yes, I remember reading about "monkey man".
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[ Young Earth ] Young Earth?
- Thread starter Brock
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
People don't come from monkeys and slime. They evolved from other hominins. And no, that doesn't go against Adam and Eve.
I remember reading about "frog man", too. But that doesn't mean evolutionary theory says we came from frogs.
Monkeys are too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans.
People don't come from monkeys and slime. They evolved from other hominins. And no, that doesn't go against Adam and Eve.
I remember reading about "frog man", too. But that doesn't mean evolutionary theory says we came from frogs.
Monkeys are too evolved in their own way to have given rise to humans.
Barbarian
Member
Since the end of the last ice age, I think.
(Barbarian checks)
The Mississippi River has a significant amount of history and tradition behind it. The river was formed in the most recent Ice Age, which started about 2 million years ago. This last Ice Age ended approximately 10,000 years ago, which makes the Mississippi about 10,000 years old as we know it. During the last Ice Age, glaciers deposited layers of sediment across what is now known as the beautiful upper Mississippi River valley. As these mighty glaciers melted, large quantities of water cut channels through sediment and debris in the ground underneath. Today the Mississippi River and its tributaries follow these same channels that were created thousands of years ago. The actual Mississippi River valley was carved from one set of towering bluffs to the next and was approximately 250-500 feet deeper than it is today!
https://www.4rivers.com/mississippi/mississippi-info.html
The river is not remotely as old as the Earth.
On a theological stand point this is simple a question of does one believe what the bible says or what mans biased view of science says.
Can you read out of the bible millions of years.?
It is possible to read into the bible millions of years, but reading into any passage what one wants to be there is very poor interpretation.
Can you read out of the bible millions of years.?
It is possible to read into the bible millions of years, but reading into any passage what one wants to be there is very poor interpretation.
turnorburn
Member
Always trust Gods word over mans...One person put it this way..
“Beware lest any man [educator, politician, rock star, news anchorman/woman] take you captive through vain and deceitful philosophy [naturalism, materialism, existentialism, pragmatism], after the tradition of men [Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Wellhausen, Freud, Dewey, Foucault], after the rudiments of the world [socialism, evolution, higher criticism, humanism, moral relativism, deconstructionism, collectivism], and not after Christ.” — Colossians 2:8
https://www.summit.org/resources/articles/essays/the-worldviews-of-destruction-in-the-20th-century/
WM,
It's not a simple question of Bible vs science. The issue is not millions of years vs 6,000 years because I can't find anywhere in the Bible where a figure of millions of years vs thousands of years is stated for the age of creation.
I urge none of us to read our presuppositions into the Bible. However, the Bible is a collection of books that have to be interpreted in context.
This is the evidence Dr Norman Geisler gives to challenge the young earth view. He considers the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The article is titled, 'Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?'
The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View
In order to establish the Young Earth view, one must demonstrate that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the "days" of Genesis are six successive 24-hour days of creation. Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.
Possible Gaps in Genesis
The possibility for gaps in Genesis exists in many places.
(1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).
(2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without an intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it).
(3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory). The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis.
(4) There are also known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that "Joram begat Uzziah." But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah. Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.
So with both possible and actual demonstrable gaps in Genesis and in the genealogies, the "Closed-Chronology" view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible. And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth view?
Evidence that the "Days" of Genesis May Involve More than Six 24-hour days of Creation
Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the "days" of Genesis are not 6 successive 24-hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:
(1) First, the word "day" (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24-hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).
(2) The word "day" is also used of a whole 24-hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a "day."
(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is used of all six days of creation when it looks back over all six days of creation and affirms: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them" (Gen. 2:4).
(4) What is more, on the "seventh day" God "rested" from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6,000-plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).
(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24-hour day. (a) For example, a numbered series with the word "day" (as in Genesis 1) does not always refer to 24-hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, "evening and morning" sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit parallel. Further, since the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11), then why can't the other days be longer too. (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam's sin. It only asserts that "death passed upon all men" because of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals. It only indicates that the whole creation was "subjected to futility" (i.e., to frustration-Rom. 8:20-21).
(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the "days" of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the "days" of Genesis to be six 24-hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation. Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth view, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
(7) The Relative Time view claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicist (in Genesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God's time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.
(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos (1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first trees would have had rings in them the day they were created.
If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and a longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity as to make it a virtual test for orthodoxy?
Here is an evangelical scholar who believe the Bible is inerrant, Norm Geisler, who cannot support young earth creationism.lIn order to establish the Young Earth view, one must demonstrate that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the "days" of Genesis are six successive 24-hour days of creation. Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.
Possible Gaps in Genesis
The possibility for gaps in Genesis exists in many places.
(1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).
(2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without an intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it).
(3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory). The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis.
(4) There are also known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that "Joram begat Uzziah." But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah. Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.
So with both possible and actual demonstrable gaps in Genesis and in the genealogies, the "Closed-Chronology" view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible. And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth view?
Evidence that the "Days" of Genesis May Involve More than Six 24-hour days of Creation
Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the "days" of Genesis are not 6 successive 24-hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:
(1) First, the word "day" (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24-hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).
(2) The word "day" is also used of a whole 24-hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a "day."
(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is used of all six days of creation when it looks back over all six days of creation and affirms: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them" (Gen. 2:4).
(4) What is more, on the "seventh day" God "rested" from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6,000-plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).
(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24-hour day. (a) For example, a numbered series with the word "day" (as in Genesis 1) does not always refer to 24-hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, "evening and morning" sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit parallel. Further, since the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11), then why can't the other days be longer too. (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam's sin. It only asserts that "death passed upon all men" because of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals. It only indicates that the whole creation was "subjected to futility" (i.e., to frustration-Rom. 8:20-21).
(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the "days" of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the "days" of Genesis to be six 24-hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation. Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth view, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
(7) The Relative Time view claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicist (in Genesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God's time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.
(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos (1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first trees would have had rings in them the day they were created.
If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and a longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity as to make it a virtual test for orthodoxy?
I'll add another factor from Gen 1:2 (NIV): 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters '. This 'hovering or 'vibrant moving' is not 'brooding'.
There is no indicator in the text for what length of time the Spirit hovered over the waters. So, after the creation of the heavens and earth, it is difficult to know the time frame as the text doesn't tell us.
It is not as simple as "this is simple a question of does one believe what the bible says or what mans biased view of science says. Can you read out of the bible millions of years.?"
Why? Because the time of hovering is not stated. The nature of 'yom' (day) is not stated. All of these require interpretation.
I believe what the Bible says as the inerrant Word of God, but I also know that this same Bible teaches, 'Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately' (2 Tim 2:15 NET).
'Rightly handling the word of truth', i.e. 'teaching the message of truth accurately' is a challenge for every believer who reads the Bible. I support the view you espouse - with a qualification, 'This is simple (sic) a question of does one believe what the bible (sic) says'. The qualification is: All Scripture needs to be interpreted according to the words used, the grammar and in context. This is what is involved in a plain reading of the text.
Oz
KevinK,
I don't find anything in the text that indicates that.
See my post at #26 for further explanations. To speak of '7 ... Heaven days' provides no clarity for me, especially when the text seems to avoid that language.
Can you refer me to anything in the Genesis text that indicates 'heaven days'?
Oz
KevinK
Member
It's not in the Bible. This is just my own question. There's no proof, but is it possible?
Kevin,
If it's not in the Bible or suggested by the Bible, it comes from a fertile imagination.
Let's stick with the text and grammatical, historical, contextual interpretation of the text. Otherwise, it's opinion with no foundation.
Oz
Kevin,
Do you believe in the God who gives and promotes absolute truth?
If so, from where do we obtain absolute truth?
If not, from where do we find the 'truth' to live by?
Oz
KevinK
Member
Back to the original question, there are actually two non-literal interpretations of Genesis that I entertain. One is the reference to "Heaven days" already mentioned, and the other is that "day" as used is not a literal day of 24 hours, but a lyrical way of referring to long eras of time (in this case, about 2 billion years per day). I actually lean more toward this latter theory.
Kevin,
The old earth exposition that I provided in #26 does not require a 'non-literal interpretation'. It is dealing with a literal interpretation but takes into consideration the 'gaps' in the records or narratives that makes 6 creation days of 24 hours impossible.
By the way, since my days in high school through to seminary, this has been the meaning of literal interpretation that secular high school teachers and seminary instructors taught:
Literal” ... means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of “door” in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning (Mickelsen 1963:33).?
Therefore, ‘by literal meaning the writer refers to the usual or customary sense conveyed by words or expressions‘. The contrasting meaning is that of figurative: ‘By figurative meaning the writer has in mind the representation of one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two things compared allows such an analogy to be drawn‘ (Mickelsen 1963:179, emphasis in original). (From my article: What is literal interpretation?)
Oz
Works consulted
Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Yet this is what you promptly do.
Yes yom like the english 'day' can mean a period of time, an age, or 24 hours. In English and hebrew the meaning is found in the context.
Genesis was write as prose and to mean creation took place over 6 days.
Other may play with the meaning of days but may I ask them to use the same meaning they give to 'day' to the number of days Jesus was/is in the tomb.
One may believe in millions of years and in the unproven assumptions of evolution, but please have the honesty to acknowledge that the bible does not support millions of years.
WM,
Nowhere have I stated 'millions of years'. Nowhere. If that's your assumption, it is false.
I also have the honesty to state that I am not convinced Gen 1 teaches that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 literal days.
See my post #26 for some details.
Oz
stovebolts
Member
Hi OzSpen ,
I hope to give you a proper reply hopefully later this evening deserving of your post 26.
Yes, I believe in a young earth, but to look at the creation account primarily as a vehicle to support a young earth or old earth is to completely miss it's intent.
When we look at Jewish Mashals, such as Job, or we look at the parables of Jesus we see that the intent holds more weight than the detail. Neither Mashal or Parables were written in academia and as such, an impoper reading would yeild illogical ideas.
I hope to give you a proper reply hopefully later this evening deserving of your post 26.
Yes, I believe in a young earth, but to look at the creation account primarily as a vehicle to support a young earth or old earth is to completely miss it's intent.
When we look at Jewish Mashals, such as Job, or we look at the parables of Jesus we see that the intent holds more weight than the detail. Neither Mashal or Parables were written in academia and as such, an impoper reading would yeild illogical ideas.
Firstly, I'm not trying to argue either for or against YEC. I would just like to point out some things for your consideration:
The context implies that everything from "the beginning" to "evening and morning, the first day" is included in the first day, just as everything from "the first day" to "the second day" is included in the 2nd day.
Oz[/QUOTE]
I also question the YEC theory, as I do question all origin and "last day" theories. What I object to is making the text fit a theory, in contrast to making the theory fit the text and the context.
TD
The problem with this theory is the assumption that Gen. 1 is chronological. For example, plants that need sunlight could not live long periods of time without sunlight.
These two verses could be early scribal errors. It is proven that scribal errors - additions and deletions - exist in the NT. If the addition of Cainan and the deletion of 3 generations happened in the NT due to mistakes, and those were the copies that survived generations of copies, then they could easily be scribal errors that happened too early in the manuscripts to discern what was in the autographs. The point is that we shouldn't hang a general doctrine of "generation gaps" on 2 verses that may be a result of scribal errors, but we should get much more evidence than that for such a basis. A doctrine like that always influences us to pretext other ideas with it.
The context implies that everything from "the beginning" to "evening and morning, the first day" is included in the first day, just as everything from "the first day" to "the second day" is included in the 2nd day.
Oz[/QUOTE]
I also question the YEC theory, as I do question all origin and "last day" theories. What I object to is making the text fit a theory, in contrast to making the theory fit the text and the context.
TD