Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi. Since the whole bible agrees with Gen 1 as well as science, (as far as they can go), no I would not confine anything to one chapter. Is that agreeing with you?Hello dad. Nice to meet you.
If what you say is true, then there is no need to confine discussions to Genesis 1, as was suggested.
That was my point. I take it you agree?
Cheers
S.
Hi. Since the whole bible agrees with Gen 1 as well as science, (as far as they can go), no I would not confine anything to one chapter. Is that agreeing with you?
And I don't believe in a young universe, either --- so are we on the same page here?However, just to be crystal clear about my position, I do not believe Genesis 1, properly interpreted, supports a young universe, particularly in the light of Romans 1:20.
I think we have three distinct, yet similar positions. And, no doubt, there are variations in these, for many other people.Yes, we agree that discussion of creation should not be confined to Genesis 1. We also agree that, for proper interpretation, the Bible needs to be treated as a self-consistent whole.
I also note that AV1611VET does not agree with this in the specific context of discussing and defending "embedded age".
However, just to be crystal clear about my position, I do not believe Genesis 1, properly interpreted, supports a young universe, particularly in the light of Romans 1:20.
Regards
S.
I couldn't agree more, dad ---Only in assuming a modern present based perspective does the problem exist, and then, only inside the head.
I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.
I think you're a presuppositionalist and you don't know it.I couldn't agree more, dad ---
I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.
Failure to take Genesis 1 literally leads to all kinds of junk theology.
p.s. Check out the TAGS at the bottom of the page --- ain't they a riot?
In any case, the tags are the result of you failing to answer our questions and yet still acting like we're the ones in denial.
You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.In any case, the tags are the result of you failing to answer our questions and yet still acting like we're the ones in denial.
You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.
In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.
ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).
I keep telling these guys that the only ones who seem to have trouble with this stuff are the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.
Ya --- don't worry --- shortly I'm gonna just delete all my threads but a couple and ditch the read-only mode for a couple of weeks.
Yes, of course I know perfectly well why you refuse to answer our questions. Because you can't.You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.
In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.
ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).
You know perfectly well why I'm "failing" to answer your questions --- I've been saying for over two years why I'm not going to answer these questions in a thread like this.
In fact, I have to believe you guys knew I wouldn't, beforehand.
ETA: Don't think I'm not fighting temptation not to. In fact, I started to type a reply, then ended up deleting it so I could stay true to my teaching - (viz. never stray from Genesis 1).
Ya --- don't worry --- shortly I'm gonna just delete all my threads but a couple
Do you know the difference between defending the CREATION WEEK and defending the amount of time this universe has been in existence?you seem perfectly willing to claim the world was created 6100 years ago, yet their are no claims in Gen1 to support this.
I don't think I have any questions outstanding, MoonLancer --- in my opinion, I've answered them all at least twice --- some thirty times or more.why, so your own words don't come back to haunt you? so you rewrite history? Are you ashamed of what you have said in the past?
And I don't believe in a young universe, either --- so are we on the same page here?
And Genesis 1 - (or the entire Bible, Itself) - does not support the universe's age --- science does.
The Bible only gives the first --- (let me say it again) --- the first 4000 years of the universe's history, not the last 4000 of 6000 --- like you guys think.
And as far as Romans 1:20 is concerned, I can use it as well to justify embedded age.
No, I don't ---Yes you do. 4.5billion "embedded age" with 6100 "existential age" = YEC
Let me repeat: the earth is 4.57 billion years old --- that contradicts what I highlighted in red above.Wikipedia said:YECs believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.6 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating.
No kidding?Genesis actually never specifically says the universe's or the earth's age.
Then get out your calculator and do it yourself --- report back when you have the updated figure.It's all based on flawed genealogies done by a Christian Archibishop James Ussher.
Thanks for the correct --- the universe has been functioning in less time than I thought.4004B.C. Creation date + 2009 = 6012 years ago. Your math is wrong.
Uh-huh --- and I'm Genghis Khan.I can use the Bible to show that "embedded age" is contrary to God's nature.
No, these little things called fossils do not show a history. Just like skeletons in a graveyard don't show a thing (other than the fact that death is real), fossils don't show a thing --- and they aren't even skeletons --- they're impressions of things.Remember the OP? It shows that these little things called fossils show a history.
Because they're found in rock older than 6000 years --- that's why.I would still like for you to explain why fossils are found in rock older that 6000 years.
Again, even skeletons in a graveyard can't prove when the graveyard was built; and there is no such a thing as 600 million years of fossil "history".Only 6000 years of actual history, 600 million years of fossil history.
Yup.If the earth was created in Genesis 1 in 4004 B.C. with 4.5 billion years of "embedded age," then the 250 million year old rock was created in 4004 B.C.
You mean imprints of leaves or something?Said 250 million year old rock has 250 million year old fossils.
No, it doesn't --- but I'm tired of hearing you guys beg.Care to explain, especially since my question does deal with Genesis 1?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?