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.
Genesis 1
If you want to start a thread with this question (it's a good one), feel free to do so. I plan to keep this thread on topic as best I can, and not stray out of Genesis 1.The fact remains, AV, that the stars are moving -- to the point that they would not spell out the same pictograph you claim they would've 6,000 years ago. Whatever message God had put there is now illegible.
1. God made the universe older that its existence so it could support life. Fruit trees, for example, had to be fully-mature, else there would be nothing for Adam and Eve to eat. In addition, Adam and Even themselves had to be old enough to get married, have children, communicate with God, name the animals, and work as a husbandman in the Garden. Stars in the sky had to be spaced just right - (God didn't just put them out there randomly); the soil had to have the proper pH balance, the sun just the right age, etc.
2. The world looks old because it is old. It wasn't just meant to look old --- it is old. The world is not "much younger", as you seem to think I'm saying.
3. Since the physical age of the earth does not contradict the Bible - (how can it, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is), I see no contradiction at all. There are two ages --- one physical, one existential. The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and is 6100 years old existentially.
If you want to start a thread with this question (it's a good one), feel free to do so. I plan to keep this thread on topic as best I can, and not stray out of Genesis 1.
Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze. I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.That's an extremely convoluted methodology for tri-omni God to indulge in, given he could just make everything instantly mature without having to cause everything to look old.
I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.But - why wouldn't God, having eternity to make everything come out as he wanted, just allow everything to mature (the soil, the trees, life) at the rate at which he intended to have the world continue aging?
No impatience --- God works on a timetable.Why the impatience you suggest?
Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution."The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and is 6100 years old existentially"... AV, are you trying to find a dignified way to out yourself as having come around to believing evolution, geology, etc. just possibly occurred (all right, at least from the POV of accepting that yes, looks like it and God did it) mostly as science says it did?
Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow.
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze.
I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.
I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur.
In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.
No impatience --- God works on a timetable.Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution.
Either it's old, or it isn't. Making something old, but not looking old, is ... well ... smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying God didn't, but I find that pill a little hard to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely certain God could create an ultra-modern tank ex nihilo in the next ten seconds that is so fragile with age, it would fall apart in a breeze. I just don't think He did that in Genesis 1.
I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.No impatience --- God works on a timetable.
Absolutely not --- Genesis 1 is totally incompatible with Evolution, and my explanation is compatible with Embedded Age Creation --- not evolution.
The placement of the visible stars form a pictograph of the plan of salvation.
I don't know, I wasn't there, but a good answer to this question from hindsight, would be that, had He done it that way, then Atheistic Evolution would be a stronger theory than it is today; but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.
Why is it that Creationists seem to be the only ones who are into this Gospel in the Stars business?The placement of the visible stars form a pictograph of the plan of salvation.
So why do you think God jumbled up the order again in Genesis 2? What do you think he might be telling you about your interpretation of Genesis 1?but by creating things in Genesis in the order that He did --- Genesis 1 stands as a powerful written testimony that Evolution didn't occur. In other words, God "jumbled up" the order of things in Genesis 1 so as to make Genesis 1 stick out like a sore thumb against science.
Because a Creationist put them there in the first place.Why is it that Creationists seem to be the only ones who are into this Gospel in the Stars business?
That's not astrology, and you know it. We've discussed this before in this thread, haven't we?Interesting parallel here though. Behe's definition of science ended up including astrology. And Creationists end up including astrology in the plan of salvation. What is the connection?
Genesis 2 is not where I want to go in this thread.So why do you think God jumbled up the order again in Genesis 2? What do you think he might be telling you about your interpretation of Genesis 1?
How long does it take until fruit trees are mature? How long does it take until humans can communicate and have children? Twenty years? Thirty?1. God made the universe older that its existence so it could support life. Fruit trees, for example, had to be fully-mature, else there would be nothing for Adam and Eve to eat. In addition, Adam and Even themselves had to be old enough to get married, have children, communicate with God, name the animals, and work as a husbandman in the Garden. Stars in the sky had to be spaced just right - (God didn't just put them out there randomly); the soil had to have the proper pH balance, the sun just the right age, etc.
I think you might be mixing up Creator and Creationist, a common mistakeBecause a Creationist put them there in the first place.
You never did get back to me there.That's not astrology, and you know it. We've discussed this before in this thread, haven't we?
Understandable.Genesis 2 is not where I want to go in this thread.
I arbitrarily place Adam's age at 30.How long does it take until humans can communicate and have children? Twenty years? Thirty?
OK. Then why isn't this planet only 30 years older than the Bible says it is, but over four billion years older? What was the point of adding the extra time if a few decades were all that was necessary?I arbitrarily place Adam's age at 30.
I'll take any questions you may have on the Creation, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.
Keep in mind that the answers will be my opinion, and not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Christian community (Body of Christ) in general.
MrGoodBytes, every time I've asked why this earth is as old as it is, I get pointed to Zirconium (or Zircon, or Zir[something]), which supposedly is that old. If God embedded 4.57 billion years into this Zir-stuff, and 30 years into Adam, and 70 years into the trees, etc., I'm sure He did it for a reason.OK. Then why isn't this planet only 30 years older than the Bible says it is, but over four billion years older? What was the point of adding the extra time if a few decades were all that was necessary?
Because inquiring minds want to know ---OK, why not?
Yes, it does indicate that --- but only if you look at it from a two-dimensional perspective. Technically, the earth has 360 circles. If you draw a circle all the way around from 0N - 0N, that's one circle, then 1N-1N would be two circles, etc.The Bible says the earth has four corners, and is enclosed within a dome of the heavens, which indicates that it is flat.
Yes.Is this true, in your opinion?
Good question.If it is not true, why does the Bible say it?
You don't say!!
Truth of the matter is, I find it very difficult to believe this earth is actually that old. This Zir-thing that's in it might be, but that doesn't mean the whole earth is.
Hi, Catherineanne!
The Bible says nothing about being enclosed in a "dome of the heavens".
Regarding the four corners, you can take an orange, cut it into four wedges, find the center of mass of each wedge, put the wedges back --- there are your four corners of an orange.
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?