Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[dlamberth]

So what this all boils down to is people can’t believe the Bible, right?

What it boils down for me is that I believe what God's own creation is showing us. I do not believe the creation stories of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not at all, since there is a difference between 'believing the Bible' and 'believing in serious extra-Biblical views that are not talked about in the Bible nor even mentioned in the Bible in any way shape or form'.
It's 100% the latter.

No it is specifically stated that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created in 6 days and we have a genealogy record giving us an age of 6,000 years since Adam was created. You can pretend that the Bible says whatever you want but you can’t actually refute what is actually written.

 

[AV1611VET]

What it boils down for me is that I believe what God's own creation is showing us. I do not believe the creation stories of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

What tribe is that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No it is specifically stated that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created in 6 days and we have a genealogy record giving us an age of 6,000 years since Adam was created. You can pretend that the Bible says whatever you want but you can’t actually refute what is actually written.

Not wholly true, but pretty accurate. Just because something is written doesn't mean that what is written is automatically true and accurate.

But there is nothing in the Bible that supports the claim of embedded age, that the Earth and universe has been existence for 6000 years but has an age for several tens of billions. Which is the point of topic for the thread. Please, try and pay attention to what is actually being said not what you think is being said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What it boils down for me is that I believe what God's own creation is showing us. I do not believe the creation stories of an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

Yeah that’s basically the same thing I said, you don’t think Christians should believe the Bible. I mean according to what you just said in this post you think that Genesis is based on man made superstitions instead of being revealed to man by God. My question is why do you come to a Christian website with the expectation that we shouldn’t believe the Bible? I mean if you don’t want to, hey that’s your choice, but why come here pushing your choice on Christians like myself?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah that’s basically the same thing I said, you don’t think Christians should believe the Bible. I mean according to what you just said in this post you think that Genesis is based on man made superstitions instead of being revealed to man by God. My question is why do you come to a Christian website with the expectation that we shouldn’t believe the Bible? I mean if you don’t want to, hey that’s your choice, but why come here pushing your choice on Christians like myself?

That's not what they're saying at all. You have a bad history of putting words in people's mouths, and also as a reminder: this is one of several parts of the website that is open to people who do not identify as Christians. If you want to have a talk solely with Christians, there are Christian Only parts of the forum.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not wholly true, but pretty accurate. Just because something is written doesn't mean that what is written is automatically true and accurate.

But there is nothing in the Bible that supports the claim of embedded age, that the Earth and universe has been existence for 6000 years but has an age for several tens of billions. Which is the point of topic for the thread. Please, try and pay attention to what is actually being said not what you think is being said.

Ok so I misunderstood your position so please accept my apology for my misunderstanding. So are you saying that the universe doesn’t appear to be older than it actually is? I would have to disagree with that, if that is your position because we see things like shooting stars that are billions of light years away which does suggest the “appearance” of age, although it doesn’t necessarily imply that the Genesis account is implausible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok so I misunderstood your position so please accept my apology for my misunderstanding. So are you saying that the universe doesn’t appear to be older than it actually is? I would have to disagree with that, if that is your position because we see things like shooting stars that are billions of light years away which does suggest the “appearance” of age, although it doesn’t necessarily imply that the Genesis account is implausible.

Considering that God's actual creation in the Earth and the universe say that the universe and everything in is vastly older than that Genesis account makes it out to be and that the Genesis account reads heavily of allegory and poetic stories... then yes, it does necessarily imply that the Genesis account is implausible.

Show me in any mainline, worldwide Christian doctrine that says that a literal reading and an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is needed to be a Christian

 

[AV1611VET]

Not wholly true, but pretty accurate.

Yup.

Just because something is written doesn't mean that what is written is automatically true and accurate.

That's not an option for those who believe Jesus, when He said ...

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

If the Bible isn't true, then we're not sanctified.

But there is nothing in the Bible that supports the claim of embedded age,

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

... that the Earth and universe has been existence for 6000 years but has an age for several tens of billions.

The universe is "several tens of billions of years old"?

I don't consider 14.7 in the "several tens" category.

But I know what you meant.

And what you want is to see it in the corpus of the Text, and it's not there.

Thus you think we should abandon that idea ... right?

What's next?

The "Trinity"?

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not what they're saying at all. You have a bad history of putting words in people's mouths, and also as a reminder: this is one of several parts of the website that is open to people who do not identify as Christians. If you want to have a talk solely with Christians, there are Christian Only parts of the forum.

I disagree because he specifically said that Genesis is a “creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe” that he doesn’t believe. So either he doesn’t believe in God or he doesn’t believe that God revealed Genesis to man. Either way he believes it derived from man’s imagination because it certainly couldn’t have derived from an eyewitness account other than God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Considering that God's actual creation in the Earth and the universe say that the universe and everything in is vastly older than that Genesis account makes it out to be and that the Genesis account reads heavily of allegory and poetic stories... then yes, it does necessarily imply that the Genesis account is implausible.

Show me in any mainline, worldwide Christian doctrine that says that a literal reading and an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is needed to be a Christian

There’s nothing poetic about the creation account in Genesis, there’s nothing proverbial about the literature in it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Considering that God's actual creation in the Earth and the universe say that the universe and everything in is vastly older than that Genesis account makes it out to be and that the Genesis account reads heavily of allegory and poetic stories... then yes, it does necessarily imply that the Genesis account is implausible.

Show me in any mainline, worldwide Christian doctrine that says that a literal reading and an acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is needed to be a Christian

I never said there was but I do say that a literal reading is necessary to actually believe what the Bible says.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

This one of the only parts I'll actually address because it at least tries to comment on what I asked for... and it does nothing. It says nothing to support your embedded age claim at all, because it gives nothing. You've taken Peter's second letter out of context, and you've focused on a psalm, which is 100% a work of poetry, as evidence for your claim... and they say nothing.

The universe is "several tens of billions of years old"?

I don't consider 14.7 in the "several tens" category.

But I know what you meant.

And what you want is to see it in the corpus of the Text, and it's not there.

Thus you think we should abandon that idea ... right?

What's next?

The "Trinity"?

Buddy, the fact that you even WISH that your idea is on the same level of the Trinity really shows how misguided you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

It says nothing to support your embedded age claim at all, because it gives nothing.

Oh, of course not.

Else you'd have to believe it, wouldn't you?

(Or would you?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll go for all of these as one go, make it easier.

I disagree because he specifically said that Genesis is a “creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe” that he doesn’t believe. So either he doesn’t believe in God or he doesn’t believe that God revealed Genesis to man. Either way he believes it derived from man’s imagination because it certainly couldn’t have derived from an eyewitness account other than God.

Even though there is evidence that it was written as the work of man and with the knowledge of ancient man, not with the knowledge of an omnipotent God who could easily make things much clearer and easier to understand.

There’s nothing poetic about the creation account in Genesis, there’s nothing proverbial about the literature in it.

There is a lot of poetics in the creation account in Genesis, and there is a lot of the proverbial nature about Genesis in general. The idea that humans came from only two people is 100% proverbial and poetic.

I never said there was but I do say that a literal reading is necessary to actually believe what the Bible says.

And that puts you in a very minority opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea that humans came from only two people is 100% proverbial and poetic.

I suppose you think Jesus feeding the 4000 is poetic also ... right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, of course not.

Else you'd have to believe it, wouldn't you?

(Or would you?)

AV, I would love you to go into detail on those verses you chose (2 Peter 2:5 and Psalm 68:33), and expound on them more.

In fact, I'll do something extra: I've give the verses immediately before and after those verse so they're put into more context for you.

So we go with 2 Peter 3-
2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

And Psalm 68 -
Psalm 68:32 Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; O sing praises unto the Lord; Selah:
Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.
Psalm 68:34 Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds.

So, care to explain in detail how those verses back up your embedded age idea?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suppose you think Jesus feeding the 4000 is poetic also ... right?

Yes I do, because it has a very poetic nature about it involving grace, charity, and being against waste.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, care to explain in detail how those verses back up your embedded age idea?

Not really.

You don't believe it anyway, so I'd just be wasting my breath -- (in a manner of speaking).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Even though there is evidence that it was written as the work of man and with the knowledge of ancient man, not with the knowledge of an omnipotent God who could easily make things much clearer and easier to understand.

Lol this is kinda funny that you rebuked me for hitting the nail on the head. That’s a bit hypocritical don’t ya think?

There is a lot of poetics in the creation account in Genesis, and there is a lot of the proverbial nature about Genesis in general. The idea that humans came from only two people is 100% proverbial and poetic.

And this brings us right back to not actually believing what is written. So your evidence for poetic and proverbial writings is that you don’t believe it? How is that evidence of anything other than you not believing it?

And that puts you in a very minority opinion.

Like I always say, truth is not subjective to personal or popular opinion. I would imagine the Pharisees said something similar about the apostles, but it didn’t have any effect on whether their ministry was truthful or not.