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

[Kirkwhisper]

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.

No. Those were merely sinners making an observation AFTER Jesus had performed a miracle, a miracle which they did not know about. Don't you get it?

 

[Keachian]

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.

He gave us creation itself, or is that book of testimony which is unmarred by human reinterpretation and additions so easily deceptive? While I cannot vouch that our current interpretation takes in all facts it is far better than ignoring those facts.

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.

Evidence from one of his books of testimony about creation, have you looked at the testimony that creation speaks itself?

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?

omphalosism, where does it stop? If you want to give me proof of omphalosism then prove that the world didn't come into existence 30 minutes ago. In addition could you give me a full scriptural build of this theology?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

He gave us creation itself, or is that book of testimony which is unmarred by human reinterpretation and additions so easily deceptive? While I cannot vouch that our current interpretation takes in all facts it is far better than ignoring those facts.

Unmarred? No, the creation groans together with us in travail since man fell in sin & will continue that way until the Lord makes a new heavens and a new earth. But it bears unmistakeable signs of God's recent creation.

Here are just two examples.

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Creation - YouTube

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis

Evidence from one of his books of testimony about creation, have you looked at the testimony that creation speaks itself?

Oh, for about 45 yrs.

omphalosism, where does it stop?

I didn't say one word about your navel, mister, nor anyone elses navel for that matter. Why do you find it necessary to come back to this?

...prove that the world didn't come into existence 30 minutes ago.

Well, if we can't trust the Word of the Lord in such matters then whose word should we trust? But that is just the problem...your problem; you don't trust what God has told us completely. God did not fail to communicate to us how the world originated and developed, you just fail to believe Him.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

A super article covering the matter of dating and the age of creation is found at:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

It is an exhaustive dissertation that shoots down the evolution theory of age as it concerns dating methods.

 

[shernren]

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis

Well, if we can't trust the Word of the Lord in such matters then whose word should we trust? But that is just the problem...your problem; you don't trust what God has told us completely. God did not fail to communicate to us how the world originated and developed, you just fail to believe Him.

Questioning Answers In Genesis: Radiocarbon evidence for the antiquity of the Earth

I mentioned earlier that δ13C values were always reported with radiocarbon ages to correct for the kinetic fractionation of carbon isotopes. Did Taylor and Southon report these values? Yes they did, and their results are profound. Reported δ13C values in diamond faces varied from -23.1 to 4.2. This means that diamonds are not isotopically homogenous. In other words, the amount of 14C in the diamond structure should also vary substantially from sample to sample, but it doesn't. The radiocarbon "age" is relatively constant between diamond faces, which means the age actually does represent background values, and not intrinsic 14C. Unfortunately, Dr. Snelling ignores this fact, which may indicate that he is not entirely familiar with the lab procedure.

... In case one is still convinced that these diamonds did contain intrinsic 14C, however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever? Diamonds are formed deep in the mantle, far removed from the atmosphere where 14C is actually produced. To suggest that radioactive diamonds are evidence for a young Earth requires an intentional ignorance, or downright dishonesty on the part of AiG.​

I trust the Lord, and I study what He created; trusting creationists, however, is a much tougher call.

 

[Keachian]

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.

I see no reason why I can't accept both.

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

That's not the point, Does it matter whether God gives us a reason for a command?

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.

It is only quacks of science who decide that they can get more money peddling creationism than in doing research.

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.

None of those are applicable.

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?

Slippery slope fallacy doesn't hold. Especially when it comes from comparing a nonsalvific branch of theology to the very core of our salvation. The Gospel concerns God's Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith forthe sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

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.

You'd be denying the substitutionary salvation of Christ, which is the core of our faith and the thing which sets Christianity apart from Judaism who are still waiting for their Messiah.

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.

Neither is the idea of the earth being an oblate spheroid or the sun being the center of the solar system. If the Holy Spirit will lead me maybe I will come back to believing in YEC, however at this time I have no call to nor do I feel any less far away from God or Spirit lead, in fact far more so now than ever before am I in a place where I can feel God's presence.

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:

Where is it provided that it is foundational?

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.

Paul would have used the story whether he believed it was literal or not.

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.

Do not devote yourself to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

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

It does? How?

Don't take what you've been told lightly. The creation of the world is given to us just as literally as the end of the world. You did not seen the former but you will see the latter.

I wait in expectant hope for the day of his second coming. I do hope he will not tarry much longer.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I see no reason why I can't accept both.

I've given you plenty of reasons. The problem is in your level of commitment to error and unbelief.

That's not the point, Does it matter whether God gives us a reason for a command?

You were given an answer and replied with the very same question.

It is only quacks of science who decide that they can get more money peddling creationism than in doing research.

What an incredibly stupid statement. MOSES was a creationist (Exodus 20:11) and the Lord Jesus was not only a creationist...He was the CREATOR! (Mark 10:6) (Colossians 1:16-18).

You won't find a single mention of evolution ANYWHERE in scripture.

None of those are applicable.

Everything I told you, and more importantly everything God's Word says on this subject is applicable. You are not being honest.

Slippery slope fallacy doesn't hold. Especially when it comes from comparing a nonsalvific branch of theology to the very core of our salvation. The Gospel concerns God's Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith forthe sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

You are not very good at playing dodge ball, Mr. skeptic. THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO reject the historicity of Genesis than there is to REJECT THE historicity of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. The accounts read the same.

You'd be denying the substitutionary salvation of Christ, which is the core of our faith and the thing which sets Christianity apart from Judaism who are still waiting for their Messiah.

Exactly. Well, at least you get that much. My point was made above. You have no right nor authority to arbitrarily declare Genesis as non-historical or less than literal than you would to make the same conclusions about Christ's virgin birth, miracles, healings, death, burial, nor resurrection.

But it's clear that you don't get it. you don't wish to get it...never mind the fact that NOT ONE of all the passages in which Genesis is quoted in the New Testament reveal anything but actual history and that the events recorded by Moses were history.

Neither is the idea of the earth being an oblate spheroid or the sun being the center of the solar system. If the Holy Spirit will lead me maybe I will come back to believing in YEC, however at this time I have no call to nor do I feel any less far away from God or Spirit lead, in fact far more so now than ever before am I in a place where I can feel God's presence.

What have you been studying then?

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

circle--applicable to the globular form of the earth, above which, and the vault of sky around it, He sits. For "upon" translate "above." JFB Commentary on the Bible, 1880.

"however at this time I have no call to nor do I feel any less far away from God or Spirit lead..."

You should because you aren't listening. You are being very careless with details.

Where is it provided that it is foundational?

Are you serious? Are you so far removed from the reality of scriptural teaching that you don't know that every major doctrine of the Christian faith is alluded to in Genesis? (1) inspiration: "And God said..." (2) the virgin birth of Christ (Gen. 3:15), (3) the atonment by blood (Gen. 3:21) (4) the fall of man (Gen 3), (5) the grace of god (Gen. 6:8), (6) judgment (Gen 3 & Gen 7-8), the second coming of Christ (Gen 5:24 connected to Jude 1:14) etc.

Paul would have used the story whether he believed it was literal or not.

What tells you that he wasn't literal or historical in those statements?

Do not devote yourself to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

Should I take you literal on that also? You see, it works both ways...that is if I were to choose to play your game and arbitrarily declare things of a historical nature as non-literal, non-real in time and history.

Are you trying to say that believers should not discuss the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ which is based on those very same family trees mentioned in Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke? That's shallow thinking, friend. THOSE FAMILY LINEAGES give us the proof that Jesus was the Son of David and heir to the throne of Israel! That's just how important they are.

So if they were not literal from Adam to Christ (Luke 3) then they are of no historical value to any of us and a waste of space in holy scripture. Good grief! Who but a heretic with no conscience could believe such a thing?

It does? How?

The Lord is displeased with all unbelief, especially when one has been shown the truth with good reasoning. You have been given excellent reasoning in this discussion. The scriptures are plain enough.

I wait in expectant hope for the day of his second coming. I do hope he will not tarry much longer.

You better repent of your unbelief first. Then you can with joy await that wonderful day.

I will say it one last time: You have NO more reason to reject Genesis as history and literal than you do to the gospel of Christ and his literal sinless life, death, burial, or resurrection. Jesus confirmed the creation account and you are obligated by God's Word to believe it.

 

[Keachian]

I've given you plenty of reasons. The problem is in your level of commitment to error and unbelief.

I do not disbelieve in God's act of creation, nor do I disbelieve in the idea that he could do it in 6 days, heck he could do it in less time than that.

You were given an answer and replied with the very same question.

You didn't answer the question so here I'll answer it for you, as is seen in the first commandment (exodus 20:3) we do not need a reason for a command, we are told to follow commands and we should because they are commands from God.

What an incredibly stupid statement. MOSES was a creationist (Exodus 20:11) and the Lord Jesus was not only a creationist...He was the CREATOR! (Mark 10:6) (Colossians 1:16-18).

You won't find a single mention of evolution ANYWHERE in scripture.

I wasn't talking about Moses or Jesus, I was talking about those who purport to be scientists and defend creationism. You also can't attribute Ex 20:11 to Moses, it says clearly in Ex 20:1 that it is God speaking not Moses.

Everything I told you, and more importantly everything God's Word says on this subject is applicable. You are not being honest.

I am being very honest, they talk of things of salvific nature and yes it's true that God creating, that man is fallen and all that are necessary parts of the Gospel it is not a sin to take the narratives that set up these doctrines and understand them as I do.

You are not very good at playing dodge ball, Mr. skeptic. THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO reject the historicity of Genesis than there is to REJECT THE historicity of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. The accounts read the same.

I'm not a skeptic and no the accounts only read the same because they are both translated into English and you come at them with the lens of literalism. Genesis 1 in all its glory is a Poem, We are not told to focus on genealogies but to focus on Christ who is the sustainer and perfecter of our faith.

Exactly. Well, at least you get that much. My point was made above. You have no right nor authority to arbitrarily declare Genesis as non-historical or less than literal than you would to make the same conclusions about Christ's virgin birth, miracles, healings, death, burial, nor resurrection.

I do object to non-literal readings of Genesis as well I also happen to think that your reading is nonliteral.

But it's clear that you don't get it. you don't wish to get it...never mind the fact that NOT ONE of all the passages in which Genesis is quoted in the New Testament reveal anything but actual history and that the events recorded by Moses were history.

What were they used for? The passages were not used to teach about history but about doctrine, about morality.

What have you been studying then?

A Bible, duh that's why it's called Bible study.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

circle--applicable to the globular form of the earth, above which, and the vault of sky around it, He sits. For "upon" translate "above." JFB Commentary on the Bible, 1880.

Oh ok, so later in that verse where he says that he splays out the heavens like a tent, how does that work with a sphere? I find it funny that literalists trot our this verse time and time again to prove that it talks of a spherical earth when it talks of a circle a flat circle. So both a sphere and a disc have a circular shadow that's cool. But the heavens tent is for the grasshopper people not for the earth itself, noone has yet told me how this tent would work for a sphere.

"however at this time I have no call to nor do I feel any less far away from God or Spirit lead..."

You should because you aren't listening. You are being very careless with details.

I am? News to me. Just because I don't measure up to your measure of spirituality you decide that I'm not hearing God, isn't that a bit presumptuous of you? I've not said anything of the sort in regards to your faith, yet you seem to keep trying to poke holes in mine.

Are you serious? Are you so far removed from the reality of scriptural teaching that you don't know that every major doctrine of the Christian faith is alluded to in Genesis? (1) inspiration: "And God said..." (2) the virgin birth of Christ (Gen. 3:15), (3) the atonment by blood (Gen. 3:21) (4) the fall of man (Gen 3), (5) the grace of god (Gen. 6:8), (6) judgment (Gen 3 & Gen 7-8), the second coming of Christ (Gen 5:24 connected to Jude 1:14) etc.

Again, why does the literalness affect whether we still gain these doctrines out of the text?

What tells you that he wasn't literal or historical in those statements?

Nothing tells me that, but in the same way nothing tells you that either. I was simply pointing out that he would have used the passage regardless of whether it was literal history or not in his eyes.

Should I take you literal on that also? You see, it works both ways...that is if I were to choose to play your game and arbitrarily declare things of a historical nature as non-literal, non-real in time and history.

Slippery slope fallacy again.

Are you trying to say that believers should not discuss the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ which is based on those very same family trees mentioned in Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke? That's shallow thinking, friend. THOSE FAMILY LINEAGES give us the proof that Jesus was the Son of David and heir to the throne of Israel! That's just how important they are.

It is only prophecy fulfillment that we need these things, could not God raise up a Son of David from the Rocks as John the Baptist says he can do for Abraham?

So if they were not literal from Adam to Christ (Luke 3) then they are of no historical value to any of us and a waste of space in holy scripture. Good grief! Who but a heretic with no conscience could believe such a thing?

Name calling, are you so base as to do that?

The Lord is displeased with all unbelief, especially when one has been shown the truth with good reasoning. You have been given excellent reasoning in this discussion. The scriptures are plain enough.

I do not believe that he can't create in six days, I also believe that his creation itself speaks it's own story.

You better repent of your unbelief first. Then you can with joy await that wonderful day.

I have no unbelief, you do not know me. How are you to judge if I am saved or not, God calls those that are his and all your kicking and screaming about what I believe will not change whether I am saved or not.

I will say it one last time: You have NO more reason to reject Genesis as history and literal than you do to the gospel of Christ and his literal sinless life, death, burial, or resurrection. Jesus confirmed the creation account and you are obligated by God's Word to believe it.

That's your opinion. Jesus affirmed marriage as shown through the creation account, that's the only part of Genesis 1-2 that he ever quoted.

 

[gluadys]

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

Comes to the same thing if truth is identified with science.


Imagine making a Venn diagram with two circles: one labelled "science" and the other "truth". How do they relate?

Do they partially overlap, so that some "science" is not "truth" and some "truth" is not "science"?

Or do they have the same centre so that one is superimposed on the other?

Do "science" and "truth" have the same dimensions leaving no room for "truth" outside of "science"? Or is "science" a part of the circle of "truth", contained within it, but not filling it up?

Try various relations, then decide where you would place the Genesis creation accounts and why. Will they be in the overlap between "science" and "truth"? Or in an area of "truth" outside the sphere of "science"?

The implications for the terminology of the account ("day" "evening" "morning") might be different depending on where you decide to place it.

 

[Assyrian]

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.'

Sorry I missed that part where Paul declares this literal history.

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.

Where do you get the 'because' from? Are you saying the verse is only relevant because the literal interpretation contradicts evolution? But that would mean the verse didn't have any relevance to anyone before Darwin came along, so why would Paul even have brought it up? Surely Paul was making a point with the his use of the reference that actually had meaning at time?

Not sure either your idea of 'ultimate meaning' Did the stories of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan not have any utimate meaning if they weren't literal history? Or is the ultimate meaning of the story of Adam and Eve, what God intended to teach us through the story, whether it is literal history or parable? Isn't the ultimate meaning of Paul's use of the story what he intended to teach Timothy and his troublesome women students in Ephesus through his use of the story?

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.

Seven is a pretty significant symbolic number in the bible, are you sure Jude's point wasn't symbolic? Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch here, which also picks up on Enoch being seventh from Adam, but it does so for the symbolic, numerologial significance of seven. Jude's point here is not to teach the chronologies as literal history but to highlight the significance of Enoch and his prophecy.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

progomonk:

: I wasn't talking about Moses or Jesus, I was talking about those who purport to be scientists and defend creationism. You also can't attribute Ex 20:11 to Moses, it says clearly in Ex 20:1 that it is God speaking not Moses.

Well, gee, thanks for admitting that God is a creationist!

You are clearly avoiding the issue. You have given no reason for me to think that you will deal with the issues honestly.

Do you actually think that God inspired Moses to write of the six day creation in Genesis (Exodus 20:11) that he somehow did not believe what he wrote under that inspiration? If Moses did not believe in the six day creation of the world then pray tell, what did he believe?

You are free to keep playing dodge ball, fella. But you won't dodge the questions when you face the Lord.

Bye.

 

[miamited]

hi glaudys,

You ask a very appropriate question: Why is it important to understand the creation accounts as if they were a scientific report of the creation process?

I don't really much care about whether one believes the creation account to be a 'scientific' report. I don't even know why it would be. It certainly doesn't give us enough information by which we might make any scientific evaluations and furthermore, miracles are not scientifically discernable. Science, my friend, has nothing whatsoever to do with what we believe regarding the creation account.

Faith, is what is being tested. The clear response to your question is, OK, what do you mean when you claim as a christian to 'believe' God. You don't seem to believe what seems quite clear in the creation account, without obfuscating and dancing around word meanings.

Psalm 19 says: The heavenshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 declarehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 the glory of God;http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 the skieshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-4 proclaim the work of his hands.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-5 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.http://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/19.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

Now, the evolutionary and old earth thinking is that God did somehow start everything. He made the first molecule, or perhaps living organism or, I don't know, where do you believe God 'started' in making this realm of creation?

But the Psalmist declares that the skies declare the work of His hands. The underlying foundation of evolutionary and old earth theism is that no, He is a great and powerful God and wiser than we could ever hope to imagine, but He didn't really create everything in the form that we now see. That, the physical reality of the universe in which we exist right this moment, came about by some sort of natural, scientifically proven processes that, while it all may have been started by God, it isn't all the very work of God's hands.

As I understand the creation account in Genesis, God is giving us the answer to how we got here. That it was none of it accomplished by natural and scientific processes, but that each and every form in the entire universe that we gaze upon today in our microscopes and telescopes was, in fact, made just as we see it now by the hands of God. It was all made for the purpose, just as the angelic realm was made, by a God who loves and desires to be loved by what He has created in men and angels.

So, the question for one who claims to 'believe' what God has said and revealed is simple. How much are you willing to believe what God has said over what man has said? Paul writes that God has made it plain to us through what has been created, yet we don't want to agree with how God has clearly said He did it. And yes, He did clearly say that He created all this entire realm of existence in 6 days, each one being the embodiment of an evening and morning, just as a day is today. Yes, he did tell us that He created all things in the form and kind that we see today. Now, the question is, will you believe that? Or, like Paul said, are you one to deny the power and majesty and wisdom of your Creator by rather choosing to follow the wisdom of 'science' and 'vain philosophies'?

How strong is your faith? Do you really believe God? Is your faith strong enough that you would stand before men and declare allegiance to the truth of God over and above what men may tell you? Or, are you rather one who wants to straddle the fence. Yea, yea, I believe in God and I know that He sent His Son to die for my sin, but I'm just not able to dive in to the deep water of trust and faith in all things that God has told me. I'm just not able to turn my back on what wise and knowedgeable men who have studied and pored over all the facts and figures that provide scientifically proven, naturalistic explanations for all that I see around me. This earth is not a miracle, its very existence is scientifically and naturally explained by wise and learned scientists that I believe. I am not a miracle! Sure, sure, the first living molecule of life was probably some miracle of,.... uh, God? But I, me the person sitting here at this computer reading all this ignorant ramblings of some 'born again' believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am the form and body of a creature that lived billions of years ago and over naturally, scientifically explainable processes -- turned into me. That's the God I know.

LOL! God bless you.
In Christ. Ted

 

[miamited]

hi again glaudys,

You also responed: Sure, that is the astronomical meaning.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse you of 'obfuscating and dancing around word meanings'. We are talking about the length of a 'day' upon the earth. What other possible meaning could God have been referring to when He caused to be written by His Spirit - And there was evening, and there was morninghttp://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16--the first day, anything but an astronomical day? When God's Spirit caused to be written in the law, the law, my friend, that which was put upon the stone tablets by the very finger of God, that in six days God created..., why would God have meant us to understand and what basis can you give, that He didn't intend to convey an astronomical day?

This is exactly why I am claiming that God is making it clear to us that He is talking about an astronomical day by further defining it as an evening and a morning. Had He intended us to understand that it was some day as in extended period of time defined by dozens or hundreds or millions of years He would not have caused His Spirit to define each day as encompassed by an evening and a morning.

Friend, I believe that that very phrase is there because God knew how tough it was going to be for those who were faithful to Him to stand against the wisdom and vain philosophies of that knowledge known as 'science'. God knew before He ever directed His Spirit to guide the hands of men to write down His truth, that thousands of years removed from this moment of creation, men would have all sorts of reasonable and scientifically 'proven' explanations that would deny the real power and glory and wisdom of the one who created all that we see in this realm of existence. He knew that the day would come when we had studied and written and built great universities to train people in great knowledge that would push upon mankind all the 'reasonable' and 'scientifically proven' explanations for how we got here. And so He directed His Spirit, in just the simple inclusion of a very telling phrase, to give those who would truly seek Him reason to believe His truth over theirs.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Keachian]

Well, gee, thanks for admitting that God is a creationist!

I like to think I'm also a creationist

You are clearly avoiding the issue. You have given no reason for me to think that you will deal with the issues honestly.

I have dealt with the issues and as far as I'm concerned in an honest way.

Do you actually think that God inspired Moses to write of the six day creation in Genesis (Exodus 20:11) that he somehow did not believe what He wrote under that inspiration? If Moses did not believe in the six day creation of the world then pray tell, what did he believe?

Yes God inspired Moses to write a story that talks to the people around him, it is no different to any other part of the Bible.

You are free to keep playing dodge ball, fella. But you won't dodge the questions when you face the Lord.

I don't believe that

 

[Kirkwhisper]

progmonk:

You will when you stand before Him, breathlessly.

 

[Keachian]

progmonk:

You will when you stand before Him, breathlessly.

Well yeah, I'll be dead, also in awe, both states could be stated as breathless and you know what I'll be in heaven

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Well yeah, I'll be dead, also in awe, both states could be stated as breathless and you know what I'll be in heaven

Well, we all hope so.

But, tell me why you don't believe what Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..." Mark 10:6.

If Adam was not a real person like Jesus said he was then where did original sin come from?

 

[Assyrian]

Well, we all hope so.

But, tell me why you don't believe what Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..." Mark 10:6.

If Adam was not a real person like Jesus said he was

When did Jesus mention Adam or say he was a real person?

then where did original sin come from?

Augustine?

 

[Hismessenger]

Kirkwhisper,

Your still looking at it from mans understanding of time which is what God gave to us in verse 14. It has no bearing upon God himself who is not governed by our time for there is only eternity with God and there is no yesterday or tomorrow as we understand it.
Look at it in this manner. Have you ever experienced a day that you wished would never end. That is what eternity means, never ending. Having no beginning or any end.

So how do we place our provisional time frame on an infinite eternity. It can't be done.
So how long is a day when God is not subject to keeping time. Our time is for us. Not God.

hismessenger

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Kirkwhisper,

Your still looking at it from mans understanding of time which is what God gave to us in verse 14. It has no bearing upon God himself who is not governed by our time for there is only eternity with God and there is no yesterday or tomorrow as we understand it.

It has every bearing on this issue. God gave the words of vs 14 to MAN.
Now what does that tell you?

Those words have no value to us at all unless the divisions of time that ancient man derived from them their obvious meaning and put them into practical, regular observation. The fact that they did so is the proof of the literal understanding of that text. Your opinion is in error.

Look at it in this manner. Have you ever experienced a day that you wished would never end. That is what eternity means, never ending. Having no beginning or any end.

You are seeking to escape the reality of this matter. God didn't give us a time frame for "a day that you wished would never end." Vs 14 is not talking about eternity; God inspired Moses to give us the natural conditions that would mark time for days, months, seasons, and years.

You really missed the point. Tell me, friend, are you another person who has accepted Darwinian evolution into your belief system? If so, that explains your attitude on the matter.

So how do we place our provisional time frame on an infinite eternity. It can't be done.

Right. But we don't need to because that was not the subject in vs 14.

So how long is a day when God is not subject to keeping time. Our time is for us. Not God.

For God, a day can be anything He chooses. For us, reality dictates that it is 23 hrs. 56 min. But the length of the day in Genesis is one literal 24 hr (approx) period. and it has to be that way. Why? Because when Moses established the six day working week with one day of rest it was based upon the creation week; that week was not 7 thousand years long, nor 7 million yrs, nor 7 billion. Such a time frame would be ludicrous for what God intended.

Secondly, the proof is in vs 14. You just need to be honest in your application of that exceedingly practical verse.