Young Earth Creationism

[KWCrazy]

Simply false. We've pointed out that it need not be interpreted literally, which you insist on doing.

And I've pointed out that it was written literally, using evening and morning, numbering the days, and saying very specifically the the creation took six days. This is the verbiage of Genesis. To my knowledge, no Hebrew scholar has been able to explain how using three quantifiers to indicate a single day could mean millions of years. Also, the sequence of creation disallows any natural formation regardless of time; trees day three and the sun day four for example. Also, if the days were a million years long, then so were the nights. Chance of life = 0.

I'll ask again: Does the plan text of Exodus 19 prove that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on giant Eagles?

Using an obvious metaphor in comparison to something which is obviously not written metaphorically is an exercise is ridiculous behavior. Do you want me to take you seriously? Try asking serious questions. why not post the actual passage?

"This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and declare to the sons of Israel, 4 ‘You saw what I did to the Egyptians, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 And now if you carefully obey me and keep my covenant, you are to be my special possession out of all the nations, because the whole earth belongs to me, 6 but you are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to me.’ These are the words you are to declare to the Israelis.”

Now, was Moses supposed to speak to a house? The were in the desert. they didn't have houses. Were they brought directly to God? No? DANG! Obvious metaphor there. Compare that to, "The evening and the morning were the first day." Veeerrrrry specific. No metaphor. No chance for a metaphor. Your post was a distortion, nothing more.

Here again is your explicit interpretation, with nothing to back it up. You simply make statements with no support and expect people to swallow them?

Let me see.
The events of creation were written in such a way that there can be no doubt the author intended to mean six literal solar days.
The Fourth Commandment is based on the six day creation and the seventh day of rest.
The events of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone.
Jesus quoted from Genesis.
Nothing to back it up? Your statement is deliberately false.

Your claim very simply cannot be justified in the Scriptures - because Genesis itself is clearly poetic.

If so, it's the most horrible example of poetry ever written.
Find me even one Hebrew scholar who agrees with you. I've never found anyone yet who can justify a billion year creation without distorting or deliberately lying about what is written.

There are many Jewish scholars today who reject a literal reading of Genesis 1 - in fact, there even have been Jewish scholars throughout history who did so.

Jesus was not among them. Of course, Jesus knew that many would reject the Torah when he said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)

Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses"

From Wiki:
Aside from being revered by Jewish historians, he is also very prominent in the history of Islamic and Arab sciences and is mentioned extensively in the studies. He was influenced by and influenced other prominent Arab and Muslim philosophers and scientists, such as Avicenna, Averroes and Al-Farabi. He lived to become a prominent philosopher and polymath in both the Jewish and Islamic worlds.

In other words, he was not a Christian. If he followed Islam, then he followed a false, man made religion. Jesus said to believe the Torah. You follow who you wish. I'll stick with the Lord.

...Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.

Nobody ever said Genesis was a scientific account.
Whoever said that scientific was a synonym for true?

Math is the language of God

Who told you that nonsense?

God has given us the tools, through science, to read more of His word in His creation, through math.

100% wrong. We come to God through faith, not through objective evidence.

Of course, and your claim that one has to only go by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is just that - a man's interpretation.

Genesis can't be interpreted to describe evolution. The timing is wrong. The sequence is wrong. The fact that everything was created mature and nothing gave rise to anything else denies evolution. Each reproducing after its kind denies evolution. Man from dust denies evolution. The only way to justify the two is to completely ignore everything recorded in Genesis, and to ignore every one of the 200 references to the first three chapters of Genesis that exist in the New Testament. Moreover, mixing a lie into truth results in a greater lie, not a greater truth.

My Bible, and likely yours too, clearly shows that they are symbolic... ,

Not symbolic in the least. is your family tree symbolic?
...Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
source

YECs are in error in using it to establish a 6,000 year age for the earth.

The age of the earth is hard to know exactly, but from what I've seen it's between 6,000 and 8,000 years old.

First of, Gn is symbolic, as explained by scripture itself, and secondly, even taken literally he has "the land bring forth plants", etc, showing gradual change.

Yep; gradual as in taking a whole day. Part of what happened on day three is revealed in Genesis two, which goes into some specific detail about it.

The 4th comandment works well with a symbolic genesis too.

Not in the least.

Jesus mentioning a well known story doesn't mean he takes it literally - only that he uses it to show a point.

Jesus taught from the Scriptures, quoted from the Scriptures, and spoke of the events in the Scriptures as actual historical events. All you have to do is read His words and you will know His reverence for the Scriptures which you summarily reject because some teacher told you God couldn't possibly have created the earth the way he said He did. Evolution is the man made religion which leads many away from the truth of God's word.

Personally, I'll put my faith in God. You can put yours in your science teacher if you like.

 

[Calminian]

....
I'll ask again: Does the plan text of Exodus 19 prove that the Jews were flown out of Egypt on giant Eagles? I didn't see a response from you on that.

KW is right, Pap. This is classic biblical metaphor, in which we have the backstory to the metaphor and it makes sense to the reader. We know how Israel was brought out of Egypt to God and therefore no one would take this as a literal giant eagle.

This is how language works. Obvious poetic statements like this are used by everyone in all cultures since the beginning of time.

What you're doing is akin to pointing to Jesus' metaphor about bread and wine and then concluding that the resurrection can also be a metaphor. And many liberal false teachers do just this. You're rendering the entire Bible as meaningless when you break the rules like this. It then just becomes a matter of picking and choosing what you want to believe.

Now I know you take the Resurrection literally, thank God, but you have no way to challenge those who don't, since you accept their hermeneutical practices.

 

[Willtor]

...

What you're doing is akin to pointing to Jesus' metaphor about bread and wine and then concluding that the resurrection can also be a metaphor. And many liberal false teachers do just this.

...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's quite an example to use.

You know that most of us Christians think that the bread and the wine are not metaphors (or, not metaphors-only) of his body and blood? My denomination holds the doctrine of the "real presence" but I personally think it's more like consubstantiation (as in the Eastern Church). It's funny to hear you accusing people of liberalism and false teaching, when you, yourself, don't think the bread and wine is actually the body and blood of the Lord.

Maybe you should remove the plank from your own eye before you reach for the speck in Papias'?

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a total false dichotomy. You're saying, Either God created in six literal days or he didn't create at all.

I would never say that. While God has described the six days
as literal for us to understand them, the sun and the stars were
created on day four. A day after the plants.

So, the "day" situation was not exactly the same ol' normal
weekday that our alarm clocks wake us up for, now was it.

So you sit down to a salad dinner on day three. You are surrounded
by plants, but no sun, moon, or stars. Likely just a glow from the sky
than has been blinking on and off for the past two days.

Oh, and you are immortal so time has no real relevance. You don't age
or die. Babies are not born and death and disease are not yet "a thing."

So, is this your typical day?
I say not.

 

[KWCrazy]

It's funny to hear you accusing people of liberalism and false teaching, when you, yourself, don't think the bread and wine is actually the body and blood of the Lord.

Jesus was using a metaphor. Let's put it context, shall we?
First, Jesus was alive at the time. His body and blood were intact at the time he said "This is my body."
Matthew 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and handed it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.”
All of them knew it had to be symbolic because The could tell very clearly that it was bread and Jesus was very much intact.

27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28 because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell all of you I will never again drink the product of the vine until that day when I drink it with you once again in my Father’s kingdom.”

Again, it's symbolism. The flesh and blood of Christ describes his sacrifice for the sins of man, and it is the gateway to salvation. By eating the flesh and drinking the blood you take the product in and use its nutritional value, which is what one does when he invites Christ into his life. That said, if you choose to believe that it is the physical flesh and blood of Christ, it isn't going to detract from your personal relationship with the Lord. Some denominations teach that it is actual, some teach that it is symbolic. You aren't less of a believer either way. Let's not disparage each other in the way we worship the Lord, so long as we don't distort His word to fit what we choose to believe.

 

[Willtor]

Jesus was using a metaphor. Let's put it context, shall we?
First, Jesus was alive at the time. His body and blood were intact at the time he said "This is my body."
Matthew 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and handed it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.”
All of them knew it had to be symbolic because The could tell very clearly that it was bread and Jesus was very much intact.

27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 28 because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell all of you I will never again drink the product of the vine until that day when I drink it with you once again in my Father’s kingdom.”

Again, it's symbolism. The flesh and blood of Christ describes his sacrifice for the sins of man, and it is the gateway to salvation. By eating the flesh and drinking the blood you take the product in and use its nutritional value, which is what one does when he invites Christ into his life. That said, if you choose to believe that it is the physical flesh and blood of Christ, it isn't going to detract from your personal relationship with the Lord. Some denominations teach that it is actual, some teach that it is symbolic. You aren't less of a believer either way. Let's not disparage each other in the way we worship the Lord, so long as we don't distort His word to fit what we choose to believe.

I was raised Baptist -- I'm familiar with the symbolism-only arguments. You might read what St. Paul says about the physical consequences of taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner in I Cor. 11, though. Kind of a funny thing to say about something that he thought was purely symbolic... unless he thought there was more to it.

---

It's worth pointing out, here, that there is this passage that is obviously symbolic to you, and obviously not symbolic (or, not symbolic-only) to me. The shoe is on the other foot.

Now, shall I do as you do to me with respect to Genesis? Shall I accuse you of unfaithfulness because of your inability to accept what is clearly supernatural in a naturalistic age? Perhaps I should accuse you of trying to curry favor with the world instead of simply accepting the plain meaning of Scripture?

Or, maybe we have a legitimate disagreement. Maybe we can actually take one another at our words that we sincerely try to understand Scripture. Maybe all the accusations of unfaithfulness are, themselves, the work of the devil, and when we make them (rather than listening and understanding), we are working against God.

 

[KWCrazy]

You might read what St. Paul says about the physical consequences of taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner in I Cor. 11, though. Kind of a funny thing to say about something that he thought was purely symbolic... unless he thought there was more to it.

Symbolic doesn't mean insignificant. Being "born again" is symbolic, but you can't get to Heaven without it. Holy Communion is a very serious partaking, not to be taken lightly despite the organic make-up of what is ingested. We always knew that it was crackers and juice, but we also knew that it was not something to be taken lightly if you weren't in good standing with the Lord. It was far better to pass on communion than to make an appearance that you were faithful to the Lord while immersed in unforgiven sin.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have a few different comments on the topic. First, I am indebted to YEC publications for much of the scientific reasoning skills and data I've learned and that i used to come to the conclusion that the scientific evidence strongly supports an old earth.

It does, but drinking wine made by Jesus suggests the
perfect vintage of aged wine....so according to scripture
"evidence" is not the final word, scripture is.

 

[Willtor]

Symbolic doesn't mean insignificant. Being "born again" is symbolic, but you can't get to Heaven without it. Holy Communion is a very serious partaking, not to be taken lightly despite the organic make-up of what is ingested. We always knew that it was crackers and juice, but we also knew that it was not something to be taken lightly if you weren't in good standing with the Lord. It was far better to pass on communion than to make an appearance that you were faithful to the Lord while immersed in unforgiven sin.

Wow, you've totally dodged the point. But, okay, let's keep going on this topic.

Being "born again" is a reality. Jesus even says as much when pressed on the issue. It doesn't mean natural birth, but it really does mean being born. Likewise, the bread and the wine are not only symbols of his body and blood. Nobody becomes weak or ill or dies from normal bread and wine.

 

[Willtor]

It does, but drinking wine made by Jesus suggests the
perfect vintage of aged wine....so according to scripture
"evidence" is not the final word, scripture is.

The world was made to appear old, like the wine? To what end?

 

[SkyWriting]

The world was made to appear old, like the wine? To what end?

I didn't say "appear."

It was Created fully formed and appropriate.
If that happened in some sort of "reality"
or just in God's mind, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure if I could tell the difference.
But unless you can read "cooling lava"
into the description of Creation Week,
the scriptures say "old".
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1.htm

 

[Willtor]

I didn't say "appear."

It was Created fully formed and appropriate.
If that happened in some sort of "reality"
or just in God's mind, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure if I could tell the difference.
But unless you can read "cooling lava"
into the description of Creation Week,
the scriptures say "old".
Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters

I grep'd for "old" on the page you linked and found only "Behold".

Where is "old"?

---

You made an analogy to water-into-wine. We know how wine is formed because we make it ourselves. In this case, we expect a "false history" for the wine (maybe an expert could have placed the vineyard and year), but we know the reason: Jesus intended for the wine to continue to flow after it had run out. It could not have been any other way.

Likewise, e.g., we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. The universe appears ancient. You are saying there is a false history. To what end?

 

[SkyWriting]

I grep'd for "old" on the page you linked and found only "Behold".

Where is "old"?

---

You made an analogy to water-into-wine. We know how wine is formed because we make it ourselves. In this case, we expect a "false history" for the wine (maybe an expert could have placed the vineyard and year), but we know the reason: Jesus intended for the wine to continue to flow after it had run out. It could not have been any other way.

Likewise, e.g., we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. The universe appears ancient. You are saying there is a false history. To what end?

I am not saying there is a false history.
I grep'd for "false history" in my postings and found only "history."

 

[Willtor]

I am not saying there is a false history.
I grep'd for "false history" in my postings and found only "history."

I know you didn't. I did. If the universe is 6000 years old, there's a false history. My question is: for what purpose?

 

[SkyWriting]

I know you didn't. I did. If the universe is 6000 years old, there's a false history. My question is: for what purpose?

I don't agree with you that the world is 6000 years old.
So I can't answer your question.

My stand is that scripture points away from a young earth concept.

Are you just cruising for a bruisin'?

 

[Percivale]

I don't agree with you that the world is 6000 years old.
So I can't answer your question.

My stand is that scripture points away from a young earth concept.

Are you just cruising for a bruisin'?

Looks like you and Willtor each thought the other is a YEC. I'd like to hear your understanding of the creation and age of the earth.

 

[Willtor]

I don't agree with you that the world is 6000 years old.
So I can't answer your question.

My stand is that scripture points away from a young earth concept.

I see -- I misunderstood your position. Does your stand hold that Scripture points towards evolution, too?

Are you just cruising for a bruisin'?

I don't know what that means.

 

[miamited]

The world was made to appear old, like the wine? To what end?

Hi willtor,

I haven't really been following a lot of this, but wanted to respond to this post. The earth and the universe weren't made to 'appear' old. They were just created to do what they were created to do. They were created formed as they needed to be formed to what they were created to do. It is man's wisdom, based on the natural properties of things, that says, "because A then B".

The end of course was that God was building a place for a creature that He created to have a place to live. God knew that man would need food. Well, what would the earth have to have to grow food? A layer of dirt. But, the planet itself had to be made to endure for eternity from the day of its creation so He couldn't just set a ball of dirt spinning in the heavens. The structure had to be secure and immovable as far as its ability to withstand the ravages of time and man.

What else do plants need? Well, they need water and so God created the earth to be surrounded by an atmosphere that would bring regular rains upon its surface. How many planets can you name that we have proof has rain falling every few days upon its surface? God made the earth just as it needed to be made. This idea that it is old comes from man's wisdom, not God's. So, we should always remember that God has already declared that He will make foolish the wisdom of the world.

For me, all these wise, smart, educated hypothesis and algorithms and equations that man uses to work out such things that oppose God are the result. Everything was created for God's purpose. So, the best answer to your question is that the end was for the purposes of our Creator, our God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

I haven't really been following a lot of this, but wanted to respond to this post. The earth and the universe weren't made to 'appear' old. They were just created to do what they were created to do. They were created formed as they needed to be formed to what they were created to do. It is man's wisdom, based on the natural properties of things, that says, "because A then B".

The end of course was that God was building a place for a creature that He created to have a place to live. God knew that man would need food. Well, what would the earth have to have to grow food? A layer of dirt. But, the planet itself had to be made to endure for eternity from the day of its creation so He couldn't just set a ball of dirt spinning in the heavens. The structure had to be secure and immovable as far as its ability to withstand the ravages of time and man.

What else do plants need? Well, they need water and so God created the earth to be surrounded by an atmosphere that would bring regular rains upon its surface. How many planets can you name that we have proof has rain falling every few days upon its surface? God made the earth just as it needed to be made. This idea that it is old comes from man's wisdom, not God's. So, we should always remember that God has already declared that He will make foolish the wisdom of the world.

For me, all these wise, smart, educated hypothesis and algorithms and equations that man uses to work out such things that oppose God are the result. Everything was created for God's purpose. So, the best answer to your question is that the end was for the purposes of our Creator, our God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

A little further back in the thread, I cited the example of distant stars:

They look like they exist, but some of them don't and never did. Right? We get light from things that are apparently stars but never were. To what end? The point is: it looks old because there is a (false) history... unless we can believe our eyes and say, "yes, those stars really did exist at one time." But then the universe is not young.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm a trained scientist. YEC is completely unscientific. It doesn't measure up to the scientific method or scientific theory, at all.

Wow, no kidding?
Of the 333 miracles in the Bible, which of them measure up to scientific scrutiny and which of them would be called miracles?

Moreover, whoever said that the Lord had to create the world according to the physical laws He also created?

By the way, who ever said creationism was based on science?