Young Earth Creation

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, Jesus also said that his flesh is food and his blood is drink. So do you take that literally or just pick and choose when the bible is literal and when it is not based on how it fits your theology??

 

I understand the concept of "literal" better than you do, evidently.  I know the difference between "literal" and "face-value." 

 

I didn't say God was being figurative because ancient man couldn't understand millions and billions.

 

I didn't accuse you of that.  You implied that God they were too primitive to understand the true age of the earth, so God dumbed it down and called "six days."

 

I am leaning more towards the creation story being said in a way that ancient people could understand that all things were created, including man. There is one God and creator. All things come from God.

 

What about ancient man could not understand the concept of millions of years???  They understood what "eternity meant.    To assume that the truth was just too much for them to comprehend is the height of arrogance.

 

The complexity of societal structures in the ancient world render hollow any attempt on your part to paint ancient as primitive.   You're simply wrong on all points. 

[Guest Teditis]

 

The Scriptures were written so that all peoples at all levels of understanding could know what they mean. Even, as in pre-production times, Scripture was given as tradition (until Moses wrote it down) and people understood. People who can't read, understand there is a GOD and what the Scriptures mean when they hear it. Poeple who have no access to the written Word at all understand when they are given the Word as tradition and memory. GOD gave us the Word so that it could be understood by even the most primative, simple person; as well as the most sophisticated and educated.

I agree. This is my line of thinking.

Shilo, yes some very impressive things were built in the ancient world but to say that because a very very few people were smart enough back than to engineer some great architecture that all the common people were equally as smart is wrong.

The ancient people were not an advance civilization.

 

 

What's your definition of smart?

Did the people back then just have less knowledge or lower IQ scores?

 

I think the people back then were equally brilliant, perhaps more so, but

their knowledge wasn't as diverse as ours. Archaeology seems to point

to this conclusion.

[Wildstar]

I believe in a young earth creation!  I believe in evoluton to an extent meaning natural selection.  I don't believe in darwinism as the 'origin of species' meaning where all species came from, that evolution.

 

People will be very hateful towards intelligent design because of God or because 'it lacks evidence'.  "it doesn't show any evidence!"  and I am not going to debate that.  I just think if people accept theories like aliens did it (seriously?), on the backs of crystals, primordial soup (lol people still believe that as a possibility?) or whatever else comes up.  But when you say 'it somehow did this'  and you when someone says "i believe ID did it"  Oh thats too out there, lol.

 

As far as OP I never really pictured God creating a bunch of life having it grow to mature levels in the bible lol.  More like he created a full grown man and woman, full grown animals, full grown everything. 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Seeing God is outside of time I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the world and the universe were created long before he populated the earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Seeing God is outside of time I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the world and the universe were created long before he populated the earth.

Except God doesn't give you that option.  He says He created the whole thing, including us in six days.

[Guest shiloh357]

People will be very hateful towards intelligent design because of God or because 'it lacks evidence'.  "it doesn't show any evidence!"  and I am not going to debate that.

They are so wrong.  Intelligent design is self-evident.   I mean, look at a book or listen to a musical number.  Those things are proof of their author or composer.  The book testifies of the person who wrote it, the person who milled the paper, who mixed the ink, who glued the binding.   A song is testimony to the composer, the lyrcist, the composer, the guy working the controls at the recording studio...   Design and intelligence provide all of the evidence we need.

 

the earth we live in is far more complex than any of that.  The earmarks of design and order are evident in everything around us and the irony is that scientists who deny intelligent design, depend on a logical, orderly, predictable, and uniform creative order to do science.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Seeing God is outside of time I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the world and the universe were created long before he populated the earth.

Except God doesn't give you that option. He says He created the whole thing, including us in six days.

Yeah well Jesus said his flesh is food and I'm sure you reject that so as far as I'm concerned you argument is mute.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Seeing God is outside of time I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the world and the universe were created long before he populated the earth.

Except God doesn't give you that option. He says He created the whole thing, including us in six days.

Yeah well Jesus said his flesh is food and I'm sure you reject that so as far as I'm concerned you argument is mute.

 

You mean "moot"    But here is the problem.   Jesus was comparing his flesh to the Jewish tradition that the Torah was the spiritual sustenance  of the faithful Jew.  They say that the Torah of Moses is living water and like the fruit of the tree of life.    So they "eat" and "drink" the Torah.   Jesus, compared his flesh and blood to that tradition and said that one must "eat" and "drink" Him in order to have eternal life. Jesus was claiming to be greater than the law, greater than Moses and claiming to be the God who grants eternal life.  That's why some of his disciples stopped following him.

 

So there is a literal meaning to that and it has nothing to do with communion or the Eucharist.

 

The bottom line is that God was not being figurative in Genesis 1. He meant six days and was unambiguous about it.  There is nothing in the text that suggests that God meant something else.  You cannot simply assign arbitrary values to the Scriptures to make them mean something else simply because you refuse to believe what the Bible says.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh, I don't agree with you.

I believe the same thing that creationist do. With the exception of the young earth. I'm not 100% convinced the earth is only 6K years old.

Science is becoming more and more advance and reliable. I'm not completely closed to the idea of a young earth either.

Let me ask this of you Shiloh,

Do you believe that it was a snake that talked to Eve?

Genisis was written by a man inspired by the Holy Spirit. God himself did not sit at a desk and inked a scroll.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I don't agree with you.

I believe the same thing that creationist do. With the exception of the young earth. I'm not 100% convinced the earth is only 6K years old.

 

It's about believing the Bible and not about aligning with one group or the other.   

 

God said He created the earth in six days.   If you don't agree with that, then it's not me you disagree with.

 

 

Science is becoming more and more advance and reliable. I'm not completely closed to the idea of a young earth either.

 

The problem is that you, like so many, have allowed science to hi-jack interpretation of Scripture.  Science is not infallible and has been proven unreliable over and over even in our day.  Look at the farce of Global Warming as a contemporary example.   Science is always in a state of flux.  What's true today is false tomorrow.   The Bible, on the other hand, has always been proven true.  It never changes truths or facts.  it's never disproven or discredited.  It is as true today as it was thousands of years ago.

 

Science is man's attempt at investigating the scope of God's creation.  Science is the product of flawed, sinful, fallen humanity.   So why would anyone, especially a Christian hold science up on the same level of authority as Scripture as if the  science is the standard against which the Bible should be measured?   It's the other way around.  The Bible is the true standard and measure of truth.  Science is measured by the Bible.

 

Let me ask this of you Shiloh,

Do you believe that it was a snake that talked to Eve?

 

 

Why would it not be the case that Eve spoke with the serpent/snake?  Living in a supernatural environment, such an event would make sense. Satan speaking through a snake would completely agree with living in such an environment.   It is not part of our experience, but that was a unique circumstance.

 

Genisis was written by a man inspired by the Holy Spirit. God himself did not sit at a desk and inked a scroll.

 

But God inspired the Scriptures without mixture of error.  We can actually trust what it tells us.  

 

Tell me, where does it stop?   If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis 1, 2 and 3, what's the next part of the Bible you don't believe?   The global flood?  The Tower of Babel?   The crossing of the Red Sea?  The ten plagues?    Balaam's talking donkey?    Are there any miracles of Jesus you have decided didn't really occur as recorded?   What's going to be the next assault on God's integrity?