Creation more than 6 DAYS

[wandering misfit]

How did Adam sons propagate?

 

[wandering misfit]

SOURCE: Six Days are Six Days - Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Annually, the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary subscribe to the following statement regarding the proper biblical understanding of the creation week.

We the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary wish to acknowledge publicly our view on creation so that the churches and individuals supporting the Seminary may know what to expect from classroom instruction and faculty writing. In so doing, we note the following as preliminaries: (1) the issue of creation has long been considered a fundamental Christian belief, one that distinguishes Christianity from other religions;
...............To God alone be glory.

I understand, I'm outside my bounds, I was once a Particular Baptist. There is something to be talked about here.

 

[Hammster]

With a book.

I don’t understand your answer.

 

[wandering misfit]

If we take literally Genesis, how did Seth propagate? Let's say the 1st 6 chp of Genesis.

 

[Hammster]

If we take literally Genesis, how did Seth propagate? Let's say the 1st 6 chp of Genesis.

Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.

 

[wandering misfit]

Archeologically, the flood story is told into the Americas. The Sphinx has water erosiion on it. We know there were "men of renown", we also know there is a great void of knowledge distroyed at the library of Alexandria.

 

[wandering misfit]

Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.

They must have. Pretty tight genetic pool.

 

[Hammster]

They must have. Pretty tight genetic pool.

Do you believe that Adam was a real person?

 

[wandering misfit]

Do you believe that Adam was a real person?

Adam is real, a type of Christ worthy of a covenant. Adam lost his identity, I'll use the mistransliterated, Jesus reclaimed it.

 

[wandering misfit]

And Cain, how did he propogate?

 

[chad kincham]

A day of 1000 yrs and night of a 1000 yrs. I'm pretty sure the sun didn't move when Israel was at war, I'll remember the vs in a minute, brain fog.

Plants would all die if the days were 1,000 years, sorry.

 

[chad kincham]

Adam is real, a type of Christ worthy of a covenant. Adam lost his identity, I'll use the mistransliterated, Jesus reclaimed it.

And Jesus taught Adam and Eve and their creationas literal.
That’s good enough for me.

 

[wandering misfit]

ok

 

[chad kincham]

There's biblical support, a day of the Lord is like a 1000 yrs.

6,000 years isn’t enough deep time for the fairy tale of evolutionary theory to occur, sorry.

 

[chad kincham]

I would like to believe the literal 24 hour day in Gen. 1, because the traditional view is easy to accept, since I am generally lazy, as I can simply adopt what I was taught by others. However, this traditional view has some problems, and I example one of them here:

If the universe was created 6k years ago, then how could we observe a supernova event 168,000 light years away? This is called "the light time travel problem." I have seen several hypotheses from Young-Universe-Creationists, but all of them leave much to be desired. I've yet to read or hear of a plausible explanation from either AIG or ICR or anyone else. This leaves me a skeptic about the traditional interpretation of "day" in Gen. 1.

Another problem I see is that Adam named the animals, got put to sleep and operated on, and then met Eve and got married, all in the same day. I find that implausible that it all happened in a 12-hour time frame. In many places in scripture the term "day" is used figuratively. And just because they applied the usage of the term literally in their literal week doesn't mean they believed the original context in Gen. 1 was literal.

The "day of the Lord" is a period of time, yet we apply the concept to our daily life in a literal sense. "Day of the Lord" means the time of the Lord's coming, or time of His judgment, etc. It's like the difference between "chronos" and "kairos" in Greek. Chronos is clock time, but kairos is a "right time" which is indeterminate in regard to the clock.

But this subject will continue to be controversial, because no one has all the answers to the questions. For now, it largely depends on one's personal interpretation and agenda. I'm open to any plausible hypothesis, but if I can't see it to be viable, I'm not going to believe it.

Scripture says God stretched forth the heavens at creation - and you’re assuming that God could only stretch forth the heavens at the speed of light.

I doubt God is limited to the speed of light. He could have expanded the entire universe in a second when the space time continuum was created and stretched forth.

 

[tdidymas]

Scripture says God stretched forth the heavens at creation - and you’re assuming that God could only stretch forth the heavens at the speed of light.

I doubt God is limited to the speed of light. He could have expanded the entire universe in a second when the space time continuum was created and stretched forth.

No, I did not assume that. I merely stated that the YUC's don't have a plausible explanation. I'm simply going with them on their arguments that assume God worked providentially within the laws of physics. If they want to explain it miraculously, then why do they try to explain it inside of physics and general relativity? It doesn't fit. It's either miraculous or providential. It's either literal or figurative. It can't be both, as proven by the poor interpretations.

 

[Hammster]

No, I did not assume that. I merely stated that the YUC's don't have a plausible explanation. I'm simply going with them on their arguments that assume God worked providentially within the laws of physics. If they want to explain it miraculously, then why do they try to explain it inside of physics and general relativity? It doesn't fit. It's either miraculous or providential. It's either literal or figurative. It can't be both, as proven by the poor interpretations.

Dr. Jason Lisle has put forth a possible solution, and has shown the problems that the evolutionists have with the light issue.

 

[tdidymas]

Dr. Jason Lisle has put forth a possible solution, and has shown the problems that the evolutionists have with the light issue.

I read this link:
Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity | Biblical Science Institute

IMO he has a fundamental problem with light travel time according to the general relativity equation. He proposes that light speed is different relative to moving observers in different directions. I believe this to be false. Light actually travels the same speed in all directions regardless of observer motion. What happens is the wavelength of light is different for each observer.

What he uses to confirm his hypothesis is that in experimenting with light speed, they use the average of the data. But averaging the data is not about different speeds, but rather about the tolerance of the equipment. Therefore, it is examples like this that makes creationists appear ignorant to the atheist, and in that way they think of creationists as idiots.

He argues for the convention of simultaneity, and proposes that the starlight reaching the earth was simultaneous to the creation of the stars with a view to one-way travel. This is nonsense for someone trying to understand the starlight distance issue from a general relativity perspective. You cannot mix physics with ancient convention and come up with a solution. Light takes time to travel to a mirror and back, as is proven in a laboratory. Therefore to say that one-way travel is different is nonsense.

Unless someone can show me clearly by reason and example using the equation, I don't go for this. I consider it to be nonsense.

 

[Hammster]

I read this link:
Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity | Biblical Science Institute

IMO he has a fundamental problem with light travel time according to the general relativity equation. He proposes that light speed is different relative to moving observers in different directions. I believe this to be false. Light actually travels the same speed in all directions regardless of observer motion. What happens is the wavelength of light is different for each observer.

What he uses to confirm his hypothesis is that in experimenting with light speed, they use the average of the data. But averaging the data is not about different speeds, but rather about the tolerance of the equipment. Therefore, it is examples like this that makes creationists appear ignorant to the atheist, and in that way they think of creationists as idiots.

He argues for the convention of simultaneity, and proposes that the starlight reaching the earth was simultaneous to the creation of the stars with a view to one-way travel. This is nonsense for someone trying to understand the starlight distance issue from a general relativity perspective. You cannot mix physics with ancient convention and come up with a solution. Light takes time to travel to a mirror and back, as is proven in a laboratory. Therefore to say that one-way travel is different is nonsense.

Unless someone can show me clearly by reason and example using the equation, I don't go for this. I consider it to be nonsense.

It really doesn’t matter if you believe him. I’m saying that he’s put forth a solution, and he’s brought up issues that the other side have to deal with. So it’s not like it’s 1-0 in favor of evolution.

And he has scripture.

 

[tdidymas]

It really doesn’t matter if you believe him. I’m saying that he’s put forth a solution, and he’s brought up issues that the other side have to deal with. So it’s not like it’s 1-0 in favor of evolution.

And he has scripture.

It's not a solution. It's a faulty hypothesis. And it's not about scoring sides. It's about how people understand reality.