Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Bradskii]

Are you in the camp of believing that Atheists that accept God's common design aren't real Atheists?

By definition. Which isn't the case with the original point that was made. And hey, there's no requirement to capitalise 'atheists'. It would be like me capitalising 'fundamentalist'.

 

[AV1611VET]

By definition. Which isn't the case with the original point that was made. And hey, there's no requirement to capitalise 'atheists'. It would be like me capitalising 'fundamentalist'.

I did it for the sake of parallelism.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The New Testament repeatedly affirms Adam as the historical father of all humanity, by whom sin entered the world:



If the New Testament is repeatedly wrong about Adam somehow being a mythical figure, including Jesus' genealogy in Luke 3:23-38, how can we trust any historical claims that the New Testament makes about Jesus, including His resurrection?

I don't care if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or 6,000 years old or if there was a local flood or a global flood. I care about honoring the New Testament's repeated affirmation of Adam as the historical father of all humanity.

An evolutionist will point to similarities between chimps and humans and insist that we must share a common ancestor, but a Christian who trusts the New Testament as the bedrock for our salvation will look at the vast differences between chimps and humans that evolution cannot explain.

Japanese mythology repeatedly affirms Amaterasu as the historical mother of all emperors, by whom Jimmu entered the world:

If Japanese mythology is repeatedly wrong about Amaterasu somehow being a mythical figure, including Naruhito's genealogy in wikipedia, how can we trust any (historical) claims that the Japanese people make about Naruhito, including His existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Japanese mythology repeatedly affirms Amaterasu as the historical mother of all emperors, by whom Jimmu entered the world:

If Japanese mythology is repeatedly wrong about Amaterasu somehow being a mythical figure, including Naruhito's genealogy in wikipedia, how can we trust any (historical) claims that the Japanese people make about Naruhito, including His existence?

The Japanese can talk about their myths all day long, but in the end, even they know it is "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" 2021.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Japanese can talk about their myths all day long, but in the end, even they know it is "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" 2021.

Reiwa (Japanese: 令和, pronounced [ɾeːɰa] ( listen) or [ɾeꜜːɰa][1])[2] is the current era of Japan's official calendar. It began on 1 May 2019, the day on which Emperor Akihito's elder son, Naruhito, ascended the throne as the 126th Emperor of Japan. The day before, Emperor Akihito abdicated the Chrysanthemum Throne, marking the end of the Heisei era.

Reverse
Value and denomination within wreath

Lettering:
10
令 和 元 年

Translation:
10
First year of Reiwa

 

[Ophiolite]

The Japanese can talk about their myths all day long, but in the end, even they know it is "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" 2021.

A telling example of cultural imperialism. Nothing to be proud of.

 

[Oneiric1975]

The use of AD and BC was not immediate (by a long shot) after Jesus birth. It's kind of interesting (as history is) to see how it developed and came into common use long after Jesus' life.

Keeping Time: The Origin of B.C. & A.D. | Live Science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Japanese can talk about their myths all day long, but in the end, even they know it is "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" 2021.

Wrong (as @essentialsaltes pointed out) and irrelevant. The argument being made is that Creationism must be true because the bible makes claims about genealogies. By the same logic Amaterasu must exist since we have a well documented genealogy for Japan's emperors.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Japanese can talk about their myths all day long, but in the end, even they know it is "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" 2021.

They don't use the Western dating system.

As someone who taught English in Japan, let me tell you there are many, many Japanese who don't understand our dating system (and can't get it right on tests).

 

[AV1611VET]

They don't use the Western dating system.

As someone who taught English in Japan, let me tell you there are many, many Japanese who don't understand our dating system (and can't get it right on tests).

What year is it in Japan?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What year is it in Japan?

Reiwa 3

 

[Astrophile]

Only if the evidence for evolution was unequivocal would I insist that other people believe it. No one has actually observed that natural selection acting on random mutation has the capability of such large-scale transitions as fish to amphibian or ape to man. Oscillations in the size of finch beaks or the shadings of peppered moths aren't evidence of large-scale, upward evolution.

If you google on 'fish-tetrapod transition' you will find about 433,000 results. One of the first ones that I found is an article by Jennifer A. Clack entitled 'The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations'. This article gives a detailed explanation of the fossil evidence for the transition from fish to tetrapod between about 385 and 380 million years ago. Whether this transition was or was not the result only of natural selection acting on random mutations, the evidence for the occurrence of the transition is compelling; I recommend you to read the paper for yourself.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Jewish commentaries traditionally upheld Adam's creation from dust, rather than evolution from an ape-like creature:

According to Targ. Yer. to Gen. ii. 7, God took dust from the holy place (as "the center of the earth"; compare Pirḳe R. Eliezer xi., xx.) and the four parts of the world, mingling it with the water of all the seas, and made him red, black, and white (probably more correctly Pirḳe R. El. xi. and Chronicle of Jerahmeel, vi. 7: "White, black, red, and green—bones and sinews white; intestines black; blood red; skin of body or liver green"); compare Philo, "Creation of the World," xlvii.; Abulfeda, "Historia Ante-Islámica."...

R. Meir (second century) has the tradition that God made Adam of the dust gathered from the whole world; and Rab (third century) says: "His head was made of earth from the Holy Land; his main body, from Babylonia; and the various members from different lands" (Sanh. 38a et seq.; compare Gen. R. viii.; Midr. Teh. cxxxix. 5; and Tan., Peḳude, 3, end)...

It is a beautiful and certainly an original idea of the rabbis that "Adam was created from the dust of the place where the sanctuary was to rise for the atonement of all human sin," so that sin should never be a permanent or inherent part of man's nature (Gen. R. xiv., Yer. Naz. vii. 56b).
ADAM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Jewish commentaries also traditionally upheld Adam as the historical father of all humankind:

While the generic character that the name of Adam has in the older parts of Scripture, where it appears with the article ("the man"), was gradually lost sight of, his typical character as the representative of the unity of mankind was constantly emphasized (compare Sanh. iv. 5; the correct reading in Tosef., Sanh. viii. 4-9):

"Why was only a single specimen of man created first? To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world; furthermore, in order that no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, 'Our father was born first'; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type. And why was Adam created last of all beings? To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation."

In a dispute, therefore, as to which Biblical verse expresses the fundamental principle of the Law, Simon ben 'Azkai maintained against R. Akiba—who, following Hillel, had singled out the Golden Rule (Lev. xix. 18)—that the principle of love must have as its basis Gen. v. 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of him who was made in the image of God (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, iv.; Yer. Ned. ix. 41c; Gen. R. 24). This idea, expressed also by Paul in his speech at Athens, "[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts, xvii. 26), found expression in many characteristic forms.
ADAM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Jewish commentaries traditionally upheld Adam's creation from dust, rather than evolution from an ape-like creature:



Jewish commentaries also traditionally upheld Adam as the historical father of all humankind:

Japanese stories traditionally uphold Jimmu as being descended from the gods rather than just from mortal humans. They also uphold Jimmu as the first emperor.

 

[Job 33:6]

Jewish commentaries traditionally upheld Adam's creation from dust, rather than evolution from an ape-like creature:



Jewish commentaries also traditionally upheld Adam as the historical father of all humankind:

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If all humans living today are descended from one woman, Mitochondrial Eve, who lived 200,000 years ago, this can be reconciled with the Bible's genealogies if there were gaps in them. If Y-chromosomal Adam came after Mitochondrial Eve, he likely could have been Noah.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

View attachment 300045

What if you were redpilled into seeing that Darwinism's interpretation of the evidence is wrong? The evidence doesn't speak for itself, especially since no human was around to record what happened. The evidence must be interpreted by our presuppositions.

 

[Shemjaza]

If all humans living today are descended from one woman, Mitochondrial Eve, who lived 200,000 years ago, this can be reconciled with the Bible's genealogies if there were gaps in them. If Y-chromosomal Adam came after Mitochondrial Eve, he likely could have been Noah.

Mitochondrial eve is merely the most recent woman we all share on the strict female line.

There is vastly too much genetic diversity to account for only two ancestors of the age with MT-eve.

It gets much worse if you also try to account for the diversity of the post flood world with only five distinct sources of genetic diversity. (If you can call antediluvians distinct given how inbred they would be in a literal reading of genesis).

What if you were redpilled into seeing that Darwinism's interpretation of the evidence is wrong? The evidence doesn't speak for itself, especially since no human was around to record what happened. The evidence must be interpreted by our presuppositions.

It always amazes me that the words of a fictional revolutionary written by transgender science fiction film makers has been co-opted by those who propose a strict literal obedience to an ancient religious text.


If there are presuppositions of science, perhaps you can explain them?

Evidence isn't magic, it can be justified and described.

 

[Bradskii]

If all humans living today are descended from one woman, Mitochondrial Eve, who lived 200,000 years ago, this can be reconciled with the Bible's genealogies if there were gaps in them. If Y-chromosomal Adam came after Mitochondrial Eve, he likely could have been Noah.

She isn't a person from whom everyone is descended. In fact, she isn't a single person. She's the most recent common ancestor of everyone using the matrilineal line. As lines die out, the identity of the person representing that woman changes.

If we were all descended from her, then we'd also be descended from her mother. Annd then her mother before that. Etcetera etcetera.

Go wiki it for all the info you'll need.

 

[Bradskii]

What if you were redpilled into seeing that Darwinism's interpretation of the evidence is wrong? The evidence doesn't speak for itself, especially since no human was around to record what happened.

Who recorded the six days of creation?