claim.

If you are going to use the argument of numbers, then I can assume that you are Catholic, since the vast majority of Christians worldwide and throughout history are Catholic.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Could you elaborate on some of these? I'm not very familiar with the Torah.

Lilith for instance doesn't show up in the KJV. I haven't read much of either, but translation and Church debates. The Nicean creed, the Trinity itself was decided by committee.

 

[cubedbee]

Could you elaborate on some of these? I'm not very familiar with the Torah.

Lilith for instance doesn't show up in the KJV. I haven't read much of either, but translation and Church debates. The Nicean creed, the Trinity itself was decided by committee.

Lilith doesn't show up in the Torah either. You are thinking of the Talmud. The Hebrew Torah (first five books) and more generally the Tanakh (all OT) are substantially identical to the Christian OT---it's a different translation but all stories and characters are the same. The Talmud, on the other hand, is the "Oral Law", a very large amount of rabbinical writing on the official proper Jewish interpretation of the Scripture, with much much additional detail. Christianity has accepted the Tanakh but rejected the Talmud.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

And I see few scientist willing to offer their lives for what they believe. Yes, some die from accidental deaths associated with their study and experimentation, but this is not purposeful sacrifice, just accidents. One must admit that there is something really really deep for the followers of it to offer up their lives in sacrifice to it. And I'm not talking about sleeping pills or lethal injections. I'm talking about being nailed to a cross or being fed alive to lions.

Or like hijacking ariplanes and flying them into buildings?



You do realize, of course, that all scientists are not athiests. They way you claims that scientists don't die for thier beliefs you seem to assume that they are all non believers. There are many religious scientists out there, believe me. Remember, science is not opposed to religion. And if you think it is, why are you sitting in front of a computer?

 

[Loren Michael]

And I see few scientist willing to offer their lives for what they believe. Yes, some die from accidental deaths associated with their study and experimentation, but this is not purposeful sacrifice, just accidents. One must admit that there is something really really deep for the followers of it to offer up their lives in sacrifice to it. And I'm not talking about sleeping pills or lethal injections. I'm talking about being nailed to a cross or being fed alive to lions.

wow, i can't believe i didn't notice this bit earlier.

has it occured to you that, no matter how strongly someone feels about something, the desire to live may outshine it? science sin't about beliefs. it's not about the soul, and it's not really a huge personal deal the way religion is. the willingness to die for something in no way indicates the validity of something, as other people in this thread have said. otherwise, heck, nutbar islam seems pretty darn valid!

 

[jwu]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear - there was no death before man's sin. (Genesis 3, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
- Genesis 2:17
Since Adam didn't die on that day, death in the context of Genesis may not mean physical death, but rather spiritual death

Adam and Eve were "the beginning" of Creation. (Matthew 19:4)

"5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'"
"In the beginning"...in the beginning of what? It doesn't say in the beginning of creation, which would be wrong either way, as that'd have to be the first day even in case of a literal interpretation.
Therefore it can't be understood the literal way.
I interprete "in the beginning" in this context to be anything that happened before the rise of human civilization. Just something that was long ago, but not a specific time.

Therefore, I believe that when we read Luke 3:23-38 and see that Jesus was a literal descendant of Adam who was created by God at "the beginning," I don't question it whatsoever.

It says that Adam was the son of God...not creation....and so what? Once again, this cannot possibly be understood literally. Whom did God impregnate to get His "son" Adam?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear - there was no death before man's sin. (Genesis 3, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
- Genesis 2:17
Since Adam didn't die on that day, death in the context of Genesis may not mean physical death, but rather spiritual death

Adam and Eve were "the beginning" of Creation. (Matthew 19:4)

"5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'"
"In the beginning"...in the beginning of what? It doesn't say in the beginning of creation, which would be wrong either way, as that'd have to be the first day even in case of a literal interpretation.
Therefore it can't be understood the literal way.
I interprete "in the beginning" in this context to be anything that happened before the rise of human civilization. Just something that was long ago, but not a specific time.

[quote:29c06]Therefore, I believe that when we read Luke 3:23-38 and see that Jesus was a literal descendant of Adam who was created by God at "the beginning," I don't question it whatsoever.

It says that Adam was the son of God...not creation....and so what? Once again, this cannot possibly be understood literally. Whom did God impregnate to get His "son" Adam?[/quote:29c06]


The idea is not to find some way to "explain away" what the Bible teaches as you have just done.

The Bible is God's Word and I accept that on faith.

My original post stands unrefuted. 8-)

 

[Drew]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear - there was no death before man's sin. (Genesis 3, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
- Genesis 2:17
Since Adam didn't die on that day, death in the context of Genesis may not mean physical death, but rather spiritual death

The idea is not to find some way to "explain away" what the Bible teaches as you have just done.

The Bible is God's Word and I accept that on faith.

My original post stands unrefuted. 8-)

Jwus' point is clearly worthy. I have taken the liberty of bolding relevant text. One cannot bury one's head in the sand and deny that a highly literal reading poses problems - Adam did not die on the day that he ate the fruit as the Genesis 2:17 text says that he will. What is your answer to this, Bonsai?

It is simply not fair to say that jwu is "explaining away". What does this mean? There are good (i.e. plausible) explanations and there are bad (i.e. implausible) explanations. You need to actually address what jwu has said, not simply make a vague statement that he has "explained away" something.

Some versions (e.g. the NIV) of the Bible do not have "in the day" phrase in Genesis 2:17. This at least gives you (Bonsai) an option of arguing that the KJ rendition is wrong when it says "in the day". Fair enough, that's what real debate entails - actually making a case.

On the other hand, even if one can make such a case, one still needs to respond to the general claim that the "death" that is being referred to here could mean "spiritual" death. Why is such an interpretation wrong?

 

[Khristeeanos]

The Hebrew for die there means:

dying you will die

In other words, he died (spiritually) and started to die (physically).

The Bible clearly states that Adam was the first man and this was at the beginning.

 

[Drew]

The Hebrew for die there means:

dying you will die

In other words, he died (spiritually) and started to die (physically).

The Bible clearly states that Adam was the first man and this was at the beginning.

I am not sure I understand you. Can you please try again? How do you explain that Adam did not die on the same day that they ate from the tree? Are you saying that the word for "die" as used in Genesis 2:17 actually means that a process of physical death only begins and would not actually come to completion until later. Can you tell me the actual Hebrew word so I can check it out myself. Thanks

 

[Khristeeanos]

The Hebrew for die there means:

dying you will die

In other words, he died (spiritually) and started to die (physically).

The Bible clearly states that Adam was the first man and this was at the beginning.

I am not sure I understand you. Can you please try again? How do you explain that Adam did not die on the same day that they ate from the tree? Are you saying that the word for "die" as used in Genesis 2:17 actually means that a process of physical death only begins and would not actually come to completion until later. Can you tell me the actual Hebrew word so I can check it out myself. Thanks

Adam and Eve died spiritually and they also started to die physically.

The Hebrew word can be found by looking in any Concordance and doing a word study on it. Both can be found online.

muwth (mooth) (Strong's 4191)

Hope and pray that you have a great day.