A New Interpretation of Genesis

[Not_By_Chance]

told you the age of the earth discussion would come back into the discussion....Does that make me an awesome fortune teller? lol

Of course it would - it's a fundamental question about where we came from. No-one can escape it. Now alleged old ages don't present any problems for non-Christians of course, but believers do have to deal with this in their own way. I'm in the YEC camp, because I find that fits best with what I read in the Bible and to me, makes more sense of Jesus's willing sacrifice on the cross to save the likes of me from my sins. I respect alternative views of other Christians, but I don't understand how they reconcile their theology with long ages for the earth and the cruel and wasteful process that is the TOE.

 

[razzelflabben]

Of course it would - it's a fundamental question about where we came from. No-one can escape it. Now alleged old ages don't present any problems for non-Christians of course, but believers do have to deal with this in their own way. I'm in the YEC camp, because I find that fits best with what I read in the Bible and to me, makes more sense of Jesus's willing sacrifice on the cross to save the likes of me from my sins. I respect alternative views of other Christians, but I don't understand how they reconcile their theology with long ages for the earth and the cruel and wasteful process that is the TOE.

personally, I believe that the truth is somewhere between YEC and Old earth, and I personally find this consistent with scripture and God's plan for salvation, but that discussion would take us off topic I am afraid.

 

[-57]

If you have an issue, I would love to be able to understand, but so far it just sounds like you either want to argue for argument sake or your confusing me with another poster....either way, communication is more important than being right or wrong in my opinion.

...as we exchange post we will get to know each other theology. Perhaps I got you confused.

 

[-57]

personally, I believe that the truth is somewhere between YEC and Old earth, and I personally find this consistent with scripture and God's plan for salvation, but that discussion would take us off topic I am afraid.

so, how old is the earth? Was Genesis literal and historical?

 

[razzelflabben]

so, how old is the earth? Was Genesis literal and historical?

Why can't it be all that and more?

oh, age of the earth...between old and young earth....most YEC base the age of the earth on genealogy...yet we know that Biblical geneology is incomplete. So why can't it be both literal and historical? all the while being a polemic?

 

[-57]

Why can't it be all that and more?

oh, age of the earth...between old and young earth....most YEC base the age of the earth on genealogy...yet we know that Biblical geneology is incomplete. So why can't it be both literal and historical? all the while being a polemic?

OK, just how many years do you add to the incomplete "Biblical geneology"
1 thousand years?
1 milllion years?
1 Billion yeras?

...where "is somewhere between"?

I'm just curious as to where you land....and why.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, just how many years do you add to the incomplete "Biblical geneology"
1 thousand years?
1 milllion years?
1 Billion yeras?

...where "is somewhere between"?

I'm just curious as to where you land....and why.

don't know exactly, which is something I am okay with....in addition, we don't know how long the particles existed before God brought them together nor how long a day was before sun moon and stars were created, all this gives us cause to suggest that older than YEC, younger than old earth

 

[-57]

all the while being a polemic?

I think we agree that Genesis is polemetic as it certainly show God is not a god.
For instance God made the sun...so why worship the sun (god)?

 

[-57]

don't know exactly, which is something I am okay with....in addition, we don't know how long the particles existed before God brought them together nor how long a day was before sun moon and stars were created, all this gives us cause to suggest that older than YEC, younger than old earth

What did the earth look like then...in its early days? Where there dinosaurs roaming the planet?

 

[razzelflabben]

What did the earth look like then...in its early days? Where there dinosaurs roaming the planet?

I wasn't there, how would I know?

 

[-57]

I wasn't there, how would I know?

Like all of us, you have the witness of the bible.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I wasn't there, how would I know?

I think this is the problem when anyone tries to "marry" man's long-ages ideas with the plain reading of Scripture, which gives no hint of any such long ages. It puts the reader firmly in the proverbial "grey area", which is why I try to keep it simple. i.e., I reject the theory of "goo to you via the zoo evolution" (but not limited changes, which allow a species to adapt to the ever-changing environment) and its obligatory vast periods of time in favour of YEC. I know atheists reject that viewpoint, but having heard many of the objections by creation-believing scientists to the TOE, I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to conclude that Jesus as God The Creator did it exactly how He told us He did it in Genesis 1 & 2. It's only my opinion, but I think that if one starts to reject parts of the Bible because it doesn't agree with secular scientific theories then one is entering dodgy waters. How can anyone then tell which parts of the Bible are true and which are just storytelling, especially when you consider how much cross-referencing between both old and new is done (see the chart I have uploaded)?

 

[-57]

I think this is the problem when anyone tries to "marry" man's long-ages ideas with the plain reading of Scripture, which gives no hint of any such long ages. It puts the reader firmly in the proverbial "grey area", which is why I try to keep it simple. i.e., I reject the theory of "goo to you via the zoo evolution" (but not limited changes, which allow a species to adapt to the ever-changing environment) and its obligatory vast periods of time in favour of YEC. I know atheists reject that viewpoint, but having heard many of the objections by creation-believing scientists to the TOE, I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to conclude that Jesus as God The Creator did it exactly how He told us He did it in Genesis 1 & 2. It's only my opinion, but I think that if one starts to reject parts of the Bible because it doesn't agree with secular scientific theories then one is entering dodgy waters. How can anyone then tell which parts of the Bible are true and which are just storytelling, especially when you consider how much cross-referencing between both old and new is done (see the chart I have uploaded)?

I agree.....when one presents an old earth/evolutionism argument many parts of the bible must be changed or omitted.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I think this is the problem when anyone tries to "marry" man's long-ages ideas with the plain reading of Scripture, which gives no hint of any such long ages. It puts the reader firmly in the proverbial "grey area", which is why I try to keep it simple. i.e., I reject the theory of "goo to you via the zoo evolution" (but not limited changes, which allow a species to adapt to the ever-changing environment) and its obligatory vast periods of time in favour of YEC. I know atheists reject that viewpoint, but having heard many of the objections by creation-believing scientists to the TOE, I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to conclude that Jesus as God The Creator did it exactly how He told us He did it in Genesis 1 & 2. It's only my opinion, but I think that if one starts to reject parts of the Bible because it doesn't agree with secular scientific theories then one is entering dodgy waters. How can anyone then tell which parts of the Bible are true and which are just storytelling, especially when you consider how much cross-referencing between both old and new is done (see the chart I have uploaded)?

Well said.
I would add that God provided...via the Scriptures...an accounting of the nations with meticulous documentation of the generations which then Matthew and Luke refer to.

 

[razzelflabben]

Like all of us, you have the witness of the bible.

true, but the Bible does not tell us what the earth was like in the very early stages apart from without form and void and after God pulled it together. IOW's there are no specifics in scripture about what the earliest days of our earth were like. We do know that after the fall of man, man lived much longer, which would suggest some differences but what all those differences are, is never mentioned unless you know of a passage I don't.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think this is the problem when anyone tries to "marry" man's long-ages ideas with the plain reading of Scripture, which gives no hint of any such long ages. It puts the reader firmly in the proverbial "grey area", which is why I try to keep it simple. i.e., I reject the theory of "goo to you via the zoo evolution" (but not limited changes, which allow a species to adapt to the ever-changing environment) and its obligatory vast periods of time in favour of YEC. I know atheists reject that viewpoint, but having heard many of the objections by creation-believing scientists to the TOE, I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to conclude that Jesus as God The Creator did it exactly how He told us He did it in Genesis 1 & 2. It's only my opinion, but I think that if one starts to reject parts of the Bible because it doesn't agree with secular scientific theories then one is entering dodgy waters. How can anyone then tell which parts of the Bible are true and which are just storytelling, especially when you consider how much cross-referencing between both old and new is done (see the chart I have uploaded)?

two things....1. we know what parts of the bible to take literally and which are figurative by applying common literary rules to reading the text. It's as simple as that, if it looks like a poem, smells like a poem, tastes like a poem, we can pretty much conclude with confidence that it is a poem.
2. I personally have yet to see a single time this method is applied to scripture that what the scriptures say doesn't like up with the evidence we find in science. In fact, all the evidence that testifies to the theory of evolution also varifies the creation account to the point in which the scriptures tell us about creation. The problem comes when we try to read our personal faith beliefs into science and or scripture, that is when discrepancies occur.

 

[razzelflabben]

some of you all would really benefit from reading "The Genesis Record" a really incredible look at what Gen. does and does not say. Worth the time and effort.

 

[Hoghead1]

Such scholars, Stevewv, represent only a tiny minority, however. Also, often those people really aren't scholars at all but simply unqualified online apologists, who provide totally bogus solutions. Ask me how I know. In addition, all will admit that there are around 100 apparent contradictions in Scripture. No one has ever denied that. The question is whether or not they can be explained away. As yet, many attempts have been made, but no one has been successful.

 

[Hoghead1]

In theology and philosophy, Razzle, there has long been debate over the existence of God, and much rich literature to read on the subject. Unfortunately, believers and non-believers today tend to overlook all that. Hence, their cases are very weak. There are the classical arguments for God and as well contemporary ones. And, of course, there are the refutations that have to be addressed. Another issue here is exactly what kind of God are you trying to prove or disprove. Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. There is more that one model of God or description of God as he is in his won nature available in Christianity. Most people think there is only one, but there are two at present. So I find seeking evidence for God is a fruitful area for study, though one must realize it is very complex and providing no easy or simple answers.

 

[Hoghead1]

Been there, done that, Jaemelo. I am particularly interested in the empiricist tradition, which led to modern science. Based on what I know about the philosophy of science, I would say evolution is definitely science. I have no idea why you would see it otherwise. Usually, I don't bother to go to recommended Google sources, unless I am sure that is a truly credible source, which I am not sure of in this case and wouldn't care about anyway, as I am intellectually very well-healed on the subject.