Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[Gozreht]

So one day is like a thousand years, then Christ who laid in the ground for three days actually is still there now for another 1000 years? If I wasn't confused then I am confused now.

Well, that part is not my idea nor my belief. I was merely posting what some are now in the Christian world trying to do as a way of blending science and creationism. This theory would go on to say that we are technically still in the 7th day and that is why a day 8 and none are mentioned and so on. I don't believe in the theory.

Yes, the Six Day creation account reads as six literal 24hour days, however a little reading into it's purpose is needed, you know how some say that Genesis reads like the Babylonian Myths? Well because it is an apologia against polytheism we see our God Elohim creating all things that others have set up as Idols.

Just asking here, are you saying thaqt Genesis is a myth or just a written account that is in response to polytheism or are you just stating some say that?

Do we need to take it literally then? Why? What do we gain from doing this? I believe God created the universe, you do as well, we both believe that he created through his sovereignty, the only thing we argue on appears to be semantics.

Sure I can see by what you say that you know God created. It may only be semantics. But why do we need to take it literally as six (seven) days? My own personal opinion and inspiration tells me because it sets everything else up. If we the word of God and start applying symbolism and interpretations to it then we lose the original meaning. Some would argue that it would gain the original meaning. I just don't think so. If we start apllying interpretations then we start to pick and choose which is symbolism and which is not. "Oh well, God didn't mean this in reality", that kind of idea comes in. Now do not get me wrong I know there are many allegorical lessons with each story of the Bible, but I feel that the Bible was written for man to understand. Creation was done so we knopw where we came from. I teach history and one of the things I tell my kids is that you can't know where you are going until you know where you are. And you can't know where you are until you know where you have been. One of the questions I have posted many times on other threads and no one has answered is when does Genesis become history and not just story? This is why I posted part 1 above. I don't think any of it is "story" I think all of it is HISstory.

About the placement in history, haven't you not read that we should not be obsessed with endless genealogies and whatnot and instead hold fast to that which is the Gospel? So suddenly it doesn't really matter how long ago God created, more that he did create. If we chase after the genealogies we are going to lose sight of Christ and what he accomplished on the Cross, no?

If I already know the cross and I want to know more then no it actually solidifies my faith. If that was the case then all I need to know is the end of each gospel and go on with life. But then I would miss life abundant. I know what you mean, I am just making a point that it won't bother those who are strong in their faith already.

[/quote]So let's now look at Genesis 2-3 which is a different creation story and it talks about the human condition, it judges rightly our predisposition to Sin, even Paul talks about it when he sees Christ as a symbol of Adam, now bear with me. If Christ is symbolically the second Adam come to turn us back to God as Paul says in Romans does Adam need to be a literal flesh and blood person, I'd argue no. As it is Adam in his very name (Adamah means Man) is a symbol for all of humanity, maybe because he has all of humanity "in his loins" maybe because he is just a symbol of the human condition, either way it again boils down to semantics.[/quote]Different creation story or different story on creation? It's the same creation but a different part of it. That is also explained in part 1. Yes, I believe Jesus was symbolically the second Adam, but that doesn't mean the first Adam had to symbolic as well. He is called the second Adam because he couldn't actually be Adam again, that would be reincarnation. He is symbolic because He is the first man to live without "death". Adam had the tree of life. Jesus is now the tree of life, not literally a tree. Sin entered through Adam, Sin is conquered through Christ. Well, you know all that. Sure, Adamah means "man" but that doesn't mean he is a symbol only. Scripture says God breathed into his nostrils (ruach, spirit). He was real.

www.ideasoftimbible.blogspot.com Just in case you want to read more of my ideas to know where I am coming from. Just click on the label about genesis, creation, evolution, and stuff.

 

[Keachian]

Well, that part is not my idea nor my belief. I was merely posting what some are now in the Christian world trying to do as a way of blending science and creationism. This theory would go on to say that we are technically still in the 7th day and that is why a day 8 and none are mentioned and so on. I don't believe in the theory.

I realised that, still I liked what I wrote so I left it and added the rest of my post.

Just asking here, are you saying thaqt Genesis is a myth or just a written account that is in response to polytheism or are you just stating some say that?

I'm saying that the first chapter appears to be set out in response to polytheism.

Sure I can see by what you say that you know God created. It may only be semantics. But why do we need to take it literally as six (seven) days? My own personal opinion and inspiration tells me because it sets everything else up.

As you say this is your own opinion and inspiration

If we the word of God and start applying symbolism and interpretations to it then we lose the original meaning. Some would argue that it would gain the original meaning. I just don't think so. If we start apllying interpretations then we start to pick and choose which is symbolism and which is not.

I'm not arguing for symbolism, Genesis 1 and 2 are historical accounts of our cosmology, do we truly believe that the earth is still a flat disc with a dome above as a literal reading of Gen 1:6-8 would have us believe, you gloss over this passage purely because you have always been taught that the earth is somewhat spherical.

"Oh well, God didn't mean this in reality", that kind of idea comes in. Now do not get me wrong I know there are many allegorical lessons with each story of the Bible, but I feel that the Bible was written for man to understand. Creation was done so we knopw where we came from. I teach history and one of the things I tell my kids is that you can't know where you are going until you know where you are. And you can't know where you are until you know where you have been. One of the questions I have posted many times on other threads and no one has answered is when does Genesis become history and not just story? This is why I posted part 1 above. I don't think any of it is "story" I think all of it is HISstory.

If I already know the cross and I want to know more then no it actually solidifies my faith. If that was the case then all I need to know is the end of each gospel and go on with life. But then I would miss life abundant. I know what you mean, I am just making a point that it won't bother those who are strong in their faith already.

If all we need is the Gospel then I have these questions for you:

• Why do we need a saviour?
• Why is Abraham special??
• What is the significance of the passover meal?

Those are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Different creation story or different story on creation? It's the same creation but a different part of it. That is also explained in part 1. Yes, I believe Jesus was symbolically the second Adam, but that doesn't mean the first Adam had to symbolic as well.

It doesn't mean the first Adam needs to be literal which is my point, nothing more nothing less.

He is called the second Adam because he couldn't actually be Adam again, that would be reincarnation. He is symbolic because He is the first man to live without "death". Adam had the tree of life. Jesus is now the tree of life, not literally a tree. Sin entered through Adam, Sin is conquered through Christ. Well, you know all that. Sure, Adamah means "man" but that doesn't mean he is a symbol only. Scripture says God breathed into his nostrils (ruach, spirit). He was real.

I agree that it doesn't mean he is a symbol only, but he is already symbolic of all of humanity.

www.ideasoftimbible.blogspot.com Just in case you want to read more of my ideas to know where I am coming from. Just click on the label about genesis, creation, evolution, and stuff.

Thank you

 

[Gozreht]

I'm saying that the first chapter appears to be set out in response to polytheism....As you say this is your own opinion and inspiration

Although I could still assign this book to Moses as the main writer and he lived in a land that had many gods, I can't see God needing to defend himself against polytheism and then using the same techniques like the greeks, egyptians and romans did (or would do).

I'm not arguing for symbolism, Genesis 1 and 2 are historical accounts of our cosmology, do we truly believe that the earth is still a flat disc with a dome above as a literal reading of Gen 1:6-8 would have us believe, you gloss over this passage purely because you have always been taught that the earth is somewhat spherical.

Well, perhaps, but as I read the Bible I alos read that at one time it was formless and void. Now I had to have research for what this means and no one really knows but some say it means it had no land mass, some say it had a space but physically formed yet. I don't know. I didn't skip over it, it just never came up yet. I feel it means it had no land. Like a "fetus" before it was "born". It has form but not yet what it will look like.

If all we need is the Gospel then I have these questions for you:

• Why do we need a saviour?Man had broken the path to God, twice!
• Why is Abraham special??God chose him out of all people due to his faith
• What is the significance of the passover meal?As a rememberance for the nation of Israel to the day of passover, but also now as a symbol of Christ.

I think we need more than the gospels to understand who we are. The gospels may be all we need for salvation but I think it is incomplete without all the rest. I hope you didn't think I was saying we didn't need anything else. But my short-versioned answers are in blue by your questions. Did I pass?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Gozreht;

But why do we need to take it literally as six (seven) days?

Here's why:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

Because God inspired Moses to establish the six day working week and a seventh day Sabbath based on the creation week. That week was not 7 million yrs. or 7 billion yrs long. It was seven days of 24 hrs and it became the basis for our present seven day week.

And, quite frankly, there is NO biblical no scientific reason to doubt that that is exactly what God intended.

Secondly, God told Moses to write: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Gen 1:14.

This verse by itself destroys any notion of 'long ages' for the days of creation. Why? Because if God made the constellations (which can give us our location & date of the year by mere observation of their position in the sky), and the moon (for planting at the right time, etc.), and the sun (which DAILY appears in regular circuit by the sundial each 24 hr day) then we have a complete understanding of what those periods of time are by mere observation of their movements...which, are measured in units of time as stated above, not in millions or billions of yrs.

If this doesn't open your eyes to the truth of this matter it is only because you wish to keep them closed.

 

[Keachian]

Although I could still assign this book to Moses as the main writer and he lived in a land that had many gods, I can't see God needing to defend himself against polytheism and then using the same techniques like the greeks, egyptians and romans did (or would do).

He doesn't need to defend himself, his followers believe he needs to be defended though.

Well, perhaps, but as I read the Bible I alos read that at one time it was formless and void. Now I had to have research for what this means and no one really knows but some say it means it had no land mass, some say it had a space but physically formed yet. I don't know. I didn't skip over it, it just never came up yet. I feel it means it had no land. Like a "fetus" before it was "born". It has form but not yet what it will look like.

That is an interesting line of thought, one of the other interesting things about this passage is that the Hebrew means literally "became formless and void" this leads to some beliefs of the creation account being the reparation from a destruction of an earlier world, bad theology right there.

I think we need more than the gospels to understand who we are. The gospels may be all we need for salvation but I think it is incomplete without all the rest. I hope you didn't think I was saying we didn't need anything else. But my short-versioned answers are in blue by your questions. Did I pass?

Yeah, that's my point, in reality all of Scripture contains that which is necessary for salvation, nowhere does it say however that one needs to believe in the creation account as literal, just that through Christ we come to the Father. After all what is the difference between taking just the moral lessons away from Genesis 1-3 and taking the passage literally?

 

[Keachian]

Gozreht;
Here's why:

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

Yep, using a gloss to tie the Sabbath to creation as proof of creation in six days.

Because God inspired Moses to establish the six day working week and a seventh day Sabbath based on the creation week. That week was not 7 million yrs. or 7 billion yrs long. It was seven days of 24 hrs and it became the basis for our present seven day week.

Sorry, who established a six day working week? Also of note there are two decalogues and only one of them contains the reference to creation. The other references the exodus.

Exodus:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.​

Deuteronomy

‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.​

In the end I don't think it matters why we were commanded to keep the Sabbath, only that we were.

And, quite frankly, there is NO biblical no scientific reason to doubt that that is exactly what God intended.

Yep agreed. Though why drag science into a theological discussion?

Secondly, God told Moses to write: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Gen 1:14.

Did God also command Moses to write Deuteronomy 34?

This verse by itself destroys any notion of 'long ages' for the days of creation. Why? Because if God made the constellations (which can give us our locationby mere observation of their position in the sky), and the moon (for planting at the right time, etc.), and the sun (which DAILY appears in regular circuit by the sundial each 24 hr day) then we have a complete understanding of what those periods of time are by mere observation of their movements...which, are measured in units of time as stated above, not in millions or billions of yrs.

Yet there are three "days" before we get these signs and while I do agree that day-age is ridiculous, so is the idea that God created light on its way to earth, as I have heard many proponents of omphalosism state.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Yep, using a gloss to tie the Sabbath to creation as proof of creation in six days.

And your little complaint somehow undoes this historical fact? Where do you think the six day working week with a day of rest originated?

Sorry, who established a six day working week? Also of note there are two decalogues and only one of them contains the reference to creation. The other references the exodus.

Santa Claus? How about Tinkerbell?

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."

If you only believed God's Word like you believe the Darwinians then you wouldn't be so terribly confused.

Exodus:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
​

Deuteronomy

‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
​

In the end I don't think it matters why we were commanded to keep the Sabbath, only that we were.

That point totally misses the mark. The basis for the 7 day week is in Genesis. But why should I repeat what I said before?

Yep agreed. Though why drag science into a theological discussion?

Because God made science. To him theology and science are merely two branches of the same explanation for the origins and development of our world.

Did God also command Moses to write Deuteronomy 34?

If you believed the scriptures like every believer is supposed to then you would know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." II Tim. 3:16.

Yet there are three "days" before we get these signs and while I do agree that day-age is ridiculous, so is the idea that God created light on its way to earth, as I have heard many proponents of omphalosism state.

Well, I'll let you sit and meditate on your belly-button if you think that in doing so it will help you solve some great theological mystery, but three days in time was not a problem for God. He is the One who determines length of time...whether the sun, moon, and stars existed YET or not.

 

[Hismessenger]

I believe that part of the problem with this thread is that it is being looked at in terms of our time understanding. When the word says that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. What it is really saying is that there is no time frame with God. A day could be a million years or it could only be a mini-second but it doesn't matter to God for it is always perpetually now. In his eternity, it could have taken 6 million years to create all that he has according to our time but with him, it could only be the twinkling of an eye.

hismessenger

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I believe that part of the problem with this thread is that it is being looked at in terms of our time understanding. When the word says that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. What it is really saying is that there is no time frame with God. A day could be a million years or it could only be a mini-second but it doesn't matter to God for it is always perpetually now. In his eternity, it could have taken 6 million years to create all that he has according to our time but with him, it could only be the twinkling of an eye.

hismessenger

"...there is no time frame with God"

That is not accurate. You are missing the point of Genesis one verse fourteen in which He clearly tell us that the sun, moon, & stars are meant to "...let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." And so our standard calendars throughout history are based on the unit of seasons (winter, summer, spring, and fall), days (24 hrs), & years (365 days). Unless this is true then the verse really has no practical meaning in reality and we have therefore, no practical understanding nor use of it.

It may be that one 'day' is as a 'thousand years' to God and a 'thousand years to one day'...but that is because He is an eternal Being. But one day for us is one 24 hr day (more accurately 23 hrs 56 min).

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, it's been a while since I responded to this argument so let me step in here and refresh (Hitting refresh button but nothings happening) HMMMMMMs.

PM you responded regarding the heavenly bodies that were created to set times and seasons thusly: Yet there are three "days" before we get these signs and while I do agree that day-age is ridiculous, so is the idea that God created light on its way to earth, as I have heard many proponents of omphalosism state.

First, the setting of times and seasons is not about the creating of time. It's about setting times by which we harvest or know that a new year has started because we are back to our starting place in our regular orbit around the sun, etc. I get the impression that your statement is trying to say that there was no way, before these other heavenly bodies were created, for us to reckon a 'day'.

Friend, there does not need to be another heavenly body in all of the universe for a 'day' to pass. You can look it up in any encyclopedia or scientific journal that a 'day', which by the way is different for other heavenly bodies, is a measurement of the time it takes for a celestial body, rotating on its axis to make a complete revolution. That always has and always will be the defining measurement of a day. You can look up a 'day' on Jupiter or a day on Mars or a day on Saturn and each one of them will be established as the time it takes that particular body to complete one rotation on its axis.

So, let's use this definition. It is, after all, the one that mankind has used for centuries and everyone will agree, I believe. If God, when He created the heavenly body we identify as the earth, created it spinning on its axis, much the same as it still does today, then within approximately 24 hours, as we reckon time, the earth would have experienced a 'day'. No sun, no moon, friend, not a single celestial body need be present in the entire universe. It could be, as I believe, that the earth could have freely spun on its axis as it does today but in the totally inky blackness of space for three successive rotations before God spoke the other heavenly bodies into existence and, as time is accounted upon the earth, there would have been three days to pass before the signs to establish times and seasons were created.

It is all completely logical and sensible. No wild gyrations or long drawn out mathematical equations need be considered. God wrote the Scriptures to man in man's language using man's terms and understanding. He knew what man would think a 'day' was. He knew that for centuries man would define a 'day' as one rotation of the earth upon its axis. God knew all that and He intended, when He caused His Holy Spirit to begin the work of revealing what He had done that explains why we are here and how we got here, that He would write and explain things to us in our terms and our language.

So, the Holy Spirit caused Moses to write the Hebrew word 'yom', but because God knows our language and our natural inclination to deny His truth, He caused His Holy Spirit to lead Moses to further define the Hebrew word 'yom' as an evening and a morning. Why? Because still to this day there is no period of time defined as an evening and a morning than a normal, roughly 24 hour, 'day'. There is not one single evidence in all of the writings of man whereby one can pull up a passage of time that is defined as an evening and morning, but a regular day. Not eons! Not ages! Have ever, ever, ever, in all the historicity of man's time, been written or defined as an evening and a morning. Never!! Not once!!!!! No where!!!!!!

We can argue over 'day'. We can know without any doubt whatsoever that the Hebrew word 'yom' can mean a regular day, or an eon, or an age, or many other measurements of time and so the word 'yom' to be properly understood must have, absolutely must have, some sort of secondary definer. God knows all this, friend. He knows that the word 'yom' can mean an eon or age or regular day. But, when the secondary descriptor is placed with the noun 'yom', then understanding comes. Then one can know just exactly what the author intended to mean by this ambiguous word 'yom'. There is no evening and morning of an age. There is no evening and morning of an eon. If these words were ever used to describe age or eon, which I don't believe and as yet no one has shown me they have ever been, they would be written in reverse order. An age or eon would never start in the evening, but a day can!

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Friend, there does not need to be another heavenly body in all of the universe for a 'day' to pass. You can look it up in any encyclopedia or scientific journal that a 'day', which by the way is different for other heavenly bodies, is a measurement of the time it takes for a celestial body, rotating on its axis to make a complete revolution. That always has and always will be the defining measurement of a day. You can look up a 'day' on Jupiter or a day on Mars or a day on Saturn and each one of them will be established as the time it takes that particular body to complete one rotation on its axis.

Sure, that is the astronomical meaning.

But why are we obliged to suppose that either Moses or the Holy Spirit were concerned about the astronomical meaning?

Why is it important to understand the creation accounts as if they were a scientific report of the creation process?

 

[juvenissun]

Sure, that is the astronomical meaning.

But why are we obliged to suppose that either Moses or the Holy Spirit were concerned about the astronomical meaning?

Why is it important to understand the creation accounts as if they were a scientific report of the creation process?

It is not (important or not important) , It is (is or is not). Many Christians are bored so they are looking for things in the Bible to argue about.

 

[Keachian]

And your little complaint somehow undoes this historical fact? Where do you think the six day working week with a day of rest originated?

God

Santa Claus? How about Tinkerbell?

You said Moses first.

"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."

I do know the 4th commandment

If you only believed God's Word like you believe the Darwinians then you wouldn't be so terribly confused.

Insinuating that I don't know God's word inside and out, where is your evidence?

That point totally misses the mark. The basis for the 7 day week is in Genesis. But why should I repeat what I said before?

No seriously does it matter why we are commanded to do something?

Because God made science. To him theology and science are merely two branches of the same explanation for the origins and development of our world.

Then why do you rail against science?

If you believed the scriptures like every believer is supposed to then you would know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." II Tim. 3:16.

Wow, creationists even quote mine scripture, I probably shouldn't be surprised. Here is the relevant passage:

"you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."​

-- II Timothy 3:15b-17
Is the acceptance of Genesis 1-2 as literal history necessary for our salvation?

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.​

-- Romans 3:23-25
How about teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness?
Well what form of righteousness manifests due to some faith in Genesis 1-2?
Does it equip us for any good work?
It sure equips us to fight tooth and nail on an internet forum about it, is this a good work? Nup

Well, I'll let you sit and meditate on your belly-button if you think that in doing so it will help you solve some great theological mystery, but three days in time was not a problem for God. He is the One who determines length of time...whether the sun, moon, and stars existed YET or not.

Cool thankyou.

 

[Gozreht]

So, the Holy Spirit caused Moses to write the Hebrew word 'yom', but because God knows our language and our natural inclination to deny His truth, He caused His Holy Spirit to lead Moses to further define the Hebrew word 'yom' as an evening and a morning. Why? Because still to this day there is no period of time defined as an evening and a morning than a normal, roughly 24 hour, 'day'. There is not one single evidence in all of the writings of man whereby one can pull up a passage of time that is defined as an evening and morning, but a regular day. Not eons! Not ages! Have ever, ever, ever, in all the historicity of man's time, been written or defined as an evening and a morning. Never!! Not once!!!!! No where!!!!!!

Saved me from saying this. I would not have been so accurate but I will take credit for the thought.

 

[Gozreht]

Sure, that is the astronomical meaning.

But why are we obliged to suppose that either Moses or the Holy Spirit were concerned about the astronomical meaning?

Why is it important to understand the creation accounts as if they were a scientific report of the creation process?

It won't take away our salvation one way or another, but I do believe that it was establishing His authority. When Genesis was written I am assuming that it was thousands of years after the creation of man and maybe man was questioning God and who He was. His answer: I am the Creator! You are mine. I have no beginning, but you do. I did it. I AM. This is just my opinion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, that is the astronomical meaning.

But why are we obliged to suppose that either Moses or the Holy Spirit were concerned about the astronomical meaning?

Why is it important to understand the creation accounts as if they were a scientific report of the creation process?

"Scientific" is a made up term. How about sticking to "true" or "truth" which is what God claims to offer.

Matthew 26:56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Acts 17:2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Word of God

 

[Kirkwhisper]

gluadys

Why not let creation itself tell us whether God was using natural or super-natural means of bringing the earth into being?

God's Word has already told us, but that isn't good enough for the likes of you.

6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 33:6-9

And God said, Let there be light and there was light. Genesis 1:3

 

[Kirkwhisper]

miamited

First, the setting of times and seasons is not about the creating of time.

You are also missing the point. A point that is so easily understood by simple faith that God means what He says on the surface of things. Gen. 1 and 1:14 in particular reveals to us that God made the world in six days. God...knowing that people would debate and haggle over this issue endlessly in the last days, was not ambiguous in the matter nor did He leave the matter in question: He said by Moses it was created in six days in chapter one. He said again by Moses (twice!) in Exodus that the world was created in six days. The literal nature of the word 'day' is established by the fact that the six day working week and one day of rest matched what God had done during the creation week. HE GAVE NO HINT that his children were to understand it in any other way.

Secondly......he emphasized the literal nature of those six days & one day of rest by Gen. 1:14 which marks off in specific periods of time commonly observed by man on a daily (the sun), monthly (the moon), and seasonally (moon & constellations). WHY, oh why is this such a problem to understand?

The nature of the evidence He provides us leaves us without excuse if we wrongly interpret the matter.

Those who interpret the world as millions of years old are not justified in doing so. Think of it this way: if God truly created man supernaturally then one minute after Adam was created as man are we therefore forced to conclude that he was 25 or 30 yrs old? By what standard? By what standard other then God's own word on the matter could we be justified in concluding such a thing? Well, the same thing is true of the rest of creation.

I am weary in my soul of theistic evolutionists who suggest that (if our position as creationists is true, that therefore) God is lying to us about the age of the earth by it's appearance of age. Oh? Who says? If Adam did indeed appear perhaps as 25 yrs of age a minute after he was created then why is God a liar? Who makes the rules?

 

[SkyWriting]

Those who interpret the world as millions of years old are not justified in doing so.

This is not true. At a party, the (drinker) said that the wine was the best of any wine. Even though Jesus had caused it to change from water to wine only minutes before.

So the bible itself shows us that what we see (or taste) might or might not be an indicator of past events.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

God

Correct.

You said Moses first.

Can't you tell when someone is being facetious? I did add a question mark at the end of Santa Claus & Tinkerbell. Did you miss that?

I do know the 4th commandment

But not apparently what it is based on or originated with. It was not a one million yr Sabbath, friend. Nor was it 7 million nor 7 billion yrs...for obvious reasons.

Insinuating that I don't know God's word inside and out, where is your evidence?

Based on your statements. If you knew God's Word you would know better than to say such things. But say it plainly: do you believe what God inspired Moses to give us about creation or do you believe Darwin? It has to be one or the other because you can't have it both ways. This is one point in which the atheist evolutionists are quite correct; it's one or the other.

No seriously does it matter why we are commanded to do something?

Does God ever tell us to do anything without a reason? Name it.

Then why do you rail against science?

Against science? Is that a joke? I taught science for nearly three decades. I am not against science, I am against neo-Darwinian theory. Science is something other than what they think it is.

Wow, creationists even quote mine scripture, I probably shouldn't be surprised. Here is the relevant passage:

"you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
​

-- II Timothy 3:15b-17

No. Here is the scripture in question with the Greek to establish what it says.

All <pas> scripture <graphe> is given by inspiration of God <theopneustos>, and <kai> is profitable <ophelimos> for <pros> doctrine <didaskalia>, for <pros> reproof <elegchos>, for <pros> correction <epanorthosis>, for <pros> instruction <paideia> in <en> righteousness <dikaiosune>:

17 That <hina> the man <anthropos> of God <theos> may be <o> perfect <artios>, throughly furnished <exartizo> unto <pros> all <pas> good <agathos> works <ergon>.

God's Word is not only inspired it is without error. Psalm 12:6-7, II Peter 1:20-21. John 10:35.

Is the acceptance of Genesis 1-2 as literal history necessary for our salvation?

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
​

-- Romans 3:23-25

Shall I take you literally on that? If so, then why so? What if I arbitrarily decide that you are not speaking literally and that Jesus died only a mystical, spiritual, gnostic death on the cross and not a real substitutionary death for our sins?

And if I were to take that position why would I be any more in error than you are about Genesis? If I can stretch scriptural truth like a rubber band and my imagination is the critieria for eternal truth then who is to say I am wrong? NONE....unless that is, it is the scritpures themselves which serve as final authority and not human imagination.

But to answer your question: that depends. When I was a theistic evolutionist many years ago I was corrected by men who knew the Bible well and showed me that the idea that Darwinism and long ages for the earth and the development of life on earth was at clear variance with scripture. After looking the situation over carefully I was converted to understand that Genesis is history and not poetic and/or symbolic. Any truly honest, Holy Spirit led believer will come to that conclusion in time. Those that do not are guilty of unbelief. But I will let the Lord judge whether such unbelief merits hell fire.

Does it equip us for any good work?

Yes. It is foundational. "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?" Therefore you are no more justified in declaring Genesis as non-literal/non-historical than I would be to change the atonement of Christ into some mystical, Picasso-type crucifixion that never actually happened in time and space. If Christ did not ACTUALLY, LITERALLY die upon the cross then why would faith, trust, and repentence be necessary in the first place? You have no right to declare something non-historical which Christ and the writers of the New Testament declared was in fact literal history:

Example, 'For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.'

Unless that verse represents real history then it has no relevance to us and no ultimate meaning, because Darwinian theory tells us that all human beings developed through sexual reproduction from a common ancestor millions of yrs ago. That is the exact opposite to what Paul said here.

Here's another: "...and Enoch also, the seventh from Adam". Jude 14

Count the names listed in Genesis for yourself. Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. So Jude confirms that the chronologies in Genesis were historical and not symbolical.

It sure equips us to fight tooth and nail on an internet forum about it, is this a good work? Nup

If serves a lot of good if you repent of your unbelief and believe the Word of God about creation.

Cool thankyou.

Don't take what you've been told lightly. The creation of the world is given to us in Genesis just as literally as the end of the world was given to us by Jesus. (Matthew 24, Luke 21). You did not see the former but you will see the latter...literally.