ECT Clearing up the confusion of Creation!

[6days]

You need to work on formatting, my friend.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Yes... I post with my phone and its awful....or else you need to learn 'greek'. ha

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes... I post with my phone and its awful

Get a Bluetooth keyboard. It'll help.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[God's Truth]

What??? You seem to be getting frustrated and not making any sense. Take a little time, go back through some of the posts and read them without anger and vitriol, and then come back and try again. I can wait.

No, it is not as you say. Stop trying to slander and bear false witness as a defense. Do you think you might need to repent?

 

[God's Truth]

What animals didn't get on the ark? fish?

That is right.

Tell me how sabre tooth tigers, and dodo birds lived in the time of Jesus.

They survived by the ark.

Tell me how 500 species went extinct last year.*

Tell me how the dinosaurs became extinct AFTER the flood. lol

You mean opinions from evolutionist scientists, as opposed to Biblical creationist scientists?

You mean the Christians who say that all the dinosaurs died in the flood? They go against their own beliefs because Noah took two of each kind.

 

[6days]

(Sabre tooth tigers)*survived by the ark.

Yes...as did all animals.*

Tell me how the dinosaurs became extinct AFTER the flood. lol

I don't get the joke.

The dinosaurs would have gone extinct for the same reason 500 other species went extinct last year alone. (changing enviroments, genetic problems, predators etc)

You mean opinions from evolutionist scientists, as opposed to Biblical creationist scientists?

You mean the Christians who say that all the dinosaurs died in the flood?

No, I said the opposing opinions between scientists.*

*

They go against their own beliefs because Noah took two of each kind.

Yes, he did.

 

[jsanford108]

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days God created..."

If it was longer than a day, then why would this verse say "days"?

Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning God made them male and female."

If God took thousands (let alone millions) of years to create our universe, then this verse would be false. You can't create man at the beginning if thousands (forget millions) of years have already passed. That's not at the beginning. Now, the sixth day, however, that's practically at the beginning, if the universe is only 6-8 thousand years old.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

As stated before, this is easy to address. A "day" from the perspective of any ancient author would be 24 hours, and a rising of the sun to its setting. But is the perspective they are describing an exact to scale representation of what transpired? Imagine I am showing you the history of creation. Would it take seven full days of you witnessing it to be able to transcribe what you are seeing? Or is it more likely that I show you all of it in a miraculous show that is sped up, but remains accurate relatively?

A great example of this is the Revelation of John. Did he watch the entire era of tribulation to exact scale? Of course he didn't. He saw all of this in a vision. Would it not make sense that Moses, while composing Genesis was granted the same style of glorious vision? Otherwise, he would have to have witnessed all of creation to the point of his conception to be able to accurately compose Genesis to Exodus.

Therefore, attempt to view it from the perspective of Moses or John. They are witnessing events unfurl and transpire that they describe as best they can and relative to their limited understanding. With this information, entire passages of Revelation and Genesis can become exceptionally more clear, and fit even more parallel to the results of scientific study.

 

[jsanford108]

That is only an objection if you deny what scripture clearly says...and if you want to add billions of years into God's Word. *God defines the Genesis days in verse 5 of the creation account.

Also....if you are interested, I can show from *context in scripture, and from context in Hebrew that the creation days in Genesis can NOT be anything other than what we know as a 24 hour period.

Fossils, carbon dating actually fit perfectly with the Biblical creation and flood account. Secular explanations for the fossil record is not near as compelling as God's Word.Great... so lets consider C14 dating through the lens of God's Word. Why would soft dinosaur tissue date in the 30,000 year range? It fits perfectly with God's Word*and the young earth when we realize how the global flood totally wiped out all plant and animal life on earth. it would have drastically changed the ratios. And.... the initial ratio before the flood is an unknown. We don't know what the pre-flood c14/c12 ratio was.*

The young earth theory does not even fit with the Bible. If you add up the age of those in the Old Testament, the result is a few thousand different from the young earth theory. Also, such a theory directly contradicts evidence that we have. A more accurate theory is the amended Day-Age Theory, or Age-Creationism theory. Granted, both of these are not developed within the scientific community itself. But that is no reason to discredit them initially.

As stated, the carbon dating still fits within Genesis if you do not take the term "day" as a literal 24 hour cycle, but rather a "rising of the sun to its setting." At no point does my proposition disagree with Scriptures. It fits within the context of Scripture, and still included the scientific data that we have obtained.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The young earth theory does not even fit with the Bible. If you add up the age of those in the Old Testament, the result is a few thousand different from the young earth theory. Also, such a theory directly contradicts evidence that we have. A more accurate theory is the amended Day-Age Theory, or Age-Creationism theory. Granted, both of these are not developed within the scientific community itself. But that is no reason to discredit them initially.

As stated, the carbon dating still fits within Genesis if you do not take the term "day" as a literal 24 hour cycle, but rather a "rising of the sun to its setting." At no point does my proposition disagree with Scriptures. It fits within the context of Scripture, and still included the scientific data that we have obtained.

What do people not get about "From the beginning of creation he created them male and female"? God would not have said this if He didn't create man at the beginning.

As for C14 dating, which does indeed support an earth that is only 6-10 thousand years old, see kgov.com/c14

On Genealogies, prior to the Flood, the orbit of the earth around the sun would have taken 360 days, instead of about 365.25. There's more factors to consider than just, "oh the genealogies don't match so the proposed age must be wrong." See kgov.com/360.

See also rsr.org and youngearth.com for more evidence that the earth and the universe are really young.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[jsanford108]

What do people not get about "From the beginning of creation he created them male and female"? God would not have said this if He didn't create man at the beginning.

As for C14 dating, which does indeed support an earth that is only 6-10 thousand years old, see kgov.com/c14

On Genealogies, prior to the Flood, the orbit of the earth around the sun would have taken 360 days, instead of about 365.25. There's more factors to consider than just, "oh the genealogies don't match so the proposed age must be wrong." See kgov.com/360.

See also rsr.org and youngearth.com for more evidence that the earth and the universe are really young.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=age+of+the+earth

Also, what day did God create man? Day six, right? Apply my proposition to the fact that God created man on "day" 6. That still works within the confines of the definition of "beginning." Since man did not yet exist, his "beginning" was on day 6.

What is occurring here is that you are placing your theory into the verses, rather than deriving it from the verses.

 

[6days]

The young earth theory does not even fit with the Bible.

Various Bible authors, and even Jesus accepted Biblical creation and the young earth. If interested, I can discuss that further.

*If you add up the age of those in the Old Testament, the result is a few thousand different from the young earth theory.

I think you have recieved poor teaching from someone, but perhaps explain why you say that. God's Word shows geneaologies from Adam to Christ of about 4,000 years.

Also, such a theory directly contradicts evidence that we have. A more accurate theory is the amended Day-Age Theory, or Age-Creationism theory. Granted, both of these are not developed within the scientific community itself. But that is no reason to discredit them initially.

I reject those 'theories' because they contradict God's Word. Those 'theories' are an attempt to compromise the Bible with secular opinions.

As stated, the carbon dating still fits within Genesis

It certainly does fit. It's quite easy to understand when we accept the creation and flood account without trying to add deep time to what God says.*

*if you do not take the term "day" as a literal 24 hour cycle, but rather a "rising of the sun to its setting." At no point does my proposition disagree with Scriptures.

*

From the straight forward reading of God's Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why theistic evolution and long ages contradicts scripture.
A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

A Theologian Answers*
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"


An Atheist Answers*
From atheists.org/atheism
"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.

Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.

A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”


A Prof / PhD Biblical Studies Answers*

Dr. Tom Wang says "Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”


An Historian Answers (Prof with 2 PhD's)

Dr Benno Zuiddam“God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”


A Biologist Answers*

Dr Georgia Purdom says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."


Our Creator Answers*

JESUS speaking "Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"


So, again the question is, how can you (why would you?) squeeze millions of years into Gods Word without compromising the Gospel?

 

[jsanford108]

6days,
I grant that my proposition reads into Genesis. I know that. However, when confronted with the age of the earth being millions of years old, how does that align with Scripture? We have evidence that supports an age range of the earth greater than a million years. We have the Genesis Creation story saying that God created the entirety of the universe in 6 days. So one of these must be wrong, right? Or, is it more likely that both are correct. How can both be correct? Logic and reason can combine the two into the theory that I suggest.

My suggestion does not alter nor go against the word of God. If you would like, I can illustrate how applying my theory into Scripture is far more logical than many of the doctrines that young-earth theorists attempt.

My application into the verses does not alter the significance, the theology, nor the weight of the Creation event. My suggestion does not amend the verses in any way (it simply calls one to view the transcription from the POV of the author and his limited abilities to describe what he witnessed). My theory does not alter, nor lessen, the entire essence of the Creation story, the Gospels, or the Bible as a whole. Any attempt at saying that it is, is simply a strawman setup.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=age+of+the+earth

Also, what day did God create man? Day six, right? Apply my proposition to the fact that God created man on "day" 6. That still works within the confines of the definition of "beginning." Since man did not yet exist, his "beginning" was on day 6.

What is occurring here is that you are placing your theory into the verses, rather than deriving it from the verses.

Wrong, and not only that, you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Apply my proposition to the fact that God created man on "day" 6.

You then go on to say day 6 was the beginning for man. I agree, but that's not what the scripture says, it says "from the beginning of creation," NOT "from the beginning of man's existence." God started creating 5 days before man existed, meaning the author includes them in "the beginning". You also fail to consider that Moses, in addition to writing Genesis, also wrote Exodus, in which he wrote, "For in 6 days God created . . . and rested on the 7th." The word used for day is the same in the surrounding verses as it is in that verse.

"From the beginning of creation," affirms that man was made on day (a literal 24 hour day) 6.

The rest of my previous comment was supporting evidence.

If the earth is, say, 20,000 years old, instead of the proposed 6-10,000 year old range, would your "day" 6 be at the beginning of creation? or would it be about 6-10 thousand years ago (or more), roughly half the age of your earth? Is the halfway point at the "beginning"? No. Your timeline, then, does not match up with scripture.

In addition to all of that, aside from what I said in my previous comment, "Mitochondrial Eve" lived roughly 6000 years ago. http://creation.mobi/mitochondrial-...king-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

Y-chromosomal Adam (which should really be "Y-chromosomal Noah") is even younger; he would have lived a few thousand years ago, right around the time of the Flood, which would have caused such a genetic bottleneck.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[6days]

6days,*
I grant that my proposition reads into Genesis.

The problem with that is that the first few chapters of Genesis form the foundation to the gospel, and to every Christian doctrine. When we read secular ideas into scripture, then the gospel is compromised; and the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection become meaningless. *

*I know that. However, when confronted with the age of the earth being millions of years old, how does that align with Scripture?

It doesn't align... scripture refutes that worldview. Jesus placed humanity at "the foundation of the world."

We have evidence that supports an age range of the earth greater than a million years.

No...what you have is interpretations of evidence that say millions of years. Why not explore how these same evidences are interpreted to be consistent with God's Word. For ex...Comets can't last millions of years. Why choose to believe secular 'rescue device' explanations such as the Oort Cloud, which is based on long age beliefs; not evidence.*

We have the Genesis Creation story saying that God created the entirety of the universe in 6 days. So one of these must be wrong, right? Or, is it more likely that both are correct. How can both be correct? Logic and reason can combine the two into the theory that I suggest.*

No... sorry but, what you seem to mean is believe in the secular idea of billions of years and reject what God says. There are many reasons you can't mesh the two opposing beliefs. For example God says the earth was water and land came afterwards. Secular opinion says earth was a hot molten blob and water came after.*

My suggestion does not alter nor go against the word of God. If you would like, I can illustrate how applying my theory*intoScripture is far more logical than many of the doctrines that young-earth theorists attempt.*

I think I'm aware of all the various ways people have tried to add time into scripture. I'm also aware of how this compromise has turned millions of kids raised in christian homes away from the church. (If you try make Genesis allegorical it leads to believing other parts of scripture are allegorical...ie. Virgin birth, resurrection etc). Also, I'm aware of how people with good intentions such as those at Biologos compromised so much that they now teach heresy.*

...of the author and his limited abilities to describe what he witnessed.

God is the ultimate author. All scripture is given by God.*

 

[jsanford108]

Wrong, and not only that, you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.



You then go on to say day 6 was the beginning for man. I agree, but that's not what the scripture says, it says "from the beginning of creation," NOT "from the beginning of man's existence." God started creating 5 days before man existed, meaning the author includes them in "the beginning". You also fail to consider that Moses, in addition to writing Genesis, also wrote Exodus, in which he wrote, "For in 6 days God created . . . and rested on the 7th." The word used for day is the same in the surrounding verses as it is in that verse.

"From the beginning of creation," affirms that man was made on day (a literal 24 hour day) 6.

The rest of my previous comment was supporting evidence.

If the earth is, say, 20,000 years old, instead of the proposed 6-10,000 year old range, would your "day" 6 be at the beginning of creation? or would it be about 6-10 thousand years ago (or more), roughly half the age of your earth? Is the halfway point at the "beginning"? No. Your timeline, then, does not match up with scripture.

In addition to all of that, aside from what I said in my previous comment, "Mitochondrial Eve" lived roughly 6000 years ago. http://creation.mobi/mitochondrial-...king-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

Y-chromosomal Adam (which should really be "Y-chromosomal Noah") is even younger; he would have lived a few thousand years ago, right around the time of the Flood, which would have caused such a genetic bottleneck.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The key difference between you and I, is that I acknowledge that I am placing my ideas into the verses. Closing off your mind to possible and rational reasoning restricts your ability To comprehend logic and facts. You quickly dismiss any idea that is contrary to your own. That is not the approach one should take with any subject matter. Especially science. And even more so with religious science.

 

[jsanford108]

6days,
At no point does my theory alter anything contained in the Bible. The same with your theory. Neither one impacts anything. The only difference is that mine incorporates physical and natural evidence to support the Creation. Yours has no evidence apart from a strict interpretation of single words. Not single verses. Single words. You have closed off your mind to even trying to see any cosmological event from the point of view of Moses. You immediately dismiss any theory that contradicts yours.

JudgeRightly,
For the record, I do not believe science's theory of the Mitochondrial Eve. That theory was specifically created to support the theory of evolution. That is not the critique I have for my rejection.

To all,
The issue with science is that many use evidence of natural phenomenon to make philosophical claims. This goes against the very idea of science. However, to utilize scientific evidence to support philosophical claims is a just technique. Because we are physical beings. Like Descartes' "I exist, therefore I am." He utilized a physical existence to prove a philosophical point. The issue with this thread is that people are dismissing natural evidence because it is devastating to their theories and ideas. Claiming rather that "this is what the Bible says." The Bible never defines a day as 24 hours. It never defined a week as 7 days. It never says there are 60 seconds in a minute. Or that germs cause illness. Or that electricity is an electron changing orbitals. Using the Bible to defend a theory is fine. But using it as a means of dismissing evidence/alternate theories is a misuse and generates fallacies in arguments.

 

[6days]

6days,*
At no point does my theory alter anything contained in the Bible.

Your 'theory' destroys the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection.

*The same with your theory.

It isn't my theory...It's what God tells us. "For in six days God created theheavens and earth and everything in them"

(my theory) incorporates physical and natural evidence to support the Creation.

No..... you are believing evolutionist and secular ideas, ignoring creationist interpretations and God's Word.

*Yours has no evidence apart from a strict interpretation of single words. Not single verses. Single words.

I'm not sure how well you know scripture... and you don't seem to understand science. *

But....lets start with scripture. Not sure you noticed this, but whenever you have been presented with scripture, you try and suggest it means something other than what it clearly says. You seem to ignore that various Bible authors refer to the writings of Moses as true history. Jesus referred to Scripture often, and the book he referred to most was Genesis. Jesus asks "If you don't believe Moses...how can you believe me?"

all,*
The issue with science....

There are no issues with science. Science is knowlege...the search for truth using the scientific method.

I think you are confusing evolutionism with science? Evolutionism is a religion that tries to use science to justify beliefs in common ancestry and deep time that contradicts God's Word. Evolutionism has a long history of shoddy conclusions that science proves false. (useless appendix, backward wired eyes, Junk DNA, apemen like Neandertals, Miller Urey, peppered moths, lamarkism, Darwins finches, vestigial organs, psuedogenes ETC). Its an exciting time for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of scripture.*

The Bible never defines a day as 24 hours.

That is a silly evolutionist argument. Adam did not need a clock to know what a day was. God defined a day in the 5th verse of the Bible. As shown to you before, Hebrew scholars say that the creation days in Genesis are the same type of day and night period we now have.*


Question.... Why do you seem so determined to add time into scripture when there are theologians, Biologists, historians, Paleontogists, Hebrew scholars, cosmologists, *etc who say that science helps confirm the truth of scripture and the young earth? Why can't you accept the words of Jesus who referred to humanity from the time of "the foundation of the world"? Or, "from the beginning of creation?"

 

[Wick Stick]

I don't think the debate is about lengths of days. It is about the opening scene. How long was earth formless, void, dark? What other places in the universe have those features as mentioned even in the Bible, and why? Why did God have to shake out the earth like a tent or blanket before laying the foundations, in Job 38?

The typical format of Moses when writing was:
1, section title or summary
2, pre-existing situation
3, new action
4, possible end summary

This is found throughout the Torah. So v1 is a title or summary; it is not the action yet. Some translations have tried to preserve this by placing some duration of time about the opening scene of earth: 'the earth was already...' or 'Now the earth was (meaning already was...)...'

Nope.

Each section has a short summary at the end. It's called a colophon statement. Look it up.

When you write on clay/stone, it's much more convenient to have the summary at the bottom. Otherwise you have to drag a slab of heavy earth all the way off the shelf to see the summary at the top.

 

[Wick Stick]

A "day" from the perspective of any ancient author would be 24 hours, and a rising of the sun to its setting.

From the rising of the sun to its setting isn't 24 hours. A "day" in Hebrew cultures is/was reckoned as beginning at sundown, not dawn. While we're at it, they didn't use hours, they used "watches."

Now, why should I listen to anything you have to say? You clearly don't even know the basics of this topic.

 

[way 2 go]

To all,
The Bible never defines a day as 24 hours.

in the creation account God gives us the scale of how long a day was

Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

 

[God's Truth]

Yes...as did all animals.*



I don't get the joke.

The dinosaurs would have gone extinct for the same reason 500 other species went extinct last year alone. (changing enviroments, genetic problems, predators etc)

No, I said the opposing opinions between scientists.*

* Yes, he did.

You have no proof of dinosaurs living during the Bible times so why do you claim it?