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.
Where is your scientific evidence for your YEC position?Oookay...sooooo
Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it. The evidence we see in the field also clearly shows this as well ( or at least can be interpreted as such )
A clear straight forward reading of Genesis ( taking all known literary devices into account of course) shows that it was intended to be understood as it reads. Talking snakes, boats filled with all animals on earth, the origins of different languages etc... There is no problem with science and Genesis as it reads.
The earth and man need not be millions of years old, God is quiet capable of creating such. ( he tells us this pretty clearly ).
The only problem comes when man, is willing to believe mans interpretation of the data over the Word of Gods interpretation.
Only when we beleive the fables and myths ( macro evolution and millions of years) that have been created in the minds of men rather than the revelation of God, then Genesis becomes a problem.
Peace!
Paloma
Calling the conclusions of science "fables and myths" does nothing to advance your argument. Science is the best tool we currently have to observe the material universe, and to dismiss it so flippantly is folly. That's not to say it's settled, the scientific method itself ensures that it is always open to being challenged (that's it's main strength). To be credable you need to challenge science with science. Unless you are one of those who completely dismisses science, in which case I suggest you look into the nonsense that the flat-Earth and electric-universe people are saying. They may be wrong, but at least they are consistent.
Oh where to start..."Long agers" use assumptions as much as we do when trying to date the earth and the cosmos. Is there a sticker somewhere that tells us how old things are? Love top see that When Jesus pulled fish and bread out of a basket, how old were the fish? When he made water into wine how old was the wine? Science today uses assumptions ( in all kinds of areas ) to make their case on the age of things. Assumptions are not facts, sorry. Science is good but not infallible. Science has its place, but its not the holy grail of interpretations, sorry. the earth is not flat, but the electric universe does have some interesting theories, but they do not impact the old or young earth.
Sorry, I don't see any of these statements being true at all. Saying something doesn't make it so. On the other hand, when I was about a decade older than a school boy I believed in a young Earth, but I have since learned more and I no longer believe such things.
And you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but as you correctly stated, this does not make it true. What exactly was the lynchpin that pulled you away from a YEC perspective. What's your biggest issue?
Every piece of writing is intended to be understood as it reads, so long as one takes the genre into account. Let me see, I have "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" in front of me. When I read it, I more-or-less understand it as the author intended. But I don't confuse it with history or a maths textbook.
Correct, every piece of writing has a true truth intended. Genesis's is clear. Genesis does not tell us deep detailed scientific truths, but it does tell us truths Such as when the foundation of the great deep opened up (Genesis 7:11) and released its waters to flood the earth, but it does not tell us EXACTLY how this happened. Genesis is what Genesis is, mans history and condition. Its the whole package.
This is so preposterous I can only assume that you are having a lend of me here.
Dead serious, sorry.
Actually I don't believe that He is capable of this, given that we have ample evidence that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old. There are some things that God cannot do. For example He cannot lie, and to create a universe that looks old but isn't actually old is about as big a lie as can be told. Besides, if you use that argument I'll just claim that the Earth was created 3am GMT last Thursday with apparent age, and you won't be able to disprove it and the discussion is over.
Well if you are making our God to be so small that He could not make it all in 6 days and roughly 6,000 years ago, then I can't help you, as you are clipping God right off the bat. There is ample evidence that the earth is young, in fact all the evidence points in this direction. I was cutting the lawn last Thursday at 3 GMT, so I can tell you this is not true. Appearance of age does make it so. Wine takes quiet a while to make, yes ? Yet Jesus Himself made it in minutes if not seconds...
No, just as we have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that Pi does not equal 3.0, we also have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that the Earth is billions of years old (and it's not even that difficult).
No, we do not have to modify the intended meaning of Genesis, but I do agree with you, that we should always strive to understand the intended meaning of any given text using all literary devices that we know about.
You are reading Genesis as if it's history. It isn't.
Yes, very true. In ancient times, they had much different standards for determining authorship than we have today. Actually, for that matter, the 19th century did, too. All the rules we have today abut copyrights, author citations and the like, are pretty much 20th century. Getting back to ancient times. It was the accepted custom to attribute later writings back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. So all the OT laws, which came way after Moses, were attributed back to Moses. So, saying Moses wrote the Pentateuch was right in line with the custom of the day.Your earlier reply has a formatting problem that makes it difficult to reply to from a mobile device so I will reply to it later.
The quote from John 5:46 says nothing about the genre of Genesis. All it says is that Moses wrote about Him. He could have written in any form. Maybe it was historic, or poetic, or apocalyptic, maybe it was a play or a myth.
It is none of these genres. My point is that the fact that Moses wrote about Jesus in a truthful way says nothing whatsoever about the genre of that writing. It doesn't prove that it was historical, just that it was truth. A subtle but extremely important distinction.
Yes, but in ancient times, it was acceptable to attribute later ideas back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. Christ was simply following the customs of the times here. I, for one, hold with the DH, when it comes to authorship of the Pentateuch.Well Moses and Jesus thought it was history, so your issue is not with YEC's but with Jesus!
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…John 5:46
If Adam was created in the same basic way as Jesus pulled fish from a basket, instantly, then he real age would be "zero" but he most likely appeared to be what ever age God made him, i.e. 30 or 40 years of age, whatever God made him as. The cosmos would be the same, appearing "old" but in fact, very young, if Genesis is to be believed, as it clearly says several times that the Heaven and the Earth were made in 6 days. I would prefer to believe Scripture over mans fallible interpretation of the evidence.
Yes I know, and I've said as much. I'm using this fact to make a point.
Well no, and that's a good thing because stickers can lie. We have something much more reliable than that. We have the scientific method.Is there a sticker somewhere that tells us how old things are?
I don't know because we don't have access to the fish or to the wine in question. You are assuming that the fish were created ex nihilo. Maybe they were just relocated from another place. It's a pointless question because unlike the Earth and the universe, we can't observe or test any theories we might have about the fish and the wine. This line of enquiry is a dead end. There are much more fruitful avenues to pursue.When Jesus pulled fish and bread out of a basket, how old were the fish? When he made water into wine how old was the wine?
This is difficult to answer because - judging from your statements above - your understanding of science is somewhat misinformed. I fear that if I were attempt to show where you are wrong we would end up talking at cross purposes. I might come back to it later if this conversation survives.Science today uses assumptions ( in all kinds of areas ) to make their case on the age of things. Assumptions are not facts, sorry. Science is good but not infallible.
I agree with that. However it does have some place in interpretation. Science is a wonderful tool, we just need to learn how to use it properly.Science has its place, but its not the holy grail of interpretations
The electric universe "theory" is a load of bunkum, and probably has no direct impact on the calculated age of the Earth. It's just that some Young Earthers have decided to abandon science completely, and adopt a pseudo-science instead. I can see how this would make things much easier for them, because they can then ignore any real science that might get in the way of their stubbornly held false beliefs.the electric universe does have some interesting theories, but they do not impact the old or young earth.
Genesis does not "clearly imply a young earth and young mankind". That is only one of at least two different interpretations. If it were clear, then this debate would never occur. Also there is no evidence that clearly shows the Earth, mankind, or the universe as being young.And you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but as you correctly stated, this does not make it true. What exactly was the lynchpin that pulled you away from a YEC perspective. What's your biggest issue?
Except that it isn't. By that I mean that it isn't history as we understand modern historic literature. For example you can't read Genesis in the same way as you would read a history of Great Britain that was written in the last few hundred years. You can't even read Genesis in the same way as you would read the Acts of the Apostles. You would no more come up with useful data by adding up the ages in Genesis as you would by adding up the numbers in a poem.Genesis is what Genesis is, mans history and condition.
In that case I have absolutly no idea what you were talking about here, or what point you were trying to make.Dead serious, sorry.
You are putting words into my mouth here. I never said that God could not have made the universe in 6 days ~6000 yeas ago. He's God, and can do anything he likes. It's just that there's no scientific evidence to indicate that He did, and no scriptural reason to insist that He did.Well if you are making our God to be so small that He could not make it all in 6 days and roughly 6,000 years ago, then I can't help you, as you are clipping God right off the bat.
I'm pretty sure there isn't. But go ahead and show me how all the evidence points to a young Earth.There is ample evidence that the earth is young, in fact all the evidence points in this direction.
That's good, now we have found two things we agree on.but I do agree with you, that we should always strive to understand the intended meaning of any given text using all literary devices that we know about.
But a Bible Scholar who knows the LORD and believes His Word would never, ever, claim the evidence "points" to earth being any older than what the Word of God states.lol, no. The evidence in the field proves an old Earth not a young one. Any school boy who sees a young Earth in Genesis and "the field" would get a failing grade and would have to repeat the course.
The Scriptures state that the heavens -all of the stretched out from earth stories/ascensions of them- are created one with the earth, in the beginning, and the "firmament of His powers" were not stretched out from the earth until day 2 of creation week.A quick question if I may. As a Young Earther, do you also believe in a young universe?
The Scriptures state that the heavens -all of the stretched out from earth stories/ascensions of them- are created one with the earth, in the beginning, and the "firmament of His powers" were not stretched out from the earth until day 2 of creation week.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but neither was named in the beginning, until they were formed out of the waters and the powers in them and over them, but first, light was called out of the darkness and divided from the darkness and set circling the globe of His powers, making evening and morning, one/first, day.
God then divided the waters of this creation into two, and stretched out the firmament of His powers between them, in layers called ascensions/stories. He then named the stretched out firmament between the cut in two waters of this creation "shamayim" =Hebrew for "two waters".
So the heavens were named on day 2, and the waters below the heavens were commanded to be gathered together in one place, and the "dry" to appear. He called the waters "seas", and the dry He called "earth".
So earth was named one day after the heavens were named, and each was named after they were formed, in the day they were formed, which was day two and day three of creation week.
The light of day one was stretched out with the firmament, and circled the globe from day one, and will continue to circle the globe forever, but the light was organized into stars, which are electric powers which stream their light to the sun in currents of super powers in the heavens, and the sun refracts that light back out to the entire creation as it circles the earth in the circle of the heavens, forever, and gives it's light to the moon, in measures which are described in the calendar of the heavens in the Book of Enoch.
But a Bible Scholar who knows the LORD and believes His Word would never, ever, claim the evidence "points" to earth being any older than what the Word of God states.
The first lie he told was to Eve, in the Garden of Eden/Paradise, in the third heaven.
The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth
Yes it does, it's clearly implied. Have you read it?
The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth.
He didn't lie nor was the garden in the third heaven. And lastly, the garden isn't called paradise in scripture. So far you are wrong on every single thing you've said about the bible.
Yes, the Bible states the age of the earth, as many have already pointed out.
As to the Garden of Eden, you are wrong, for the word Paradise in the Greek to English is the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew.
It is in the third heaven, and Pauls states in 2 Cor. 12:1-4 that Paradise is in the third heaven, and Jesus states that the Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise, in Revelation.
The Tree of Life has always been in Mount Eden, in Paradise, God's Garden, in the third heaven, from the beginning.
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?