Gap Theory; Old Earth Creationism; Genesis 1 & 2

[Adventist Heretic]

Genesis accounts are not historical. They are figurative.

on what is this based?

 

[JulieB67]

The pre-Adamic creation theory answers most questions regarding the age of the earth and the fossil record. If there are problems, it is with our limited understanding, not with God's word.

I don't know why people have a hard time with this belief. We see that the earth is covered in "water" in the beginning and land is there underneath. He very specifically states he did not create it that way/in vain. He created it to be inhabited, not a ball of water. It's obvious it "became" that way. This coincides with the 2nd Peter teachings in that the earth is "of old" and was standing in and out of the water. It also states people are "willingly" ignorant of this fact.

It also makes sense too that when you look at certain continents on the maps- they look like they used to fit together. And why certain fossilized animals are found in places where the climates don't match, etc. It was obviously a paradise at one time.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

on what is this based?

I think you have it a little backwards. What is the basis for taking it literally other than tradition or fallacy of omniscience?

 

[Aussie Pete]

I think you have it a little backwards. What is the basis for taking it literally other than tradition or fallacy of omniscience?

Obviously you have little or no knowledge of the Bible. If you did, you would know that Lord Jesus declared that God's word is truth. (John 17:17) TRUTH. Not myth, fairly tale or make believe. Lord Jesus frequently referred to the OT. That's because there was no New Testament. There is no logical reason to doubt that the Old Testament is an accurate record of God's dealing with the human race from creation to the time that God stopped speaking to His people.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Obviously you have little or no knowledge of the Bible. If you did, you would know that Lord Jesus declared that God's word is truth. (John 17:17) TRUTH. Not myth, fairly tale or make believe. Lord Jesus frequently referred to the OT. That's because there was no New Testament. There is no logical reason to doubt that the Old Testament is an accurate record of God's dealing with the human race from creation to the time that God stopped speaking to His people.

I can see you are not one to have a discussion with if your view is not shared.

The Lord give you peace.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

Genesis accounts are not historical. They are figurative.

I think you have it a little backwards. What is the basis for taking it literally other than tradition or fallacy of omniscience?

Can you explain what part(s) of Genesis are figurative and not literal? The fact that the earth and heavens exist, proves Genesis 1:1 is historical. Could you narrow down the verses which are not historical and explain why?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Can you explain what part(s) of Genesis are figurative and not literal? The fact that the earth and heavens exist, proves Genesis 1:1 is historical. Could you narrow down the verses which are not historical and explain why?

I think the 7 days is certainly figurative since objective objective observation of the earth and our present knowledge of the universe indicate a much longer prosses.

 

[JulieB67]

Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob may very well be mythological, legendary or even part historical.

How can you believe in the end without believing/knowing the beginning? We even know the generations all the way through Christ from his birth. He can be traced all the way back. That's no myth to that.

And you do realize that Jacob is the father of the twelve tribes and so on? I find it hard to believe you don't even believe in the Patriarchs. And as Paul states, some the things happened to set the example for future generations
.
The OT is just as much our Father's word as the NT. Christ was the future and fulfilled the promise but it is all of importance and not myth or fiction.

As for the earth, God himself declares that the earth is "of old". When one realizes this when you go back it makes sense that he created the heavens and earth period. It then "became" void and without form. Later all on we see in Isaiah he states he did not create it that way. There are so many truths like that all througout the bible and that's why it needs to be taken as a whole.

But God destroyed that time period and eventually started this one but we still have the fossils, etc from that time.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I think you have it a little backwards. What is the basis for taking it literally other than tradition or fallacy of omniscience?

I think your view is the Johnny come lately, historical tradition says they took them literally. And when you do take them literally it leads to the same conclusion as the scientific data. The universe began with a flash of light. Science has confirmed that "let there be light " was the basis of the formation of the universe they call it the Big bang.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I think the 7 days is certainly figurative since objective objective observation of the earth and our present knowledge of the universe indicate a much longer prosses.

that does not have to be the case. they could be literal and we have a time dilation issue going on. Also the week could be a memorial to the events rather then a record of the actual time.

In addition the sequence is not literal it is not in sequential order. It is using a formula or pattern that repeats 3 times. the pattern is HEAVEN, EARTH & EARTH, then repeat 2 more time on days 1-3 and 4-6. this pattern shows that day 1 is part of the second occurrence of the pattern which mean that light was the origin of the universe. like the Big Bang.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

How can you believe in the end without believing/knowing the beginning? We even know the generations all the way through Christ from his birth. He can be traced all the way back. That's no myth to that.

And you do realize that Jacob is the father of the twelve tribes and so on? I find it hard to believe you don't even believe in the Patriarchs. And as Paul states, some the things happened to set the example for future generations
.
The OT is just as much our Father's word as the NT. Christ was the future and fulfilled the promise but it is all of importance and not myth or fiction.

As for the earth, God himself declares that the earth is "of old". When one realizes this when you go back it makes sense that he created the heavens and earth period. It then "became" void and without form. Later all on we see in Isaiah he states he did not create it that way. There are so many truths like that all througout the bible and that's why it needs to be taken as a whole.

But God destroyed that time period and eventually started this one but we still have the fossils, etc from that time.

since we know exactly where the tomb of Noah's Sons are you are. it will be hard pressed to make your point.
Searching for the tombs of Noah’s family - Dialogue

 

[JulieB67]

it will be hard pressed to make your point.

Which point?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Which point?

context is clear. try reading it again.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I can see you are not one to have a discussion with if your view is not shared.

The Lord give you peace.

I don't recall you offering your opinion as to Genesis. You stated it as bald fact, without any justification. I have presented the reason why I believe Genesis to be true. I've seen no plausible reason from you as to why it is mythical. Emphasis being on plausible.

 

[JulieB67]

context is clear. try reading it again.

since we know exactly where the tomb of Noah's Sons are you are.

If this is the point and you mean "are" it does not take away from the fact that God himself states that he did not create the earth void and without form. He created it to be inhabited. He's telling us right there in Isaiah he didn't create a wasted ruin. Which is what it was at the beginning of Genesis. So common sense alone tells us that when we take it back to the Hebrew the word "became" is the best translation for "was" in those verses.

Again, the bible has to be taken as a whole. When you do that, the 2nd Peter verses make sense. Not one Christian is "willingly ignorant" about Noah's flood. But many are about the first flood that completely wiped out everything. God talks about that as well in Jeremiah 4 with 2nd Peter being a second witness to that. And many Christians don't let the earth work as a witness as well and it is perhaps the biggest one.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

If this is the point and you mean "are" it does not take away from the fact that God himself states that he did not create the earth void and without form. He created it to be inhabited. He's telling us right there in Isaiah he didn't create a wasted ruin. Which is what it was at the beginning of Genesis. So common sense alone tells us that when we take it back to the Hebrew the word "became" is the best translation for "was" in those verses.

Again, the bible has to be taken as a whole. When you do that, the 2nd Peter verses make sense. Not one Christian is "willingly ignorant" about Noah's flood. But many are about the first flood that completely wiped out everything. God talks about that as well in Jeremiah 4 with 2nd Peter being a second witness to that. And many Christians don't let the earth work as a witness as well and it is perhaps the biggest one.

not sure what you are getiting at

 

[JulieB67]

not sure what you are getiting at

You stated this,

it will be hard pressed to make your point.

I wasn't sure what you were getting at as well and so I asked you. You told me to read it again. So I assumed you were talking about Noah. So I stated knowing where Noah's sons are doesn't take away from the fact that God specifically states that the heavens and earth are of "old" and that previous world perished. God said many are willingly ignorant about that fact. This was long before Noah's flood. Most likely millions of years before this time period/age we are presently in.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You stated this,



I wasn't sure what you were getting at as well and so I asked you. You told me to read it again. So I assumed you were talking about Noah. So I stated knowing where Noah's sons are doesn't take away from the fact that God specifically states that the heavens and earth are of "old" and that previous world perished. God said many are willingly ignorant about that fact. This was long before Noah's flood. Most likely millions of years before this time period/age we are presently in.

reference please

 

[Jipsah]

That's not much to base faith on.

Very litttle indeed. If my faith was based on that, I'd have cast it aside decades ago.

What part of the Bible do you believe to be truth?

The New Testament .

Jesus quoted the OT often, including a reference to Noah and Abraham.

The parts our Lord attested to.

Do you believe anything at all?

Of the masses of rubbish that people "interpret" the Old Testament to "mean", very little. Flat earth? Seriously? Geocentric universe? Literal 7 day creation? A talking snake? Fruit from a magic tree? A flaming sword defending a terrestrial Eden? These things are the history of the beginning of humanity right enough, but none of it is literal.

 

[Jipsah]

There is a lot of heresy in this thread.

Show me how it runs contrary to the Creeds of thr Church.