It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

[Halbhh]

Hi halbhh,

Thanks for your response.


Yes, that's what I wrote and after reading your explanation my understanding isn't changed. You also should consider, certainly as regards this specific issue of some period of 'timelessness' in the garden, what I also copied from God's word concerning His own explanation before having the genealogical timeline written out for us that He Himself said that He was giving us a timeline of Adam's generations from the day that mankind was created.

So, I'm willing to consider that maybe there would be a time that God would draw us into the 'timelessness' that He experiences, but He didn't do so with His time with Adam and Eve in the Garden according to His very own explanation of the starting point of the genealogies. God seems to have again, answered the question for us as to what time period that He was accounting for us as the starting point of Adam's years of life. Just as God, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, has also answered for us the question of how long the days, in the six day account of creation, were.

They were six days pretty much like every day we still experience. With each one consisting of half a solar day of one evening and one morning. They were not some eons of age with many actual rotations of the earth on its axis with God somehow marking out a hundred or a thousand or a million such days, to be defined as 'one' day.

I believe that God knows the end from the beginning. I, therefore, believe that God knew before the foundations of the world were set in place, that a time would come upon the earth that men would be having this discussion concerning the length of time that the 'six days' marked out. God, knowing that this discussion was going to come about and knowing that fairly good arguments might be made to deny the reality of the days being six literal days, included in his account, just for the purpose that His children could have confidence in what they believed about the creation, 'and there was evening and there was morning' for each day of creation. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine to be and He knows the limitations of our understanding and the bent of our hearts to deny His truth. So God put in His word for His children a contextual clue whereby we could be assured that each day was just a pretty regular day as to its length.

I believe that similarly, God also included the ages of the generations from Adam for that same purpose. God knew that a time would come when manmade science would do it's very best to try and teach us to deny the truth of God concerning the age of the creation. God knew that day would come. So God, in His perfect wisdom, also included contextual notations whereby His children could be assured that they knew the truth when it came to 'how long this has all been going on'.

Otherwise, there is no reason for God to have defined each day as consisting of an evening and a morning. He could have just said that He did this and that and thus ended day one of His creating. He cold have just had written that Adam begat Seth and so-and-so begat so-and-so throughout the first generations without telling us how many years of life they had lived. And specifically how many years of life each father had lived before that father had a child! For it is really only the age of the father when he had each child by which we can count back the years of the creation event. If the Scriptures were to only tell us that Adam had a son named Seth at some point in his life and then lived 930 years, well Adam could have been 10 or 500 or 900 years old when he had his son. Then Seth's years of life allow us the freedom of guessing at another several hundred years in which he may have begat Enosh. No. God, according to my understanding gave us the age of each father when he had a specific child and then that child's ages when he had his child, and so on, because it is only by figuring the age of the father when he had each respective child whereby we can confirm God's timeline of the existence of His created realm of existence in which we live.

So, just so you understand, I have studied the Scriptures at length and as I've studied, I have found these contextual clues that God has sprinkled throughout His testimony to us of all that He has done, pieces that answer a lot of our questions and doubts as to whether or not we can really believe them as they are written. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to be and yes, He does know the end from the beginning, and I believe that for His children, He has given those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the answers to many of the questions that He knew were going to come up among mankind to deny the truth of His word.

God is just awesomely powerful, but also just awesomely wise!!! Praise our God!

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted,


One of the things that's happened in this discussion is you made some guesses at what I think/believe, and they turned out not to be what I think/believe, and that causes a lot of trouble in a discussion.

I believe the 6 days in Genesis chapter 1 were actual days, real, individual days, shown in a vision to Moses.

This leaves a lot of other aspects not yet given, but I hope knowing this can help you avoid ascribing to me some position I don't have and then arguing against it.

Here's something important -- You wrote this following in a very certain way:

Ted: "...what I also copied from God's word concerning His own explanation before having the genealogical timeline written out for us that He Himself said that He was giving us a timeline of Adam's generations from the day that mankind was created."

I notice you say "...He Himself said..."
(!) this we can check on.

and you continued: "... that He was giving us a timeline of Adam's generations from the day that mankind was created."

And then appears a condition you wrote: "He was giving us a timeline...from the day that mankind was created."

Here you, Ted, are saying that God said something to the effect the genealogy timeline was from the moment mankind was created, from that very day, starting that very day....
(unless you accidently wrote a different thing here than you meant to -- if you didn't mean this then please write brief post and say so).

Now, since you have said that is an actual wording from God to the effect the genealogy begins a timeline and that is precisely on day 6, or there is a wording to this effect, then we can check and see whether that wording is there.

I'm familiar with the Bible, and recognized the phrase "Adam's generations" so it only took a moment to find.

Let's look! (Genesis chapter 5) --

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

6When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. 7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
... (and continues in like manner)

------------

Ok, Ted, sincerely, we see that Man was created, and then there is a jump past the Garden of Eden in this passage, between verse 2 and 3!

I do not see any wording to the effect -- "...and this is a genealogy that begins on the very day Man was first created" <- not scripture. It's not there in the ESV, nor other versions I glanced at.

So, Ted, where is the wording from God that says the timeline or genealogy has a time duration beginning on day 6?

Well, it's not there. It the same assumption you were already using above, which I pointed out to you involves using an assumption about what is not in scripture.

If it were in scripture, you would not need to write a long post to me. A short one would be perfect, and I'd only be saying Amen.

But instead of Amen, I'm saying to you: notice that you are using an assumption.

That's ok so long as you know it's your assumption and don't try to say to other people your assumption is itself scripture, as I think you'd agree.

You could say "I think" etc., and then people hear the reality it's your theory, and not an accidental claim the theory is actually scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In
Real
Life

I mean in person vs online.

Thanks.

 

[Cimorene]

Thanks.

NP. YW. MP!

No
Problem

You're
Welcome

My
Pleasure

 

[miamited]

I've never met an adult IRL who did take the creation account in Genesis literally instead of allegorically. It's only been on here that I've "met" ppl who do but I mean they also believe the Earth is flat so.......shrugs.

Hi cimorene,

Well, you've now met a new kind of believer. I'm a YEC and I absolutely deny that the earth has ever been flat.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi halbhh,

Thanks for your response:

Here you, Ted, are saying that God said something to the effect the genealogy timeline was from the moment mankind was created, from that very day, starting that very day....

Yes, that's how I read the introduction that God caused to be written before He began to lay out the genealogical timeline from Adam. You have understood me correctly. As far as I know, at least when I count my age, I'm always counting from the moment I came to live upon the earth. Now, I'm certainly willing to allow someone to count my age from the time of conception, but at most, that throws the numbers off by 9 months and not billions of years.

Ok, Ted, sincerely, we see that Man was created, and then there is a jump past the Garden of Eden in this passage, between verse 2 and 3!

Uh-uh. I don't see any jump past the garden. I'm confident that your 'jump' is assumptive on your part.

BTW. God spent some 1,000 pages, as we print them out today to tell you all about Himself. I'm not troubled much with writing out 5-7 paragraphs to make a point about a part of it. If that's a part of your defense, that Ted's so long winded in his explanations, I certainly apologize for that and will try to keep it shorter.

I think this post is now long enough.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Halbhh]

Hi halbhh,

Thanks for your response:


Yes, that's how I read the introduction that God caused to be written before He began to lay out the genealogical timeline from Adam. You have understood me correctly. As far as I know, at least when I count my age, I'm always counting from the moment I came to live upon the earth. Now, I'm certainly willing to allow someone to count my age from the time of conception, but at most, that throws the numbers off by 9 months and not billions of years.



Uh-uh. I don't see any jump past the garden. I'm confident that your 'jump' is assumptive on your part.

BTW. God spent some 1,000 pages, as we print them out today to tell you all about Himself. I'm not troubled much with writing out 5-7 paragraphs to make a point about a part of it. If that's a part of your defense, that Ted's so long winded in his explanations, I certainly apologize for that and will try to keep it shorter.

I think this post is now long enough.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Ok. Thanks Ted. I rely basically on the whole Bible for my understanding of these early chapters in Genesis. One thing to think on: what is verse 2:17 saying? Don't answer quickly, instead read the chapter fresh...

I feel you will agree in time it's saying Adam was not yet subject to death.

If Adam hadn't broken faith, he would not then have died, not have become mortal, 2:17 is saying to us.

If we can listen. And if we believe.

Since Adam was not yet mortal, there in the Garden with God Himself, the Eternal One, in Person, and even with the Tree of Life....

We can't assume the Garden was just ordinary death-filled Earth before the fall, with a border to the rest of ordinary Earth, no difference.

Instead it was not like our world here today. It was truly special, and not in some small way.

It was the Garden of Eden.


This, alone, already makes any expecting the Garden was subject to ordinary time, short in duration in ordinary Earth years: such a expectation is a guess, or assumption.

We should say we don't know.

Why? That answer is in post 126.

 

[miamited]

Hi hal,

Thanks for your response. Apparently we've all been chasing rabbit trails. You responded:

I feel you will agree in time it's saying Adam was not yet subject to death.

Honestly, and I am not joking or pulling anyone's leg here, I didn't even know that we were discussing whether or not Adam was subject to death while living in the garden before the fall. Gosh, I'd have agreed with you on that in your first post to me.

I thought that we were discussing another issue. That is, was Adam's age, accounted at his death as 930 years, inclusive of the time that he spent with God in the garden. Heck yes, I'd have agreed with you 110%, if that were possible, that Adam was not subject to the curse of death before He and Eve rebelled against God's command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are we settled in this now?

You then wrote:

We can't assume the Garden was just ordinary death-filled Earth before the fall, with a border to the rest of ordinary Earth, no difference.

Again, it certainly wasn't death filled, but whether time was passed while life went on in the garden is the issue, as I understand it. So yes, I will agree that we can't assume that the garden was just ordinary death-filled earth, which many believe wasn't death filled either before the fall, neither can we 'assume' that the passage of time for the human beings living in the garden was any different than the passage of time upon the earth outside of the garden.

I hope that was short enough.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Halbhh]

neither can we 'assume' that the passage of time for the human beings living in the garden was any different than the passage of time upon the earth outside of the garden.

We agree on that. It's not told to us.

But with Adam not yet subject to death, then we cannot expect or assume he was aging in the Garden.

We can't expect his face grew wrinkled. We cannot expect he was subject to mortal time as we know it.

Adam wasn't subject to ordinary time there.

And, scripture simply does not tell us if that amount of time that passed for the outside world while the Garden went on. It could be 0, short, days, years, millennia, eons....

We simply do not have this revealed to us. It could be any amount of time, and fit perfectly to scripture.

So, we should not try to argue for young earth as if it is scripture, because it really does use assumptions that are not in scripture.

But we can tell people the wonderful news that God created all we see, and it is sublimely "very good". Yet, there is even better news to tell them....

 

[Cimorene]

Hi cimorene,

Well, you've now met a new kind of believer. I'm a YEC and I absolutely deny that the earth has ever been flat.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Nice to "meet" you but since we're not meeting one another IRL that doesn't change what I wrote before about never once having met anybody who believed the Earth was young in person. In fact the only reason I even heard of that term is bc of this forum. There are ppl on here who do vigorously insist that the Earth is flat & they are also believers in it being young. They use the same sort of tactics to push that belief like claiming if you had faith in God & not faith in "man" then the Earth being flat would be accepted as true. There's a thread about that right now.

Are you an anti-vaxxer too? There seems to be an overlap between YEC & AV.

 

[miamited]

Hi cimorene,

Thanks for your reply.

There are ppl on here who do vigorously insist that the Earth is flat & they are also believers in it being young.

That isn't actually saying the same thing that you initially said. It's a basic logic issue. A includes all of B, but B does not include all of A.

Yes, there are some flat earthers on these boards and yes, I would agree that a large percentage of them likely are YEC also, although not necessarily. One can believe that the earth has been flat for billions of years. However, the logical point that you make that all the flat earthers you have met are also YEC doesn't then equate to all the YEC believing in a flat earth.

I don't know what your experience is, but I'd contend that you don't get out much among YEC. There are a lot of us. I would say it likely most of us don't believe in the flat earth understanding. There have even been one or two here on this thread, but if you'd really like to research some of what we believe, there are quite a few YEC responses on the 'Creationism' boards.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi hal,

Thanks for your response.

But with Adam not yet subject to death, then we cannot expect or assume he was aging in the Garden.

I'm not sure that the two issues correlate. Years of age can be counted without someone aging. The accumulation of years based on the solar revolution of the earth around the sun, does not necessarily mean that something has to age, although certainly since the fall, it has. Adam could have lived a million years and look exactly the same as the day he was created, but he would have lived a million years. Adam could have lived 10 million years and still look the same as the day he was created, but he would have lived 10 million years.

Years are based on merely the revolution of the earth around the sun. Aging is based on the breaking down of our natural bodies due to sin. Some people 'age' faster than others. I've seen people who are 50 look practically like 30 year olds and others who looked like great grandfathers.

So, that would again be another assumption on your part that the passing of years in the garden would have necessarily correlated to aging.

And, scripture simply does not tell us if that amount of time that passed for the outside world while the Garden went on. It could be 0, short, days, years, millennia, eons....

No it doesn't specifically mention that point as you want to see it, but the Scriptures do tell us how old Adam was when he died and how old Adam was when Seth was born. We can, individually, make that revelation as hard or as easy as we want to understand it. I choose easy!

I'm just sayin'. However, I don't want this to turn into some snarky commentary and so I'm leaving this conversation between you and I on this particular subject. I'd encourage you to seek wisdom from God, just as I will on this matter.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Cimorene]

Hi cimorene,

Thanks for your reply.


That isn't actually saying the same thing that you initially said. It's a basic logic issue. A includes all of B, but B does not include all of A.

Yes, there are some flat earthers on these boards and yes, I would agree that a large percentage of them likely are YEC also, although not necessarily. One can believe that the earth has been flat for billions of years. However, the logical point that you make that all the flat earthers you have met are also YEC doesn't then equate to all the YEC believing in a flat earth.

I don't know what your experience is, but I'd contend that you don't get out much among YEC. There are a lot of us. I would say it likely most of us don't believe in the flat earth understanding. There have even been one or two here on this thread, but if you'd really like to research some of what we believe, there are quite a few YEC responses on the 'Creationism' boards.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I've never thought that everyone who believes the Earth is flat also believes it's young, or vice versa.

I get out a lot in life considering my age. I've lived in 3 states in the US, two major cities in Canada, two countries in Europe. I went to an online school run by a college in California that has students from around the world, so my classmates lived on different continents. I've visited many of them. I just got back from Australia. I go to one of the largest universities in North America. I'm part of a big student Christian ministry. On our own private forums I've specifically asked about YEC. People, including other Christians, were stunned. I also asked on the forums for the college & the OHS I went to, and ditto. But I've never lived in a rural area or in the South. I'm betting you live in one of those areas. What I've learned is that belief in YEC is exponentially more common in certain cultures & denominations than others. My friend from IRL joined here b4 me. She warned me about the issue. Her very first experience with learning about YEC was when a girl who believes in YEC bullied other Christians girls who didn't & seriously hurt them, demeaning their faith. I think Christians should always focus on Jesus. I usually don't come to threads about it but just happened upon this one today.

 

[Yahkov]

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." - Hebrews 11:3

 

[Halbhh]

Hi hal,

Thanks for your response.


I'm not sure that the two issues correlate. Years of age can be counted without someone aging. The accumulation of years based on the solar revolution of the earth around the sun, does not necessarily mean that something has to age, although certainly since the fall, it has. Adam could have lived a million years and look exactly the same as the day he was created, but he would have lived a million years. Adam could have lived 10 million years and still look the same as the day he was created, but he would have lived 10 million years.

Years are based on merely the revolution of the earth around the sun. Aging is based on the breaking down of our natural bodies due to sin. Some people 'age' faster than others. I've seen people who are 50 look practically like 30 year olds and others who looked like great grandfathers.

So, that would again be another assumption on your part that the passing of years in the garden would have necessarily correlated to aging.



No it doesn't specifically mention that point as you want to see it, but the Scriptures do tell us how old Adam was when he died and how old Adam was when Seth was born. We can, individually, make that revelation as hard or as easy as we want to understand it. I choose easy!

I'm just sayin'. However, I don't want this to turn into some snarky commentary and so I'm leaving this conversation between you and I on this particular subject. I'd encourage you to seek wisdom from God, just as I will on this matter.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Good morning Ted.

When you assume that Adam's unknown amount of (timeless?) time inside the Garden was counted as ordinary mortal years, I know you are assuming. It's an idea. It's practically a theory now.

That's simply true. It's not in scripture, so it has to be assumed.

We do know Adam lived 930 mortal years along with the mortal years of life of his descendents. All of those lifetimes are given together in same kinds of years -- mortal life: years of aging until death.

One of the things anyone need to ask themselves from time to time is whether they are in their heart staying loyal to a doctrine (a doctrine is some ideas put together that often (many cases) is an attempt to reduce/simplify scripture or go beyond scripture (speculate) or decide something that might be a mystery beyond our knowing; all of theses are sharply inferior to just listening and hearing and believing).

We should ask ourselves: are we elevating a doctrine, making a doctrine more important than the Word.

If given the choice, would we read a chapter for the last time in this mortal life just to prove or validate in our own understanding (lean on our own understanding) of our favored doctrine....? Or instead to truly listen and be changed, through faith?

Of course most of us here in CF, where people argue, have probably done that -- at times elevated a doctrine, to where the doctrine is the thing they now have faith in, instead of the Word!

But it's something to repent of, because we owe our allegiance not to our doctrines (our viewpoints), but to our Lord. He is Lord, not our ideas.

So, it makes us all humble, not just others (humbleness is not just for other people). The humble ones are the ones that can be acceptable as Christ instructs us in Matthew chapter 18 -- we have to really listen in the good way: where we aren't insisting on our doctrine as the foremost. He is the foremost, and our doctrines are at best this way:

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part(*) and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

(* -- like Paul, we do know things, but in some ways those things are "in part" -- less than all mysteries)

Our understandings, doctrines, are always here "in part". If we listen to the Word in faith, then we can know all things that ultimate matter though for our souls (!), things hidden until Christ revealed them, and still not understood by so many -- we can know all of the most important things for our becoming alive in the ultimate way, for Life.

I think you'd already agree with me that the precise numerical age of Earth is truly trivial. 8,090 years, 9,037 years -- it would utterly not matter even the very slightest amount an exact number.

It would not matter if it were 27,000 years, or 4,000, or 3,000,006,240 -- numbers truly, truly do not matter even the slightest bit for salvation or rescue or redemption or a new heart, in any way at all. But All things were made through Christ Jesus, and without him was not any thing made that was made. He was with God in the beginning.

So, should anyone insist to anyone an exact age of Earth as Truth? No, not as a Christian matter of faith -- it has not been revealed. They could do so as just a theorist, humbly admitting it's only a viewpoint, a mere doctrine or a mere leaning on one's own understanding.

 

[drich0150]

The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."

Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples. why can't one seek both? a way for both to happen or understand how one it can be considered literal and also seek out the metaphoric teaching as well?

1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created.

two very simple possiblities.
1) have you ever walked into a room at night and still have light? yes of course you have as man has invented the light bulb. If you read the passage God invents light it does not reveal it's source. IE his countenance is later revealed as being light a pure white light.

2) I favor this one: Genesis was written in the third person much like the book of revelation. How did God have the book written? He took John of Patmos and placed him in a spot where he could witness the endof the world and john to the best of his ablity did so.

Now many say the world was covered 100% in cloud before the first rain on day

Ever been outside in a serious storm? We just had hurricane dorian blow through and it was just light out.no idea or direction of the sun even when it was not raining but very cloudy/thick cloud cover.

Now imagine how thick the cloud cover would be if it had never rained anywhere on the planet...

Now put moses (or whom ever wrote this narrative) on a rock in this new world and tell him to write down what he sees. First this God says let there be light day breaks and because of the cloud cover everything illuminates without any indication of a point of origin. (again this can happen right now today/last week in fact)

Now day three have it rain to the point where the cloud cover breaks enough to see the sky.. As the clouds slowly rain out... the light begins to focous on a point in the sky that is brighter and brighter till the clouds burn away and clear sky and the sun is seen which again coinsides with the rain at end of day 3 and the revelation of the sun moon and stars day 4. So again planetary cloud cover, can only see light and dark it rains day 3 the clouds break enough to see the celestial bodies for the first time from writers perspective.

Again another plausible was to take this part of the narrative literally which works with what is written and logically played out.

Did it happen that way? who knows but it does make some sort of sense and is possible given what we know of God.

Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?"

according to the bible the day start with evening and ends the next morning.
"There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the first day."

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.

agree.

2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that?

Any. it a principle first. God could have taken any tree and said simply do not touch this or eat from it, if you do you will die. the knowledge of good and evil could have simply been the consequences of doing the one thing they were told not to do.

How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?"

If you have kids that tree becomes a busy street. You can put warnings and boundaries and threaten death.. yet your kids could be oblivious to the knowledge of why going out into a busy street is bad. likewise since there where no street the need of having the same such boundary was needed for A&E. So God made that boundary a specific tree.

I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?

literal apple, orange or pomegranate or whatever God selected and told his kids no.

Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good.

kinda does.. As Jesus took the events of Genesis literal, it allows you to further align yourself with not only Christ and his teachings it pushes one to well beyond their comfort zone and not yield to lukewarm complacency. IE there is no easy way out in the pursuit of marrying logical thought with the biblical narratives without first breaking yourself of the personal pride one has that says they know this or that could not happen even with God directing the events. Again. It is possible to make all of it make sense with just a slightly different perspective than tradition taught explanations.

What matters is not affirming its historical reliability. What matters is grasping the spiritual truths being communicated in the account, e.g. God exists, God is Creator, creation is not God, creation is good, humanity is created in the divine image, sin is a killer, humanity is in need of redemption, a promise of redemption has been made, etc.

again if both are indeed avaible... why not seek both?

Believing that something is historically true does not change anything. I believe Billie Holiday is the greatest jazz singer of all time, that doesn't somehow change my life. Arguments over taking the creation account in Genesis literally miss the point (including the argument I am now making). The point is the truths being communicated via the account. And, happily for those of us who accept the account, science can't communicate those truths to us, only the account in Genesis can do that.

that goes against the axiom of if one does not know this history they are doomed to repeat it. How why? because you in your example are not referring to a historical event. meaning billie holiday was never crowned the best of anything you are simply taking a historical figure and assigning what you personally think. This is not the same as knowing the real reason the civil war started and avoiding those very same triggers now adays.

Again here the benefit in learning to seek the plausibility of a literal genesis is in the elimination of pride that says you know better than God. if you can take what seems crazy and simply separate what the word says from what tradition teaches then you have truly learned to humble yourself before God and you yield completely to his word which in turn allow him to fill you with greater understanding and gifts.

Does what I am saying make sense?

it does if you deep down think you know better than the bible.

Again because this was taught literally by Christ himself. If he was wrong there is doubt he was God.

 

[miamited]

I've never thought that everyone who believes the Earth is flat also believes it's young, or vice versa.

I get out a lot in life considering my age. I've lived in 3 states in the US, two major cities in Canada, two countries in Europe. I went to an online school run by a college in California that has students from around the world, so my classmates lived on different continents. I've visited many of them. I just got back from Australia. I go to one of the largest universities in North America. I'm part of a big student Christian ministry. On our own private forums I've specifically asked about YEC. People, including other Christians, were stunned. I also asked on the forums for the college & the OHS I went to, and ditto. But I've never lived in a rural area or in the South. I'm betting you live in one of those areas. What I've learned is that belief in YEC is exponentially more common in certain cultures & denominations than others. My friend from IRL joined here b4 me. She warned me about the issue. Her very first experience with learning about YEC was when a girl who believes in YEC bullied other Christians girls who didn't & seriously hurt them, demeaning their faith. I think Christians should always focus on Jesus. I usually don't come to threads about it but just happened upon this one today.

Hi cimorene,

I hear you! I was just responding to your earlier post:

I've never met an adult IRL who did take the creation account in Genesis literally instead of allegorically.

It's only been on here that I've "met" ppl who do but I mean they also believe the Earth is flat so.......shrugs.

You said you'd never met an adult IRL who did take the creation account in Genesis literally...You then finished that thread saying that you'd only met them on this website and then claimed 'they' also believe in flat earth.

There are quite a few YEC among christians. There is even the Creation Museum in KY and the ICR website which supports only YEC. So, I'm saying that you apparently don't get out much from your small circle if you've never met anyone who is YEC IRL. Then you seemed to speak fairly all inclusively that the YEC's you had met on this site were also flat earthers. So I introduced myself and made an attempt to show that, no, there are actually a lot of YEC's that are not flat earthers. In fact, both of the groups I mentioned above to not support flat earth. If you are interested in finding out what YEC's believe and that they aren't nearly all flat earthers, here are some websites you might visit:

Answers in Genesis

Creation | Creation Ministries International

http://www.icr.org/

On this page you can find dozens of sites that support some form of either YEC or some just support the 'God created' approach. A part of the created by design group. I think it always good to at least 'know' some of the things others believe.

True story! My small group, several weeks ago, and I don't know exactly what the main subject was, we were talking about the John who wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. I made the comment that he had been boiled in oil before he was exiled to Patmos and you'd have thought I had a third eye on my forehead. The teacher stopped and snickered and asked me where in the world I had gotten that idea. I told him that it has long been a part of church history, where we find most of the accounts of how the original 12 came to their deaths. The Scriptures really don't tell us how the 12 disciples finally met their deaths. We get most of that information from extra-biblical sources.

We do know that John the Baptiest was beheaded and I believe there is some mention of James being put to death, but beyond that, the Scriptures don't really tell us how any of them actually died.

Now here's the part that I found amusing. Last Sunday our pastor was teaching on the Beattitudes and was dealing with the 'blessed are you who are persecuted for my names sake', and guess what? He mentioned how John of the Revelation was boiled in oil before being exiled to Patmos. Well, last night at Wednesday night dinner I asked my small group leader if he had caught it. He said that yes, absolutely he did, and he was going to go ask the pastor where he had gotten that information. The pastor gave him the same answer that I did. It has long been an accepted part of church history, most of the account being handed down by Josephus, who is a fairly well respected historian of the days of the early church being built around Israel.

There are historical records that John, before being exiled, they had first tried to kill him by boiling him alive. However, just like Hannaniah, Mishael and Azzeria, he came up out of the pot completely unscathed by the fiery hot liquid. So they exiled him instead.

So, I just say that sometimes it can be good to look into what others believe. You might come to a greater understanding yourself.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi hal,

Listen, I thought this was finished. But since you do seem to want to drag it along, you wrote:

When you assume that Adam's unknown amount of (timeless?) time inside the Garden was counted as ordinary mortal years, I know you are assuming. It's an idea. It's practically a theory now

Yes, I'm perfectly satisfied with owning up that it's only a theory, but I do hold that it is based on some fairly clear other points of the Scriptures. Just as the 'six days' being regular days is only a theory, but based on the Scriptural account that each day consisted of an evening and a morning. The main one concering Adam's years, being that God told Adam and Eve to populate and they didn't seem to have started keeping that command by the time they were put out. The second one being that God said he was 930 years old when he died and it is only by a similar assumption as you are accusing me of using, to say with any certainty that they years of Adam's life in the garden didn't count. If the garden were in heaven I would be perfectly willing to allow that we may not know how time passed, but the garden was in a place on the earth. That place on the earth, as far as I believe, spun around right along with all the dirt and land surrounding it. So, the garden experienced days just like the earth. It experienced rising suns and setting suns. All the movement of the stars and the moon.

Just so you also understand that your position is also as much theory as mine is. So, let's be done with it. I agree that one of us may find the need to repent of what we have believed.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Bible Highlighter]

NP. YW. MP!

No
Problem

You're
Welcome

My
Pleasure

 

[miamited]

Hi again cimorene,

Don't mean to be pushy on the subject, but I did feel led to provide you with some evidence to think on.

According to livescience.com, 4 in 10 Americans believe the earth to be no more than 10,000 years old.

4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago

This claim is supported by Gallup polling. This understanding of a young created earth has run steady at near 40% since 1985, but has seen some slight downward trend in the last few years. In 2009 Gallup asked the question a little differently by asking how many people believed that evolution answered how we got here or how many believe that we have existed in our present form since the beginning of time. Again there was a 40% response that held to our beginning in our present form.

Now, I see that you are from Canada, and so I did some research on what Canadians believe overall concerning the issue of a young earth.

Friendlyatheist.patheos.com makes the claim that only 21% or our northern neighbors hold to a young earth worldview. That percentage seems to also hold pretty steady among most of the Canadian specific sites that I visited. Oddly enough, when you make that query specific to Canada, most of the sites that, at least first pop up, are atheist websites. So, it could be that the atheists in Canada have done a better job of teaching others to deny the truth of God's word, than they have here in the states. That's just a thought, of course.

So, on your side of the border, it is claimed that 1 in 5 hold to a young earth worldview and on my side, it's 4 in 10. That breaks down to about 7.5 million Canadians and 132 million Americans. Just to give you some idea as to how popular or not the young earth worldview is.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Halbhh]

Hi hal,

Listen, I thought this was finished. But since you do seem to want to drag it along, you wrote:


Yes, I'm perfectly satisfied with owning up that it's only a theory, but I do hold that it is based on some fairly clear other points of the Scriptures. Just as the 'six days' being regular days is only a theory, but based on the Scriptural account that each day consisted of an evening and a morning. The main one concering Adam's years, being that God told Adam and Eve to populate and they didn't seem to have started keeping that command by the time they were put out. The second one being that God said he was 930 years old when he died and it is only by a similar assumption as you are accusing me of using, to say with any certainty that they years of Adam's life in the garden didn't count. If the garden were in heaven I would be perfectly willing to allow that we may not know how time passed, but the garden was in a place on the earth. That place on the earth, as far as I believe, spun around right along with all the dirt and land surrounding it. So, the garden experienced days just like the earth. It experienced rising suns and setting suns. All the movement of the stars and the moon.

Just so you also understand that your position is also as much theory as mine is. So, let's be done with it. I agree that one of us may find the need to repent of what we have believed.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted, I'm so glad to hear. I've got a couple of things to say I think you'll like, and I'm happy to share.

I'm not worried by someone believing in young earth.

Of course it can become a real concern here or there if some person begins preaching it as essential to faith or salvation (like some preached circumcision in Paul's day). Preaching something else as central instead of the gospel.

Then I hope I can somehow remind them those ideas are not the saving Good News, not the real thing people need, the only 'gospel' that saves, that of Christ's dying for us, to save us, through faith in Him, as our Savior.

And we cannot stand by without saying anything if another gospel that isn't Christ is preached instead of Christ.

But I'm ok with some of my most loved local brothers and sisters I know in person believing the earth is younger -- I'm delighted by their faith in Christ!

In fact, one of the most beloved of my sisters in Christ I know here locally believes that God has somehow mysteriously made the Universe look older than it is, and if I understood her that it only appears as if old. (I think she's sort of thinking such as if made in an instant or a day.)
[That would mean (though she probably didn't worry about such detail) that light was made to be already stretching across vast space as if emitted long ago, but actually new, the entire light beam over a vast distance all coming into being already formed, across light years, instantly. A possible equal thing to what she is suggesting.]

Instead of being worried or bothered by this belief of hers, I'm sorta warmed by it. I'm happy, delighted by it.

She has faith.

I've not to worry she will preach this young-Universe idea instead of the gospel, because she does not, and in fact she confided this belief to me because she felt she could trust me with it, and I was delighted by it also, even though I know it's not about fitting or understanding much concrete details of the heavens, the Universe, but nevertheless sort of asserts something about that anyway.

Because that's not really the point of her belief.

This belief of her's does have on the other hand a crucial or essential truth in real essence: God made all that is, the entire Universe!! Hallelujah.

So, see, I'm truly delighted by her faith.