6,000 Years?

[Ivan Hlavanda]

[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Where in the first chapter of Genesis does it say anything about the earth coming into being? The beginning is "when" God began creating, not the time in which the earth came into existence.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There was nothing but eternal God who created time and space. Verse one say in the beginning God created heaven and earth. So in the beginning when He started creating, He created heaven and earth. The earth wasn't already there as you seem to claim.

The creation of earth took on day 1 'And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.' The creation of earth took 6 days. Nowhere does it say the earth toom millions of years, or billions as the world seems to teach.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Adam is not meant to be literal...

Adam and Eve were real people. The literature in Genesis does not allow otherwise.

Adam was also in Jesus' lineage. Or are you going to say Christ was an allegory too

NT also confirms Adam. Cor 1 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Or is this an allegory too?

The Lord Himself confirms Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000-ish years old, beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again?

If the universe was anywhere close to that young, the confluence of multiple independent lines of evidence would converge on a date somewhere within the range of 6,000 years. But every observation and every shred of evidence unanimously points to the observable universe being orders of magnitude older than that—possibly as much as 4.5 million times older (i.e., 26.7 billion years), according to more recent research (Gupta 2023). There is literally no evidence from any scientific field hinting an age of a few thousand years, which we started to realize back in the 1700s when Comte de Buffon calculated that the Earth had to be older than 75,000 years (Gorst 2002).

There is a problem with young-earth creationists who start with a conclusion and look for (and bend) evidence to support it. That is not how science is done. They are going about it precisely backwards. What they need to do is make observations and collect data, then develop a theory that makes sense of all the evidence collected. Start basic. Start with celestial bodies, the stars in the night sky. What are they? How far away are they? Go from there. Once you realize that some of the pinpricks of light are huge galaxies and millions of light-years away, come up with a theory which explains that evidence. (Scientists have been doing that for centuries, of course, but there's nothing wrong with seeing whether the results can be replicated—or, better yet, falsified!)

Although young-earth creationists have come up with some really sophisticated ideas, like Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) developed by Jason Lisle (2010), observable evidence keeps contradicting them. We use the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC) in modern physics, wherein the speed of light is isotropic (i.e., constant in all directions) because it aligns with experimental data and simplifies calculations. As just a coordinate convention, Lisle's ASC is technically permissible under relativity because it doesn't alter physical measurements or observed phenomena.

However, there are cosmological observations that it fails to explain. Consider the Jellyfish Galaxy (ESO 137-001), for example, which is plunging toward the center of the Norma Cluster (Abell 3267). As it moves, it is being stripped by hot gas and that has produced a tail that is over 250,000 light-years long (MacMillan 2019). Now, according to the ASC, the light from that galaxy reaches us instantly. Fair enough. But the ASC fails to explain how a galaxy has a tail more than 250,000 light-years long in a universe that is only 6,000 years old. Stretching galactic matter that far in that time interval would mean it was moving at 40 times the speed of light—which is not even possible.

And as far as I can tell the ASC doesn't make any unique predictions that can be tested or falsified, a key criterion for a scientific theory. It should also be noted that there was no observation or empirical evidence that necessitated the ASC. Lisle developed it only because he started with a conclusion that made it necessary, namely, a young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. Apart from that interpretation, the ASC would never have occurred to him. Again, this is going about things precisely backwards.

In short, the ASC relies on a permissible but scientifically unsupported convention that does not explain physical observations.

So then how and why can certain churches (LCMS, for one) teach it is around 6,000 years old?

Because the belief that everything was created in "six natural days" is the official doctrine that ministers and elders of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) are required to affirm and teach, doctrine that is derived from a young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. And it's not just the LCMS, either. Presbyterian ministers and elders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), for example, have the same requirement because their confessional standards specify that everything was created "in the space of six days."

----------
References:

• Lisle, J. (2010). Anisotropic Synchrony Convention – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. Answers Research Journal, 3, 191–207.

• MacMillan, D. (2019). Path Across the Stars. Medium. https://medium.com/swlh/path-across-the-stars-e8dbf93e4405 (Accessed December 30, 2024).

• Gorst, M. (2002). Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time. Broadway Books.

• Gupta, R. P. (2023). JWST Early Universe Observations and CDM Cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(3), 3385-3395.

 

[FaithT]

If the universe was anywhere close to that young, the confluence of multiple independent lines of evidence would converge on a date somewhere within the range of 6,000 years. But every observation and every shred of evidence unanimously points to the observable universe being orders of magnitude older than that—possibly as much as 4.5 million times older (i.e., 26.7 billion years), according to more recent research (Gupta 2023). There is literally no evidence from any scientific field hinting an age of a few thousand years, which we started to realize back in the 1700s when Comte de Buffon calculated that the Earth had to be older than 75,000 years (Gorst 2002).

There is a problem with young-earth creationists who start with a conclusion and look for (and bend) evidence to support it. That is not how science is done. They are going about it precisely backwards. What they need to do is make observations and collect data, then develop a theory that makes sense of all the evidence collected. Start basic. Start with celestial bodies, the stars in the night sky. What are they? How far away are they? Go from there. Once you realize that some of the pinpricks of light are huge galaxies and millions of light-years away, come up with a theory which explains that evidence. (Scientists have been doing that for centuries, of course, but there's nothing wrong with seeing whether the results can be replicated—or, better yet, falsified!)

Although young-earth creationists have come up with some really sophisticated ideas, like Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) developed by Jason Lisle (2010), observable evidence keeps contradicting them. We use the Einstein Synchrony Convention (ESC) in modern physics, wherein the speed of light is isotropic (i.e., constant in all directions) because it aligns with experimental data and simplifies calculations. As just a coordinate convention, Lisle's ASC is technically permissible under relativity because it doesn't alter physical measurements or observed phenomena.

However, there are cosmological observations that it fails to explain. Consider the Jellyfish Galaxy (ESO 137-001), for example, which is plunging toward the center of the Norma Cluster (Abell 3267). As it moves, it is being stripped by hot gas and that has produced a tail that is over 250,000 light-years long (MacMillan 2019). Now, according to the ASC, the light from that galaxy reaches us instantly. Fair enough. But the ASC fails to explain how a galaxy has a tail more than 250,000 light-years long in a universe that is only 6,000 years old. Stretching galactic matter that far in that time interval would mean it was moving at 40 times the speed of light—which is not even possible.

And as far as I can tell the ASC doesn't make any unique predictions that can be tested or falsified, a key criterion for a scientific theory. It should also be noted that there was no observation or empirical evidence that necessitated the ASC. Lisle developed it only because he started with a conclusion that made it necessary, namely, a young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. Apart from that interpretation, the ASC would never have occurred to him. Again, this is going about things precisely backwards.

In short, the ASC relies on a permissible but scientifically unsupported convention that does not explain physical observations.




Because the belief that everything was created in "six natural days" is the official doctrine that ministers and elders of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) are required to affirm and teach, doctrine that is derived from a young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis. And it's not just the LCMS, either. Presbyterian ministers and elders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), for example, have the same requirement because their confessional standards specify that everything was created "in the space of six days."

----------
References:

• Lisle, J. (2010). Anisotropic Synchrony Convention – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. Answers Research Journal, 3, 191–207.

• MacMillan, D. (2019). Path Across the Stars. Medium. https://medium.com/swlh/path-across-the-stars-e8dbf93e4405 (Accessed December 30, 2024).

• Gorst, M. (2002). Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time. Broadway Books.

• Gupta, R. P. (2023). JWST Early Universe Observations and CDM Cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524(3), 3385-3395.

So they just disregard all the evidence and science? The reason I started this thread is because I’m Catholic and while Catholicism has no official position on the age of the earth, all the priests I talked to about this believe in an old universe/earth. I was LCMS for a few years, then went back to Catholicism. Hubby went with me to the LCMS when I was going there, then stopped going to church when I returned to the RCC. He went to the LCMS this past Sunday even though he is an OEC. That doesn’t bother him. I’d like us to attend church together but he isn’t interested in the RCC and I don’t believe as the LCMS does. And it really bothered me when I was going there.

 

[Jonaitis]

Adam and Eve were real people. The literature in Genesis does not allow otherwise.

We don't know who wrote Genesis, but it has been traditionally attributed to Moses (who is a character based on Sargon the Great and other Mesopotamian figures).

Adam was also in Jesus' lineage. Or are you going to say Christ was an allegory too

It was tradition, like many other ancient cultures, to draw one's lineage to figures in their culture's stories.

Jesus, who hailed from the lineage of David in Matthew, did not hail from the same in Luke, but because of his status as Messiah, he drew his lineage to that of David for legitimacy.

 

[Zceptre]

For me personally...

Lord Jesus took Genesis literally and seriously and so did Paul and the rest.

The genealogy, if studied in depth, reveals a lot and that takes some serious attention span and devotion.

The literal record-keeping writing method of Genesis is also telling in that it meant single days like we experience. This has to be studied out for oneself with heavy diligence to see past all the stretch-it-out arguments.

Also, dinosaurs are found quite often these days with flesh on them... They are still to this day trying to explain it away.

If you dig the articles on this subject up (as there are many by now) you will find their "claims" in defense of millions of years and evolution very weak and to the point of insulting people's intelligence. (I refrained from insulting them back here lol)

Since the first T-Rex bone with blood cells was found, they have been finding them like popcorn in a bag.

 

[Job 33:6]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There was nothing but eternal God who created time and space. Verse one say in the beginning God created heaven and earth. So in the beginning when He started creating, He created heaven and earth. The earth wasn't already there as you seem to claim.

The creation of earth took on day 1 'And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.' The creation of earth took 6 days. Nowhere does it say the earth toom millions of years, or billions as the world seems to teach.

How about we read the Bible and just look at what it says:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Where in the first chapter of Genesis does it say anything about the earth coming into being? The beginning is "when" God began creating, not the time in which the earth came into existence.

Or some people prefer this translation:
Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

But still, in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was [already/past tense] formless and empty.

But it was there, already. It was just formless. In the beginning when God created it.

Indeed, the text even tells us when God created it. It wasnt even in verse 1, rather, it was on the 3rd day:

Genesis 1:9-10 NRSV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

This is where God created the earth. And it was good.

And when did God create the heavens?
Genesis 1:6-8 NASB2020
[6] Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so. [8] God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

That's right. God created heaven on day 2. Not in verse 1.

The catch is that both heaven and earth were already there. The earth was there and God simply moved the waters off of it so that the dry land would appear. And heaven was already there too, God just expanded it between the waters and moved the waters out of the way (kind of like what God did with the read sea, separating waters from waters).

And remember, God creates with the spoken word. Literally every creation day begins with "God Said":

Genesis 1:6, 8-9, 13-14, 19-20, 23-24, 31 NASB2020

[6] Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
[8] God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

[9] Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
[13] And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

[14] Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
[19] And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

[20] Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
[23] And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

[24] Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so.
[31] And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And when is the first time God speaks and the first thing He creates?

Light. Not heaven and earth

 

[River Jordan]

Adam and Eve were real people. The literature in Genesis does not allow otherwise.

Adam was also in Jesus' lineage. Or are you going to say Christ was an allegory too

NT also confirms Adam. Cor 1 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Or is this an allegory too?

The Lord Himself confirms Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Actually what you're describing supports the idea that Genesis is (partly) about the creation of mankind. One meaning of "Adam" in Hebrew is "mankind", and Genesis includes:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”​

​

27 So God created mankind in his own image,​

in the image of God he created them;​

male and female he created them.​

​

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”​

Two things stand out to me there. First the use of the plural they/them and "mankind", and second the poetic nature of 1:27, which is a good hint that this isn't a science paper or newspaper article.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Actually what you're describing supports the idea that Genesis is (partly) about the creation of mankind. One meaning of "Adam" in Hebrew is "mankind", and Genesis includes:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”​

​

27 So God created mankind in his own image,​

in the image of God he created them;​

male and female he created them.​

​

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”​

Two things stand out to me there. First the use of the plural they/them and "mankind", and second the poetic nature of 1:27, which is a good hint that this isn't a science paper or newspaper article.

God created mankind starting with Adam.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Let's look at the Hebrew text. ת
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר.3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light

So the ESV translation I provided is very accurate. I don't know where you got your translation from.

Anyway, God created the earth. The earth wasn't already there before creation. All creation was created by God. There was once nothing but God alone. Then God created space and time. And then heaven and earth.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So, they just disregard all the evidence and science?

Yes. They are wrong, of course, but for them it's a choice between what God says and what the world says—because they've been convinced by deceitful charlatans that rejecting young-earth creationism is the same as rejecting the word of God. So, obviously, they choose God every time. I would, too, and did for years.

But it's a category error to treat divine revelation (scripture) and a human interpretation thereof (young-earth creationism) as if they're the same thing. Those shameless charlatans would lose their empires of gold if people realized that you can reject young-earth creationism without rejecting scripture.

The reason I started this thread is because I'm Catholic and, while Catholicism has no official position on the age of the earth, all the priests I talked to about this believe in an old universe/earth. I was LCMS for a few years, then went back to Catholicism. Hubby went with me to the LCMS when I was going there, then stopped going to church when I returned to the RCC. He went to the LCMS this past Sunday even though he is an OEC. That doesn't bother him. I would like us to attend church together but he isn't interested in the RCC and I don't believe as the LCMS does. And it really bothered me when I was going there.

When you say that you don't believe what the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) believes, are you referring to young-earth creationism? And that's why you started this thread?

If that's the case, then you might be pleased to know that there are lots of LCMS folks who believe that the universe is far older than 6,000 years—including pastors and lay leaders! I know of at least one LCMS pastor who teaches official church doctrine in his vocational role, and yet is convinced personally that the universe is billions of years old and accepts evolution (the continuity of the earth's biodiversity).

It is also worth noting that only ordained ministers in the LCMS are required to adhere strictly to official LCMS doctrine and teachings in their vocational capacities. The lay leadership doesn't shoulder that obligation, and certainly the members and congregants have no such obligation.

 

[FaithT]

Yes. They are wrong, of course, but for them it's a choice between what God says and what the world says—because they've been convinced by deceitful charlatans that rejecting young-earth creationism is the same as rejecting the word of God. So, obviously, they choose God every time. I would, too, and did for years.

But it's a category error to treat divine revelation (scripture) and a human interpretation thereof (young-earth creationism) as if they're the same thing. Those shameless charlatans would lose their empires of gold if people realized that you can reject young-earth creationism without rejecting scripture.




When you say that you don't believe what the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) believes, are you referring to young-earth creationism? And that's why you started this thread?

If that's the case, then you might be pleased to know that there are lots of LCMS folks who believe that the universe is far older than 6,000 years—including pastors and lay leaders! I know of at least one LCMS pastor who teaches official church doctrine in his vocational role, and yet is convinced personally that the universe is billions of years old and accepts evolution (the continuity of the earth's biodiversity).

It is also worth noting that only ordained ministers in the LCMS are required to adhere strictly to official LCMS doctrine and teachings in their vocational capacities. The lay leadership doesn't shoulder that obligation, and certainly the members and congregants have no such obligation.

Yeah, I don’t believe in what they teach about the age of the earth, evolution and I also feel more comfortable taking the Eucharist from a Catholic Church and the sacraments.
Hubby did go to my Catholic Church for Christmas and Easter, so there’s that.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I also feel more comfortable taking the Eucharist from a Catholic Church and the sacraments.

What's the difference between the LCMS and the RCC on the Eucharist?

 

[FaithT]

What's the difference between the LCMS and the RCC on the Eucharist?

The Eucharist at the RCC is consecrated by a priest with valid holy orders and the Consecration is a big part of the Mass. The RCC also believes in Transubstantiation. The LCMS quickly blesses the Hosts and doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation, though they believe in something similar, but different.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's look at the Hebrew text. ת
א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר.3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light

So the ESV translation I provided is very accurate. I don't know where you got your translation from.

Anyway, God created the earth. The earth wasn't already there before creation. All creation was created by God. There was once nothing but God alone. Then God created space and time. And then heaven and earth.

Nope. Already addressed. There is no definite article in the first verse, in Hebrew. The most accurate translation is NRSV.

And I've already said this before too, but the Earth wasn't created until day three.

How about we read the Bible and just look at what it says:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Where in the first chapter of Genesis does it say anything about the earth coming into being? The beginning is "when" God began creating, not the time in which the earth came into existence.

Or some people prefer this translation:
Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

But still, in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was [already/past tense] formless and empty.

But it was there, already. It was just formless. In the beginning when God created it.

Indeed, the text even tells us when God created it. It wasnt even in verse 1, rather, it was on the 3rd day:

Genesis 1:9-10 NRSV
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

This is where God created the earth. And it was good.

And when did God create the heavens?
Genesis 1:6-8 NASB2020
[6] Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so. [8] God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

That's right. God created heaven on day 2. Not in verse 1.

The catch is that both heaven and earth were already there. The earth was there and God simply moved the waters off of it so that the dry land would appear. And heaven was already there too, God just expanded it between the waters and moved the waters out of the way (kind of like what God did with the read sea, separating waters from waters).

And remember, God creates with the spoken word. Literally every creation day begins with "God Said":

Genesis 1:6, 8-9, 13-14, 19-20, 23-24, 31 NASB2020

[6] Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
[8] God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

[9] Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
[13] And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

[14] Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
[19] And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

[20] Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
[23] And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

[24] Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so.
[31] And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And when is the first time God speaks and the first thing He creates?

Light. Not heaven and earth

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Eucharist at the RCC is consecrated by a priest with valid holy orders and the Consecration is a big part of the Mass. The RCC also believes in Transubstantiation. The LCMS quickly blesses the Hosts and doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation, though they believe in something similar, but different.

Briefly, what is the difference between "sacramental union" (LCMS) and "transubstantiation" (RCC)?

 

[FaithT]

Briefly, what is the difference between "sacramental union" (LCMS) and "transubstantiation" (RCC)?

LCMS believe that the Eucharist is Jesus “in, with and under“ the bread and wine. RCC believe the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus

 

[Job 33:6]

God created mankind starting with Adam.

Adam isn't mentioned in Genesis 1, rather it is "humanity" or "mankind". Male and Female, He creates them. Unless you think Adam is transgender, that's not about him.

 

[setst777]

Adam isn't mentioned in Genesis 1, rather it is "humanity" or "mankind". Male and Female, He creates them. Unless you think Adam is transgender, that's not about him.

Yes, "adam" means "man", but in context God created the first man and called him "Adam" (man), and God formed Eve from Adam's rib, and called her "Eve."

Luke 3:37-38 (WEB) ... 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren’t like Adam’s disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.

Jude 1:14 (WEB) About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones

 

[AaronClaricus]

For me personally...

Lord Jesus took Genesis literally and seriously and so did Paul and the rest.

The genealogy, if studied in depth, reveals a lot and that takes some serious attention span and devotion.

The literal record-keeping writing method of Genesis is also telling in that it meant single days like we experience. This has to be studied out for oneself with heavy diligence to see past all the stretch-it-out arguments.

Also, dinosaurs are found quite often these days with flesh on them... They are still to this day trying to explain it away.

If you dig the articles on this subject up (as there are many by now) you will find their "claims" in defense of millions of years and evolution very weak and to the point of insulting people's intelligence. (I refrained from insulting them back here lol)

Since the first T-Rex bone with blood cells was found, they have been finding them like popcorn in a bag.

The organics in T-rex fossils are different from Otzi the ice mummy and other mummies from 5000-6000 years ago. Taken literally this man would have lived and died in Adam's biblical time. Which is problematic because a (secular match) for historical Adam would have lived at the beginning of the neolithic farming revolution around 12250 years ago +- 150 years.

(Otzi 5350 years before present)