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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.So what this all boils down to is people can’t believe the Bible, right?
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 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.
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.
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.
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?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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
There’s nothing poetic about the creation account in Genesis, there’s nothing proverbial about the literature in it.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.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
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.
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"?
It says nothing to support your embedded age claim at all, because it gives nothing.
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.
There’s nothing poetic about the creation account in Genesis, there’s nothing proverbial about the literature in it.
I never said there was but I do say that a literal reading is necessary to actually believe what the Bible says.
The idea that humans came from only two people is 100% proverbial and poetic.
Oh, of course not.
Else you'd have to believe it, wouldn't you?
(Or would you?)
I suppose you think Jesus feeding the 4000 is poetic also ... right?
So, care to explain in detail how those verses back up your embedded age idea?
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?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.
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?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.
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.And that puts you in a very minority opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?