How old is the earth? less than 10,000 years?...WHAT!!!

[Mallon]

The point comes around again. People won't know what to believe in the Bible. "Is the gospel really true? or is it just a story to help comfort the people reading it?"

That's a strawman argument, Bouke. No one here is even arguing that Genesis is "just a story" to provide "comfort", let alone the gospels. Stories can have deep and profound meanings and lessons without necessarily being historical. I don't know about you, but I don't simply wave off the narratives my pastor tells me on Sunday mornings just because they might not have happened exactly as told. There's value to the message beyond the medium in which it is delivered.
Besides, Paul already addressed the slippery slope you fear in 1 Cor 15:17.

 

[Melethiel]

The point comes around again. People won't know what to believe in the Bible. "Is the gospel really true? or is it just a story to help comfort the people reading it?"

That is called a "slippery slope" argument, and it is a logical fallacy. I might as well ask you why you should take the Gospels literally when there are some aspects of Scripture which are clearly poetic.

Yes, there are people who HAVE gone all the way and denied core doctrines such as the Resurrection. There are many more who have not. Likewise, there are many people on the opposite side of the spectrum who take Genesis 1 literally, but also hold to many doctrines which I consider heterodox, and even heretical. You're going to have to find a better argument than that.

Heresies have existed long before evolution came on the scene, and there are no new heresies under the sun.

 

[champuru]

I think the whole evolution debate will eventually go the way of the heliocentrism debate. First people are in an uproar screaming that you cant believe in it and in the bible. Then many start to realize that they can coexist. Then nearly everyone accepts it as fact and we forget why there was so much debate. Some how the Christians on a "slippery slope" manage to keep their faith in the process.

 

[busterdog]

That's a strawman argument, Bouke. No one here is even arguing that Genesis is "just a story" to provide "comfort", let alone the gospels. Stories can have deep and profound meanings and lessons without necessarily being historical. I don't know about you, but I don't simply wave off the narratives my pastor tells me on Sunday mornings just because they might not have happened exactly as told. There's value to the message beyond the medium in which it is delivered.
Besides, Paul already addressed the slippery slope you fear in 1 Cor 15:17.

I agree that it is possible to be a TE and make the Rom. 10 confession of faith, taking the resurrection literally.

However, there is most assuredly something to the alleged strawman argument. Peter makes the argument. Peter says, since people believe that the past is a uniform tableu, there is no reason to think the future will be different from the past.

2Pe 3:4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

The depth of meaning argument, I kind of understand. There are times when spiritualizing the truth of the Bible can have as deep an impact or more than literalism. It can, but for the most part, it doesnt. If Jesus comes back tomorrow, his literal re-arrival has "deeper meaning" than any spiritualized, metaphorical sense of His return.

Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Isa 61:3 To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."

In the Old Testament, a world-wide flood is "deeper" in meaning than a local flood. An existence without death prior to the fall is a deeper meaning than lots of death, but just better thinking, prior to the fall. Etc.

 

[shernren]

The depth of meaning argument, I kind of understand. There are times when spiritualizing the truth of the Bible can have as deep an impact or more than literalism. It can, but for the most part, it doesnt. If Jesus comes back tomorrow, his literal re-arrival has "deeper meaning" than any spiritualized, metaphorical sense of His return.

It's funny. I was just leading a series of Bible studies on the end-times (based on 1 and 2 Thess) not too long ago. The believers addressed in those letters are constantly filled with the fear and doubt that they may well have "missed the boat" with regards to Jesus' return. Paul works to assure them that Christ is indeed returning soon; and one way to help understand this, I offered, is that when I die Christ will have returned for me, quite regardless of whether or not His actual, physical return has occurred in the world at large.

The Thessalonians' fear really resulted from being literal and rigid about Christ's return; the more loosely you hold to actual timetables and predictions and (literal) fulfilments of prophecies, however, the more the end-times give you hope as a Christian.

 

[busterdog]

I think the whole evolution debate will eventually go the way of the heliocentrism debate. First people are in an uproar screaming that you cant believe in it and in the bible. Then many start to realize that they can coexist. Then nearly everyone accepts it as fact and we forget why there was so much debate. Some how the Christians on a "slippery slope" manage to keep their faith in the process.

I doubt they do.

Now, creationists have their own slippery slopes. I wont argue for superiority of a necessity in the creationist position, when it comes to the result on their faith walk. But, clearly, people do not trust God in all things.

The Bible says dont be anxious for tomorrow. A very, very few can claim to live by that commandment.

 

[Mallon]

Now, creationists have their own slippery slopes. I wont argue for superiority of a necessity in the creationist position, when it comes to the result on their faith walk. But, clearly, people do not trust God in all things.

I guess the question comes down to who trusts God more? The Christian who is open to different interpretations of the Genesis creation account, while maintaining that regardless of how the world was created, God created it all? Or is it the Christian who insists that God must have created as literally described in Genesis, otherwise He cannot be trusted (if He exists at all)?

A rhetorical question, but one worth thinking about.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes!

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Mallon your statements mesmerize me
I love your writing style and arguments
sorry (this is wierd) but i'm allured

im surprised nobody used (srry if people did... lol didnt read that hard)
2 Timothy 4:3-4
"3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

 

[Mallon]

Mallon your statements mesmerize me
I love your writing style and arguments
sorry (this is wierd) but i'm allured

Thanks.

 

[ChristFollower2009]

The earth is definitely not 10,000 years old. It's more like about 4.5 billion years old.

 

[B1inHim]

IMO…
The earth itself is much older than the 10k

It took 6,000 years to be created.
There is a 1,000 year Sabbath

EDITED*THEN our timeline began and it is just about to hit the end of the 6,000th and the beginning of the last 1,000 years in about 3 to 10 years give or take the lost years between the BC and AD.

Before this planet was used in the final creation of men, it was populated with the very reason why we have advanced during this last 700 years.

GOD, all knowing, knew that fossil fuels would boost the knowledge rate by manifold.

We were not something out of a test tube; we were and are a planned community from the very beginning.
Yet the earth itself had to come to a tilt that would be human friendly and that didn't happen until it was time for us to be created.

Father put all the laws in motion when everything that exists was created.
Not just our planet, everything.
Once a law of natural selection is reached, something takes place that is GOD in origin.

The plagues of Egypt... make the water blood and all the other plagues were a cause and effect. His will, by His law of cause and effect.

The fall of Lucifer, he was the first of Gods creations and was made absolutely perfect in every fashion yet he saw Lord Jesus and became jealous. This jealousy raged into contempt and the rest is history.
All a succession of cause and effect.

Place the planet in a solar system and begin the laws of motion and by 12/21/20012 everything lines up perfectly enough to bring about His will and wellahhh...
The earth does not end at this time. It begins a different lifestyle. A less lighted one for 1,000 years.
This 12/21/2012 is most likely the mark of the beginning of the end of the 6,000 years since creation and the beginning of the last 1,000 years of this particular planets existence.
From what I have read in the Word, at the end of the 1,000-year Sabbath everything gets reworked and is all brand new.
WOW, this servant sure is looking forward to that.

Has anyone given any thought as to WHY the last days of this planet is numbered to just 1,000 years?
GOD time, until we show up is 1,000 years our time to His day.
(I see a can of worms here)

We will see.

I would have to be absolutely ignorant with half a brain (I have not read any posts on this thread) to not see that this planet has been around a lot longer than 10,000 years.
Either way, GOD made it and His will be done.
Love,
Brother Jerry