Young Earth Vs. Old Earth

[metherion]

You all do not understand whenever I say "Alone."

Take Genesis 1:1 for example. I take it as it is, I do not use Theistic Evolution then say it is Metaphorical. I do use Biblical creationism then say It is a literal interpretation. GENESIS 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth." Therefore, In the beginning GOD "literally' created the heaven and the earth. According to the 'context.' I do not take theistic evolution then try to describe Genesis. I don't tell God what he means about Genesis 1:1 or the rest of Genesis. When you say metaphorical your telling God he did not create what he said he created in Genesis 'literally.' I do not see why the rest of the Bible would reflect on the Creation in the 'literal' account of Genesis.

Few things I would like to point out.

First, we do pretty much get what you mean by “Bible alone”. However, Bible alone is not supported in Scripture. It is even pointed against in a few instances of Scripture. Whatever happen to “You shall know Me by My works?” and all that?

Second, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian that DOESN”T think God created it all. Just sayin’.

Also, we do not ‘tell God what He did and did not do’. We look at what God did and figure out how He did it, as well as looking at what He has inspired men to write to find out its message.

Metherion

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Few things I would like to point out.

First, we do pretty much get what you mean by “Bible alone”. However, Bible alone is not supported in Scripture. It is even pointed against in a few instances of Scripture. Whatever happen to “You shall know Me by My works?” and all that?

Second, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian that DOESN”T think God created it all. Just sayin’.

Also, we do not ‘tell God what He did and did not do’. We look at what God did and figure out how He did it, as well as looking at what He has inspired men to write to find out its message.

Metherion

Hmmmm.

In GENESIS according to you, is a descriptive account of His Creation. TE's say, "Evolution from abiogenesis (started in water) then from this organism came all life and evolved over time."

God says he created humans and animals from the dust of the ground. This is a description of the creation. But two totally different viewpoints.

Evolution - Water - All living things.
Genesis - Land (by dust) - All living things by description.

Which is right?

 

[LightSeaker]

"EVERY WORD OF GOD IS PURE"

What does that mean? I have no idea.

.

 

[metherion]

In GENESIS according to you, is a descriptive account of His Creation. TE's say, "Evolution from abiogenesis (started in water) then from this organism came all life and evolved over time."

We don’t know that it started in water. Furthermore, minerals and whatnot are definitely earth, and if they are so fine they are of merely molecular size I could definitely see calling them dust. And abiogenesis is NOT needed for evolution, for the umpteenth time (not necessarily to you but in general).

God says he created humans and animals from the dust of the ground. This is a description of the creation. But two totally different viewpoints.

‘The Book of Genesis, first book in the Bible, contained words God INSPIRED man to write, says He created...’
Fixed.

Also, I thought that sea creatures and birds were brought forth from the waters (Genesis 20-21) and the land brought forth the rest of the not-man creatures. Only man was specifically created from the dust of the earth.

And they are totally different viewpoints. One is scientific and explains how it happened, the other is an allegory/myth (remember myths are not necessarily false thankyouverymuch) that describes God’s relation to, well, EVERYTHING. They ARE totally different, because they are meant to provide totally different lessons.

Evolution - Water - All living things.
Genesis - Land (by dust) - All living things by description.

Not ‘Evolution-water- all living things’ but ‘Abiogenesis-unknown-first life diversifying by evolution into all living things’.
And for the second part, God does not specifically create everything from dust, and Genesis is meant to convey a different meaning than a scientific one.

Which is right?

Depends on the message you want. How did life get into its present form and what can we learn from that to make life better? Go with evolution.

What is God’s relation to His creation? Go with Genesis.

Metherion

 

[JusSumguy]

In GENESIS according to you, is a descriptive account of His Creation. TE's say, "Evolution from abiogenesis (started in water) then from this organism came all life and evolved over time."

No...... TE's don't believe that.

To put it simply, TE's believe that God started life and then arranged evolution properly to carry out his plan.


-

 

[metherion]

No...... TE's don't believe that.

To put it simply, TE's believe that God started life and then arranged evolution properly to carry out his plan.

It varies quite a bit.

Some believe God started life and let evolution take care.

Some think God made the universe in such a way that the natural laws would lead to life.

Some believe different but very similar things.

Metherion

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

..

 

[marlowe007]

This is not mo argument at all. My argument is that a simple statement that something happened is either true or false. There is no middle ground. if it is true, the alleged fact actually happened. If the alleged event did not actually happen, then the statement that it happened is false. This is not just true of any particular statement it it true of any statement.

If I say that -x- happened, and --x- did not happen, I did not tell the truth. There is no way around this simple fact.

Now in the case of the first 11 chapters of the Bible, they contain a great many simple allegations that certain events took place in the past. If these events did not actually happen, then the allegations are false.

And if the allegations are false, then one of two things is true. Either the Bible is not the word of God, or God is a liar. Either conclusion destroys the central foundation of the Christian faith.

If the Bible is not the word of God, or if every word of God is not true, we have no foundation whatsoever for our faith. for we have no way of determining which part of it is true and which part is false.

We cannot base it on the reasonableness of the accounts, for there is nothing more unreasonable than that a virgin would have a son. Or that that son would die and rise again. But if these are not true, then our faith in Jesus is based on a fairy tale.

Either the Bible is wholly true, or we have no basis for believing any part of it.

Yes, the certainty that large parts of the Bible must be fairy tales invites the conclusion that the whole may be equally fictitious. And it could well be that TE/OECism are nothing but desperate examples of extreme cognitive dissonance to which some Christians must resort in order to superficially reconcile the Bible with modern science.

However, there are secure means of distinguishing certain parts of the Bible from others, especially when we're dealing with a collection of stories written by numerous authors over several hundreds of years.

 

[LightSeaker]

It varies quite a bit.

Some believe God started life and let evolution take care.

Some think God made the universe in such a way that the natural laws would lead to life.

Some believe different but very similar things.

Metherion

Others, like myself, believe that God is continously creating.

.

 

[metherion]

Yes, the certainty that large parts of the Bible must be fairy tales invites the conclusion that the whole may be equally fictitious.

*Facepalm* This shows the type of fundamental misconception that exists about the Bible in a lot of people.

Not literal != not true.
Not literal != fictitious.
Not literal != fairy tale.

Metherion

 

[marlowe007]

*Facepalm* This shows the type of fundamental misconception that exists about the Bible in a lot of people.

Not literal != not true.
Not literal != fictitious.
Not literal != fairy tale.

Metherion

You have to question, though, whether Genesis has any basis in reality even as an allegory. People can disobey God without any guilt whatsoever, and some even shamelessly walk around naked. If the fall of man were true, there would be no nudists.

The flood story appears to have no figurative value, and although Philo tried to attach some allegorical meaning to it, even he considered Noah and the deluge facts of history.

In conclusion, the events in Genesis can only make sense in an historical narrative.

 

[LightSeaker]

In conclusion, the events in Genesis can only make sense in an historical narrative.

That's not my conclusion. I see a spiritual trajectory and lessons learned that are not based upon any historical event.

.

 

[Willtor]

You have to question, though, whether Genesis has any basis in reality even as an allegory. People can disobey God without any guilt whatsoever, and some even shamelessly walk around naked. If the fall of man were true, there would be no nudists.

The flood story appears to have no figurative value, and although Philo tried to attach some allegorical meaning to it, even he considered Noah and the deluge facts of history.

In conclusion, the events in Genesis can only make sense in an historical narrative.

I disagree. Even at the most surface-level, a reading shows that eliminating evil is not a question of destroying the evil people. I.e., Noah and his family are righteous and the rest of the world is destroyed. Whew! We're back to square-one and the world is at rights, again. Except... a few generations later we're back to disobedience and now we're even going to storm heaven.

The story at least indicates that the line of faith/disobedience cuts through each person and it isn't a matter of weeding out unrighteous people and thereby trying to get back to a greater purity. We are all touched by sin.

 

[metherion]

You have to question, though, whether Genesis has any basis in reality even as an allegory. People can disobey God without any guilt whatsoever, and some even shamelessly walk around naked. If the fall of man were true, there would be no nudists.
...

In conclusion, the events in Genesis can only make sense in an historical narrative.

Your conclusion contradicts your premises. There are nudists now, period. If you say that nudists are a contra-indication to the events in Genesis, then their existence would be against a historical interpretation, but if it's an allegorical interpretation, it's not problem.

The others have pointed out spiritual lessons in things such as Noah and the Ark as well as and in some ways much better then I could, so props to you guys

Metherion

 

[JusSumguy]

Yes, the certainty that large parts of the Bible must be fairy tales invites the conclusion that the whole may be equally fictitious. And it could well be that TE/OECism are nothing but desperate examples of extreme cognitive dissonance to which some Christians must resort in order to superficially reconcile the Bible with modern science.

However, there are secure means of distinguishing certain parts of the Bible from others, especially when we're dealing with a collection of stories written by numerous authors over several hundreds of years.

By definition, Imma TE.

I don't think of large parts of the Bible as fairy tales. I believe it all. And I see no conflict at all.

Yet, you seem to have much conflict to resolve.........

You see, I believe that God can start any set of reactions in motion from any point in time, and no matter how many google instances it goes through, no matter how many eons it takes, he'll not just know the outcome already. But it'll be the outcome he desired at the outset.

When one runs out of ammo, they usually result to trowing their gun. Or, in this case, throwing dispersions. Please resist this.


-

 

[marlowe007]

Your conclusion contradicts your premises. There are nudists now, period. If you say that nudists are a contra-indication to the events in Genesis, then their existence would be against a historical interpretation, but if it's an allegorical interpretation, it's not problem.

If Genesis is nothing but a symbolic representation of reality that describes human nature and man's relationship with God, then their existence undermines this interpretation. But if Genesis were literal, the embarrassing state of nakedness which Adam experienced would merely be the mundane circumstance confined to that past moment, with no timeless value attempting to explain human nature. In other words, the text contains more truth as a mundane historical account with no symbolic purpose.

 

[rcorlew]

Threads like this truly sadden me.

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Does anyone else know what is is God Breathed?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Now for the $10,000 question:

What if you have to believe that the Word as given through the Bible on all accounts is both true and truth; fact and factual?

The one who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has that judging him: the Word which I spoke, that will judge him in the last Day

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Be very careful that by trying to understand God that you do not do so through your own understanding for He is spiritual.

As a side note, who is to say that the stories that Jesus share did not actually happen? They are actually common everyday things that are very likely to happen.

 

[metherion]

If Genesis is nothing but a symbolic representation of reality that describes human nature and man's relationship with God, then their existence undermines this interpretation.

No, not really. The existence of nudists does nothing to undermine the nature of humanity’s relationship with God at any state, unless realizing one is naked is something specifically designed by God for the shame of humanity, which does not seem to be the case. And reading Genesis as symbolic allegory doesn’t include such an understanding.

But if Genesis were literal, the embarrassing state of nakedness which Adam experienced would merely be the mundane circumstance confined to that past moment, with no timeless value attempting to explain human nature.

And for it to be allegorical, then literal nakedness must be literally shameful for all humanity for all time? I’m sorry, that line of logic is a tad flawed.

In other words, the text contains more truth as a mundane historical account with no symbolic purpose.

Except that it doesn’t, because the entire purpose of it whether you accept it as literal fact or allegorical myth is the relationship between Creator and creation.

Does anyone else know what is is God Breathed?

The breath of life, as it says right there? Spirit, a soul?

What if you have to believe that the Word as given through the Bible on all accounts is both true and truth; fact and factual?

Then I would have to decide if God is lying in His presentation of His Word or the presentation of His Work, the universe. And either way God ends up a liar.

Be very careful that by trying to understand God that you do not do so through your own understanding for He is spiritual.

This is a warning best heeded by all sides of the issue, I most definitely agree with you.

As a side note, who is to say that the stories that Jesus share did not actually happen? They are actually common everyday things that are very likely to happen.

Not really. A talent was a HUGE amount of money, and for someone to leave 9 of them in the hands of servants, well... wow. Also, Samaritans and the Jews were pretty bitter enemies, and for a wage-giver to give everyone wages no matter how long they worked would be very odd indeed even today. Those are just off the top of my head.

But the point isn’t saying that they didn’t happen, the point is... the lesson that they are trying to get across does not rely on them having happened. Does it matter if someone actually scattered seed on several types of terrain? Does it matter if a Samaritan ever actually stopped? No. The lesson is still the same and equally as valid. THAT is the point.

Metherion

 

[rcorlew]

Then I would have to decide if God is lying in His presentation of His Word or the presentation of His Work, the universe. And either way God ends up a liar.

So then are you saying that we (people) know all that there is to know right now at this very moment?

I would certainly like to believe that you are not suggesting such a thing as I am sure that you are not.

Since our knowledge is currently limited, our ability to fully discern the information before us is also limited. The current model as best assembled by scientific leaders of today is just that "The Current Model". The current model 100 years ago did not contain sub-atomic particles, multiple universes, a universe that is at least 90 billion light years across; those are all current constructs of the best efforts of today's leading scientists yet they all lack two fundamental elements: completeness and unchanging steadfastness.

Not one model is complete, and beyond a shadow of a doubt will inevitably change. But why; why must they change, if they are correct now then they should be correct forever. They must change because we (humans) have incomplete knowledge, as we learn new things we throw away what we thought we knew because now we know that what we thought we knew was wrong.

Does anyone still teach geocentrism or flat-earth geography, what about America(s) which did not exist until the late 1400's. No, because they were all wrong even though at the time they were believed to be right.

 

[Mick116]

So then are you saying that we (people) know all that there is to know right now at this very moment?

I would certainly like to believe that you are not suggesting such a thing as I am sure that you are not.

Since our knowledge is currently limited, our ability to fully discern the information before us is also limited. The current model as best assembled by scientific leaders of today is just that "The Current Model". The current model 100 years ago did not contain sub-atomic particles, multiple universes, a universe that is at least 90 billion light years across; those are all current constructs of the best efforts of today's leading scientists yet they all lack two fundamental elements: completeness and unchanging steadfastness.

Not one model is complete, and beyond a shadow of a doubt will inevitably change. But why; why must they change, if they are correct now then they should be correct forever. They must change because we (humans) have incomplete knowledge, as we learn new things we throw away what we thought we knew because now we know that what we thought we knew was wrong.

Does anyone still teach geocentrism or flat-earth geography, what about America(s) which did not exist until the late 1400's. No, because they were all wrong even though at the time they were believed to be right.

Which is exactly why we hold to a theory which makes the most sense of the available data, until such a time as new evidence is uncovered, and we can alter the theory accordingly.