Young Earth looking Old

[Critias]

Isn't that an assumption on your part?

Isn't six days that is described in the Bible not being really six days an assumption on your part?

And wasn't it you who called Peter and Paul ignorant on Genesis 1-11?

 

[gluadys]

Isn't six days that is described in the Bible not being really six days an assumption on your part?

And wasn't it you who called Peter and Paul ignorant on Genesis 1-11?

No, I said they were ignorant of modern science.

And no, that the six days of the biblical creation account were not historical days is not an assumption either. It is a conclusion from the evidence.

Now what were you saying about Paul and Peter saying the Genesis account was literal? Is that not an assumption on your part?

 

[Critias]

No, I said they were ignorant of modern science.

And what stemmed this statement, was it because Peter describes a literal global flood? Or how about Paul who states all mankind came from one man?

And no, that the six days of the biblical creation account were not historical days is not an assumption either. It is a conclusion from the evidence.

You have evidence from someone who was there? If not, then it is an assumption not based on an observation of someone who was there.

Now what were you saying about Paul and Peter saying the Genesis account was literal? Is that not an assumption on your part?

Well, when Paul says all mankind came from one man, it is quite a clear statement. Call it what you wish.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Just as the Greek myths of the gods? They did actually believe in gods.

They did believe in their gods, but that doesn't mean that they thought myths were histories.

 

[Critias]

They did believe in their gods, but that doesn't mean that they thought myths were histories.

How about when the kings told them that they were deities and used invented stories to back them up, did the people believe it?

The people did after all go to temples and worship kings. That means that many did believe the stories they were told that we now call myths.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How about when the kings told them that they were deities and used invented stories to back them up, did the people believe it?

The people did after all go to temples and worship kings. That means that many did believe the stories they were told that we now call myths.

Don't you think the threat of death might have had something to do with it?

 

[Critias]

Don't you think the threat of death might have had something to do with it?

Of course. But are you saying you are confident that people didn't believe these stories were true?

 

[gluadys]

And what stemmed this statement, was it because Peter describes a literal global flood? Or how about Paul who states all mankind came from one man?

Where does Peter say the flood was literal? As for Paul I agree with him. We all come from one ha-adam--one human species with one common ancestor.

You have evidence from someone who was there? If not, then it is an assumption not based on an observation of someone who was there.

Better learn how science is really done, Critias. The evidence was there. And we observe the evidence today.

Well, when Paul says all mankind came from one man, it is quite a clear statement. Call it what you wish.

Sure it is a clear statement, but Paul was more than savvy enough to know that 'adam' has more meanings than one individual.

 

[Critias]

Where does Peter say the flood was literal? As for Paul I agree with him. We all come from one ha-adam--one human species with one common ancestor.

Read Peter's Epistle. Paul was refering to one individual, the same individual that is spoken of in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible.

Better learn how science is really done, Critias. The evidence was there. And we observe the evidence today.

Science observes an ape-type ancestor evolving into a man? News to me.

Sure it is a clear statement, but Paul was more than savvy enough to know that 'adam' has more meanings than one individual.

Agreed. But Paul spoke of Adam as an individual as well. That is where you and Paul disagree. I choose to believe Paul, instead of you.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Of course. But are you saying you are confident that people didn't believe these stories were true?

I doubt there was uniform belief one way or the other.

However, ancient historians were known to put an emphasis on making their point over historical accuracy. I doubt ancient people would read their myths expecting a higher level of historical accuracy than their histories.

 

[gluadys]

Read Peter's Epistle.

Been there, done that. The question still stands.

Paul was refering to one individual, the same individual that is spoken of in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible.

You are making the same assumption about Genesis as you are about Paul.

Science observes an ape-type ancestor evolving into a man? News to me.

Science observes that humans fall into the descriptive category of apes, and observes evidence of their family relationship, as well as evidence that ancestors of humans show a gradation from a basal ape-type to modern humans. It puts the pieces of evidence together for analysis as to why this evidence exists. The best current explanation is that all apes (including humans) are diverse descendants of a common ancestor. This accounts for all the evidence.

Agreed. But Paul spoke of Adam as an individual as well.

Did he? Or are you making assumptions again.

 

[Critias]

I doubt there was uniform belief one way or the other.

However, ancient historians were known to put an emphasis on making their point over historical accuracy. I doubt ancient people would read their myths expecting a higher level of historical accuracy than their histories.

There were many Greeks and Romans who did in fact believe the myths of the gods. They grew up being told these events happened in history.

Moses taught that God created in six days, as we can see in Exodus.

 

[Critias]

Been there, done that. The question still stands.

Read 2 Peter chapter 2. Did God spare the ancient world? Did God only spare Noah and seven others?

Your teachings that you express on this forum says that God spared more than seven people, because by your words not all people died by the flood. The Bible says they did.

Did God spare the Angels when they sinned? Did God condemn Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them ashes? Did God rescue Lot?

Where do you think Peter is pulling all these truths from? Perhaps the Old Testament?

You are making the same assumption about Genesis as you are about Paul.

Have you read Acts 17 where Paul says all mankind came from one man? Have you read Paul's Epistles where he says the first man was Adam?

Yet, you teach here that Adam never existed. The Bible says he did.

Science observes that humans fall into the descriptive category of apes, and observes evidence of their family relationship, as well as evidence that ancestors of humans show a gradation from a basal ape-type to modern humans. It puts the pieces of evidence together for analysis as to why this evidence exists. The best current explanation is that all apes (including humans) are diverse descendants of a common ancestor. This accounts for all the evidence.

Science has never observed an ape-type ancestor evolve into a man. There is not one recorded event ever found to ever testify of such a thing.

All sciences does is makes assumptions upon assumptions that concludes that it is basically a fact, but a theory.

A rat that shares 92% of our DNA. It must also be a close relative of the human species, right?

Did he? Or are you making assumptions again.

Try reading Romans 5:14. If you honestly don't think Paul talked about Adam as a person, then you really ought to put the science books down and read the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

Read 2 Peter chapter 2. Did God spare the ancient world? Did God only spare Noah and seven others?

Since there was never a global flood in which all animals died, God never destroyed the ancient world. So what do we do with 2 Peter 2? Seems to me we have the same choices as with the creation days.

1. The global flood referred to in the bible is not historical. It is a legend or myth which may have its roots in a historical but less than global flood.


2. The bible is in error. It is quite simply wrong about the flood.

Your choice?

Did God spare the Angels when they sinned? Did God condemn Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them ashes? Did God rescue Lot?

Where do you think Peter is pulling all these truths from? Perhaps the Old Testament?

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot are concerned, he is getting that from the scriptures. But that just takes us back to the interpretation of the relevant scriptures in the absence of corroborating evidence.

I don't recall the Hebrew scriptures referring to any punishment of angels. Can you supply a reference?

Have you read Acts 17 where Paul says all mankind came from one man? Have you read Paul's Epistles where he says the first man was Adam?

Yet, you teach here that Adam never existed. The Bible says he did.

Of course 'adam' existed and exists. But I don't know of any scripture in either the Old or New Testament which requires that the 'adam' God created be a single historical individual.

Science has never observed an ape-type ancestor evolve into a man. There is not one recorded event ever found to ever testify of such a thing.

All sciences does is makes assumptions upon assumptions that concludes that it is basically a fact, but a theory.

A rat that shares 92% of our DNA. It must also be a close relative of the human species, right?

As I said, you need to learn how science works and why scientists have confidence in conclusions drawn from evidence. As for a rat, yes, it is a fairly close relative. It is a mammal like we are, but in a different order of mammals. All mammals are related to each other more closely than any of them are to non-mammals.

Try reading Romans 5:14. If you honestly don't think Paul talked about Adam as a person, then you really ought to put the science books down and read the Bible.

I spend far more time reading the bible than I do reading science.

 

[Critias]

Since there was never a global flood in which all animals died, God never destroyed the ancient world. So what do we do with 2 Peter 2? Seems to me we have the same choices as with the creation days.

All animals died, but the ones on the ark. The Bible says this: all flesh died. But, you teach that all flesh didn't die. Seems you and the Bible are in contradiction so, you cleverly tell everyone that the Bible shouldn't be read as if it recorded real history.

You know, I heard the same logic used recently when discussing the Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ. That the history of what is recorded in the New Testament cannot be trusted to be correct. That it is mythological.

1. The global flood referred to in the bible is not historical. It is a legend or myth which may have its roots in a historical but less than global flood.


2. The bible is in error. It is quite simply wrong about the flood.

Your choice?

Again, you present this as if there are only two choices. I choose a third.

3) Peter is correct to refer to God inspired Scripture about what God has done. The flood was as Peter describes it, global.

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot are concerned, he is getting that from the scriptures. But that just takes us back to the interpretation of the relevant scriptures in the absence of corroborating evidence.

I don't recall the Hebrew scriptures referring to any punishment of angels. Can you supply a reference?

Do you believe that there is a real Lucifer and that 1/3 of the angels followed him and fell? These angels, because they have chosen to defy God, will be punished.

Peter could be referring to Genesis 6, or he may be referring to what Jesus spoke of in the three and half years he was with Him. Fact is, I trust Peter over you.

Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrah were punished by God as the Bible records? Do you believe Daniel was in the lion den and was unharmed as real historical account? Do you believe Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind by God as real historical account?

Of course 'adam' existed and exists. But I don't know of any scripture in either the Old or New Testament which requires that the 'adam' God created be a single historical individual.

You have claimed previously that Adam, the man, not mankind, never existed as the Bible teaches he did.

Since it is your premise that Adam was mankind, did mankind live only 930 some years and then die?

As I said, you need to learn how science works and why scientists have confidence in conclusions drawn from evidence. As for a rat, yes, it is a fairly close relative. It is a mammal like we are, but in a different order of mammals. All mammals are related to each other more closely than any of them are to non-mammals.

Why, will science give me salvation? Did science die for me on a cross so that I can live eternally? No. Jesus did and it is Him and His teachings that I choose to learn, follow, and submit to. Science is irrelevant to the overall picture. But, you choose to use it to dictate what you accept or do not accept as being true within Scripture.

I spend far more time reading the bible than I do reading science.

Well, I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't show.

 

[gluadys]

Seems you and the Bible are in contradiction so, you cleverly tell everyone that the Bible shouldn't be read as if it recorded real history.

Until you can show that the bible must be read as recorded history, the bible and I are not in disagreement. It is you and I that disagree about how to read the bible. It is really arrogant of you to assume that because I disagree with you, I am also disagreeing with the bible.

You know, I heard the same logic used recently when discussing the Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ. That the history of what is recorded in the New Testament cannot be trusted to be correct. That it is mythological.

And what evidence did they use to back up their logic?

Again, you present this as if there are only two choices. I choose a third.

3) Peter is correct to refer to God inspired Scripture about what God has done. The flood was as Peter describes it, global.

I present only two when there are only two. The facts of reality contradict your choice.

Do you believe that there is a real Lucifer and that 1/3 of the angels followed him and fell? These angels, because they have chosen to defy God, will be punished.

I might if you gave me the scriptural references so I could check them out.

Peter could be referring to Genesis 6

Genesis 6 is ambiguous as it may not be referring to angels at all and certainly doesn't mention any of the other ideas propounded by Peter or you at all.

or he may be referring to what Jesus spoke of in the three and half years he was with Him. Fact is, I trust Peter over you.

So actually Peter is our only known source?

Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrah were punished by God as the Bible records? Do you believe Daniel was in the lion den and was unharmed as real historical account? Do you believe Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind by God as real historical account?

These are all reported as miracles and have no historical corroboration, so there is no reason to either question them or hold to them unquestioningly. The only valid answer is "I don't know."

I do believe that God inspired the authors of these stories and that, like all scripture, they are true and useful for their purpose, whether or not they are factual.

You have claimed previously that Adam, the man, not mankind, never existed as the Bible teaches he did.

Since it is your premise that Adam was mankind, did mankind live only 930 some years and then die?

Why can you not get it through your head that everything in a story is part of the story. That includes the genealogy.

Why, will science give me salvation?

Irrelevant question. If you are going to critique the answers science gives and try to show that they are baseless, you need to understand the process of getting to those answers. Handwaving them off as assumptions when they are not is an exercise in futility. It only shows that you don't like or understand science and are averse to learning about it in case it shakes up the beliefs you consider important. Well, if those beliefs do not concur with the truth, maybe they need to be shaken up.

Well, I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't show.

That is because you only know me in this context. You've never been in a bible study group with me.

 

[Critias]

Until you can show that the bible must be read as recorded history, the bible and I are not in disagreement. It is you and I that disagree about how to read the bible. It is really arrogant of you to assume that because I disagree with you, I am also disagreeing with the bible.

It is your choice to call standing and speaking the truth to be arrogant. It is a fact that you will ignore that the Bible does indeed record history so that you can accept naturalistic ideals that make a pathway for the removal of God.

And what evidence did they use to back up their logic?

Historical or the lack thereof of enough "proof" that they require. No different than you.

I present only two when there are only two. The facts of reality contradict your choice.

The fact is is that you don't know all that has happened in reality. God does. And in Him I trust, not in you.

I might if you gave me the scriptural references so I could check them out.

Are we now taking the position that Lucifer doesn't exist either?

Genesis 6 is ambiguous as it may not be referring to angels at all and certainly doesn't mention any of the other ideas propounded by Peter or you at all.

All Scripture is clear under God's instruction. It is when man decides to put his knowledge ahead of God's guidance that he becomes confused on what Scripture is saying.

And again, I will certainly trust Peter, who walked with Jesus Christ, than you.

So actually Peter is our only known source?

A single source may not be good enough for you, but in this case, the Bible and the authors of it are good enough for me. God has graced me with that much faith in Him.

These are all reported as miracles and have no historical corroboration, so there is no reason to either question them or hold to them unquestioningly. The only valid answer is "I don't know."

I do believe that God inspired the authors of these stories and that, like all scripture, they are true and useful for their purpose, whether or not they are factual.

The valid answer is, the Scriptures are true and what is recorded is what took place. This you also deny, thus claiming the Scriptures can and are in error where you choose them to be so that your knowledge can be salvaged.

And the same comment was made about Jesus and His ministry: whether or not it was factual. It is just like many modern day neo-Christians to call Scripture into error to account for man's knowledge. No different than the day in the Garden when Adam and Eve decided to forego God and reach to obtain their own knowledge.

Why can you not get it through your head that everything in a story is part of the story. That includes the genealogy.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Adam was mankind or Adam was a man in the story.

Irrelevant question. If you are going to critique the answers science gives and try to show that they are baseless, you need to understand the process of getting to those answers. Handwaving them off as assumptions when they are not is an exercise in futility. It only shows that you don't like or understand science and are averse to learning about it in case it shakes up the beliefs you consider important. Well, if those beliefs do not concur with the truth, maybe they need to be shaken up.

I am not critiquing science. I am critiquing man's conquest for knowledge that will push God aside, as in the Garden, for the sake of man's pride.

 

[gluadys]

It is your choice to call standing and speaking the truth to be arrogant.

I am not calling speaking for the truth arrogant. I am calling your identification of your personal interpretation of scripture with the truth arrogant. Your personal interpretation, like mine, is a human, fallible interpretation which can be mistaken. Disagreement with it does not constitute disagreement with scripture itself.

Historical or the lack thereof of enough "proof" that they require. No different than you.

No, not the same. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If all they are saying is that a lot of biblical history cannot be verified, they are right. But if they are extrapolating from that to say it did not happen, they are going too far. That is not the same situation as applies in the case of a global flood. There we not only have lack of evidence it did happen. We have positive evidence that it could not have happened.

The fact is is that you don't know all that has happened in reality. God does.

But God hasn’t told us what he knows in this instance. He, has, however, given us the tools to find out. But when we find something that disturbs you, you prefer not to deal with it.

Are we now taking the position that Lucifer doesn't exist either?

You said Peter used information in the OT in reference to Lucifer and the rebellion of the angels. We are asking for the reference.

All Scripture is clear under God's instruction. It is when man decides to put his knowledge ahead of God's guidance that he becomes confused on what Scripture is saying.

And the relevance of this is? I have heard several different interpretations of this passage. All from reputable Christian sources. And most admit the text is ambiguous and discuss several possible meanings without opting firmly for any one of them.

A single source may not be good enough for you, but in this case, the Bible and the authors of it are good enough for me. God has graced me with that much faith in Him.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say a single source was not good enough. I am just verifying that contrary to the earlier assertion about the references to Lucifer and the rebellion of the angels coming from the OT, Peter is our only known source for this information.

The valid answer is, the Scriptures are true and what is recorded is what took place. This you also deny, thus claiming the Scriptures can and are in error where you choose them to be so that your knowledge can be salvaged.

No, it is you who say that my interpretation constitutes a charge that the scriptures are in error. That is your interpretation of my interpretation, and it is wrong. I do not consider that the scriptures are in error. I say your interpretation of some passages of scripture are in error. I consider the scriptures to be correct when interpreted as they are meant to be. When historical meaning is imposed on what is not intended to be historical, you will end up with an interpretation that contradicts fact.

And the same comment was made about Jesus and His ministry: whether or not it was factual. It is just like many modern day neo-Christians to call Scripture into error to account for man's knowledge. No different than the day in the Garden when Adam and Eve decided to forego God and reach to obtain their own knowledge.

I am not going to comment on anonymous opinions. I don’t take responsibility for other people’s statements unless I have a reference so I can examine them in context, and usually not even then.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Adam was mankind or Adam was a man in the story.

But that is exactly the point. As a historical figure, Adam cannot be both. But as a man in the story, he can be. The man in the story, and everything said about him in the story, is literal within the bounds of the story. But mythical outside the bounds of the story, because that is the kind of story it is—mythical. The story represents humanity as an individual person, and various universal human truths as events in his life.

And may I remind you that, used in this sense, “mythical” does not mean false or erroneous. A myth, like any other revelation from God, is still infallible truth.

I am not critiquing science. I am critiquing man's conquest for knowledge that will push God aside, as in the Garden, for the sake of man's pride.

And you are assuming that the pursuit of science is driven by this motive. IOW you assume that science is motivated by a desire to push God aside. That is not the testimony of scientists, especially Christian scientists, and other scientists that believe in God. Even this assumption of yours is contradicted by reality.

As for science itself, you really should learn more about it. It would help you avoid erroneous assumptions like this one.

 

[Didaskomenos]

All Scripture is clear under God's instruction.

This is particularly rich. It's also useless, because every Christian who takes any position will believe they are being instructed by God. That's not the Bible's fault - that's the fault of those who base their faith on it.

Please, O Critias, explain to me the mysteries of free will. Perhaps you've not been instructed enough by God on that issue. Ok, how about the issue of whether Judas was hanged or whether he plunged to his death. Maybe you've been instructed by God so that your eschatology is just like God's. Yours was a remarkably stupid tack of reasoning for arguing your viewpoint and you can't get away with it. By your logic, the way I can know whether I interpret a passage correctly is by comparing it to the Way that Seems Obvious to Critias, because he's been under God's instruction. How arrogant. You say that it's not simply a surface reading that gives you your view, that you're influenced by divine guidance, and yet your last and most consistent line of defense/offense against our beliefs is that we're reading things into the plain reading of Scripture.

My belief is not based solely on what I personally feel about what I have heard from God. I don't condemn anyone's faith or make disparaging remarks about their commitment (which gluadys magnimously overlooked) based on whether they believe in the way I feel I have been led. Neither does gluadys, nor do the other TE's that I've seen around. Which is the only group doing this?

Good question. Maybe it's time you seek God's instruction on it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Personally, I don't see the validity of radiometric dating to be conclusive proof of anything. Recently I saw a thing on discovery where a scientist take a four foot long core sample from the bottom of a swamp and said he could determine weather pattern for the last 10,000 years. Call me incredulous, I'm not buying it.

Have a nice day
Mark