Millions of Years- a salvation issue?

[lismore]

I've been a YEC for over 20 years, but I don't believe it anymore and it's keeping people from coming to God, so it is a salvation issue. Some might accept it and get saved, but I think a whole lot of evolutionists don't buy it and then think God isn't real either. The mountains have layers with fossils in it and there were mountains before the flood started, that's in the Bible. So those fossils didn't come from the flood. I believe in a literal six days with a gap.
The Bible, Genesis Á Geology
Gap Theorists Defended

Hello Messy

I believe a spiritual encounter with God will bring a person to salvation, an awareness of the holiness of God, of our own sinfulness, of our need for a saviour.

An 'evolutionist' might use creation as an excuse, but there is a difference between an excuse and a reason. This is the reason:

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

As soon as we start inserting gaps or contradictions into the bible based on what the world says, the immediate effect may not be obvious. But somewhere down the line another generation will push this breach with scriptural authority just a little further and a little further until their breach with Christianity is total. It's the first step in a slippery slope to death.

If you notice it is the churches in the West that embraced evolution in past generations that are now in terminal decline, their membership falling, their buildings being sold off. Those who have maintained scriptural authority are standing.

God Bless You

 

[Yekcidmij]

so your not saying the Bible has errors just the scripture which is was translated from, right so its ok because you did not say Bible.

Do you have something to contribute? Do you believe all translations/transmissions are without error? Do you believe the Masoretic Text is the original? I don't think you will be able to successfully defend such a position.

Also, I haven't called anything an error.

 

[lismore]

So yes, it is important to understand what the Bible is saying, and it is saying the Earth is not old at all.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Amen! The only reason that 'old earth' is taught in the church at all is a misplaced and counter-productive desire by some to bend scripture to fit in with worldly error.

God Bless You

 

[Bluelion]

Which facts are we talking about? The Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Penteteuch, or some other source?



No, I don't. It seems you don't understand my argument and are stuck arguing against points made by other people.

I have been presented with the facts that the manuscripts of the OT do not agree on the genealogies and those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error. What is your solution to the different genealogies?

I think my point is somewhat unique - I haven't seen it used before. So we're going to have to set aside arguments other people use and deal with what I'm saying.

see the part in bold where you said in it was in error, also in another post said the Lxx.

Now you want to tell me more about how you did not claim errors. If your not going to be truthful about what you are even speaking, then really i don't see how we can discuss it.

You asked if I had something to contribute yes in accordance with the statement of faith. You indirectly call the bible has errors then say oh i did not say Bible, then its I did not say error, Just what faith are you?

You just want to bash something, i am not going to sit here and let you bash Gods word, there are plenty of guest reading and they might think you are preaching truth.

 

[Messy]

Amen! The only reason that 'old earth' is taught in the church at all is a misplaced and counter-productive desire by some to bend scripture to fit in with worldly error.

God Bless You

GAP theory was taught before the evolution theory of Darwin.

 

[NannaNae]

yes it is a salvation issue!
your God who can't figure out how to make anything but fungi isn't likely to have made a heaven either.


or if you are always demanding grace from a God who could create a heaven and you claim he can't even create fungi . I would suggest that he through you outside where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth for you to evolve a little longer.

 

[Bluelion]

yes it is a salvation issue!
your God who can't figure out how to make anything but fungi isn't likely to have made a heaven either.


or if you are always demanding grace from a God who could create a heaven and you claim he can't even create fungi . I would suggest that he through you outside where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth for you to evolve a little longer.

Amen. I think it shows a person heart and a lack of faith just MO

 

[lismore]

GAP theory was taught before the evolution theory of Darwin.

There were men like Charles Lyell who suggested an old earth for the explicit reason to undermine the books of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy).

GAP theory is a means to try and bend scripture to fit in with such worldly ideas.

Those who twist the scriptures to try to accomodate shifting theories from the world all have the same agenda. In the end it is counter-productive.

God Bless You

 

[Yekcidmij]

see the part in bold where you said in it was in error,

Did you read what I posted or just see the word "error" and fly with the first thing that came to mind?

"those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error"....because they weren't a scribal error at all. The differences are done on purpose in the various manuscripts. I thought I had made that point already - several times.

also in another post said the Lxx.

What about the LXX?

You asked if I had something to contribute yes in accordance with the statement of faith. You indirectly call the bible has errors then say oh i did not say Bible, then its I did not say error, Just what faith are you?

I guess it's time to call my faith into question? It's much easier to do that than deal with my points.

You just want to bash something, i am not going to sit here and let you bash Gods word,

Am I "bashing" it?

 

[Bluelion]

Did you read what I posted or just see the word "error" and fly with the first thing that came to mind?

"those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error"....because they weren't a scribal error at all. The differences are done on purpose in the various manuscripts. I thought I had made that point already - several times.



What about the LXX?



I guess it's time to call my faith into question? It's much easier to do that than deal with my points.



Am I "bashing" it?

so your saying the errors are there on purpose?

 

[Yekcidmij]

so your saying the errors are there on purpose?

I guess you really don't read the post before you comment.

"those differences don't seem to be insignificant scribal error"....because they weren't a scribal error at all. The differences are done on purpose in the various manuscripts. I thought I had made that point already - several times.

 

[Bluelion]

I guess you really don't read the post before you comment.

so your saying they are not errors but differences?

 

[Yekcidmij]

so your saying they are not errors but differences?

Clearly there are differences in the manuscripts. All you have to do to see that is open the pages and just look at the numbers. The genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 in the MT, LXX, SP, and Aramaic Targums (as well as non-canonical sources like Jubilees) are simply not the same.

 

[Bluelion]

You said the OT does not agree on genealogy are you now saying it is correct? or there are just differences but these are not errors?

Just trying to understand what you are saying because you say I got it wrong.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You said the OT does not agree on genealogy are you now saying it is correct?

The OT manuscripts (ie the LXX, MT, SP, DSS, Targums) do not agree on the genealogies. I'm saying this differences were made on purpose, not in error.

or there are just differences but these are not errors?

I don't think the differences were done in error. Scribal mistakes do not adequately explain the differences.

 

[Bluelion]

The OT manuscripts (ie the LXX, MT, SP, DSS, Targums) do not agree on the genealogies. I'm saying this differences were made on purpose, not in error.



I don't think the differences were done in error. Scribal mistakes do not adequately explain the differences.

Thank you that is what I was asking. It was confusing.

 

[Bluelion]

First, is your contention is that the LXX scribes just didn't know Hebrew? I don't think that's going to be supportable. There are instances where the LXX seems to be superior to the MT (evidence comes by way of comparison with the DSS, which did contain Hebrew), which would indicate that the LXX scribes weren't so dull as to not know how to translate Hebrew. And this still does not explain how the SP, which is also Hebrew, also has different numbers in the genealogies.

Second, the LXX doesn't just make a 100 year error. It has many other differences in the genealogies.

Third, if the LXX is to be dismissed, why does Luke quote from directly from the LXX? Not only does he quote from the LXX, but he quotes the very genealogies we're talking about.

Luke 3:36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,



It does have Genesis 5 and 11 - and the numbers are different.



And the genealogy it does contain is different.



So is this your reason to prefer the MT over the LXX and SP? And should we prefer the MT everywhere and always? Why do you think the scribes of the LXX, SP, and DSS where all less careful?



I didn't have anyone work for me. Actually, my investigation into this as been a little extensive (and you do mean to insult me, so don't pretend you don't). In any case, perhaps you should put your intellectual insults aside, deal with the arguments and worry less about how I came across the different genealogies in the manuscripts?

See the part in bold when you say a sentence like it doesn't just make 100 year error. It gets confusing, because that statement sounds like you are agreeing there are errors.

You can see how it would be confusing with some others saying there is an error in the genealogy.

I have ran it to things in my research but I have Faith so I never thought error. I thought I don't understand, and friend said differ pronunciations like dialects. That is why there was a different name.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I just think people calling error in the bible(not that you were one) is a dangerous slope.

if we can't trust all the Bible then what parts are we to trust and how will we know, see what I mean.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Thank you that is what I was asking. It was confusing.

No worries. One of the reasons I'm making this argument is because I haven't made it to other people before (well, I've tried before but nobody ever seems interested in discussing it), and it's important to me that I'm clear on what I am and am not saying. Even if someone disagrees with my conclusions, I at least want to make sure my argument is clear.

 

[Bluelion]

No worries. One of the reasons I'm making this argument is because I haven't made it to other people before (well, I've tried before but nobody ever seems interested in discussing it), and it's important to me that I'm clear on what I am and am not saying. Even if someone disagrees with my conclusions, I at least want to make sure my argument is clear.

I am sure you know that the Lxx and other greek translations were not translated for the greeks but the Jews. The Lxx is the one that survived, but it was meant for Jews who could no longer speak Hebrew and Aramaic. So i am sure the Translation was of very importance, because you know How Jews are about the OT. It was a Holy act to translate.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

The Masoretic Text was not the original.

But it is the most well maintained, and as such is the most accurate, opposing opinions to the contrary.