YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, 1to3 said:

Just saying if you claim Genesis chapter 1 to be true and literal you can't cheery pick around that either in your arguments. That's all .

Not cherry picking anything.  Take it to another thread.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Do we have to bring the flat earth myth into this?  This thread is about the age of the earth. If you want to talk about a flat earth, take it to a thread on that topic, I know there is an active  thread about that.  Any attempt to hi-jack this thread into a flat earth discussion will be reported to the moderators.

I don't want to get into a flat earth discussion, either, but this makes an illustrative point. Your interpretation differs from that interpretation. Your belief and my belief about the origins of life on earth have very little bearing on how we are to live our lives in response to the indwelling Holy Spirit. The shape of the earth is not a core issue, and (in my opinion) neither is the issue of life origins. What matters is our sin, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf, His triumphant resurrection, and our acceptance (or rejection) of His gift of a new life.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I don't want to get into a flat earth discussion, either, but this makes an illustrative point. Your interpretation differs from that interpretation.

The flat earthers interpret from the "face value" approach I mentioned before, which is not a legitimate form of "interpretation."  It is based on a wooden approach that assumes things about the texts that simply don't comport with the genres in which they appear.  "Face value" isn't an interpretation.  It is a subjective approach that allows the reader to draw conclusions not supplied by the author.

Quote

Your belief and my belief about the origins of life on earth have very little bearing on how we are to live our lives in response to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Our differences stem from the fact that I am approaching the text from a proper hermeneutic and am allowing the author to tell me what the text means.  You are trying to force Evolution on to the text and are in essence committing the error of eisegesis, where you are reading into the text what you want it to say.   From a purely literary standpoint, you can supply nothing from the text that would indicate that God intends for it to be understood from the vantage point of Evolution.   If Evolution were true, you would be able to provide internal textual indicators to that effect. 
 

Quote

 

The shape of the earth is not a core issue, and (in my opinion) neither is the issue of life origins. What matters is our sin, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf, His triumphant resurrection, and our acceptance (or rejection) of His gift of a new life.

 

 

 

And all of that is theologically and indispensably connected to  literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And all of that is theologically and indispensably connected to  literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11.

Please Biblically defend that belief in 6 24-hour periods of creation is indispensable (i.e. required) for salvation. You cannot continue to move back and forth between requiring and not requiring an acceptance of Young Earth Creation for salvation. Well, I suppose you can, but you  shouldn't...

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Please Biblically defend that belief in 6 24-hour periods of creation is indispensable (i.e. required) for salvation. You cannot continue to move back and forth between requiring and not requiring an acceptance of Young Earth Creation for salvation. Well, I suppose you can, but you  shouldn't...

I didn't' say believing in 6 24-hour days in Genesis 1 is required for salvation.   I said that a literal interpretation of the biblical accounts of Genesis 1-11 are indispensably and theologically connected to the biblical doctrines surrounding Jesus' death, resurrection and salvation.  Christians who claim to believe in evolution tend to hold to the view that as long as you believe the right things about Jesus, it doesn't matter what if you take Genesis or any other part of the Bible literally, or not.  And that simply isn't true.  It matters a lot.  It matters because the Bible is a system of both progressive revelation and it is a system  of interconnecting doctrines. 

Genesis 1-3 is the point of origin either directly, or indirectly for all major Christian doctrines revealed progressive from Genesis to Revelation.   All of these doctrines require a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.   That is because Creation is a biblical doctrine, a teaching of Scripture.  The doctrine of creation is a doctrine that touches on all of the other doctrines of Scripture and is the starting point for everything the Bible teaches, including salvation.

Doctrines that have their point of origin, literally in Genesis 1-3  include:

• The incommunicable attributes of God (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence);
• The eternal nature/existence of God;
• The Holy Spirit;
• The authority of God's Word (inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, immutability);
• Holiness;
• God's love/benevolence
• Eternal life;
• The origin of sin;
• Death;
• The doctrines regarding Satan/angels;
• The doctrines of marriage and human sexuality;
• Man made in God's image;
• Judgment/justice;
• The first Messianic prophecy (ch. 3)
• The virgin birth;
• The first and second coming of Christ (ch.3);
• The blood atonement; 

Not only that, but we read in John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-18 and Heb. 1:1-2 that Jesus is actually the Creator and that He was pre-existent with God the Father and so Genesis 1-3 is evidence to the doctrines surrounding the deity of Jesus.   Jesus was present and active in Genesis as our Creator. All of these doctrines at their point of origin depend on a literal interpretation of Genesis.  Why?  Because if we don't take Genesis 1-3 literally, we have a real problem explaining where sin came  from and why Jesus needed to die for our sin and why the need for a blood atonement.  If Genesis 1-3 doesn't need to be taken literally, then we rob the Bible of it's authority to define marriage and human sexuality in Leviticus and other places.

This touches on the age of the earth given that we are talking about the authority of the Word of God to accurately explain the origin of our world and the length of time of the days of Creation.   If the Bible's description of the earth's creation can't be trusted, that God didn't create the earth as He describes to us, then what else do we find the Bible that perhaps we can't really trust or take literally?  If the Bible's teachings of our origin cannot be trusted, then why should we trust what the Bible teaches about sin and our need for salvation?

There are three places the Bible speaks to the days of creation (Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31: 17).  In each of those cases, the use of "day"  is used in the ordinary sense of 24 hour days.   If the Bible is wrong in those places, then why should we trust it anywhere else?

It is impossible to claim to accept the authority of the Bible, but then list off things the Bible says that you don't really believe, as written in Scripture.   Lot's of people have a selective acceptance of the authority of the Bible.   They accept the authority of the Bible in matters they care about, but reject the authority in the Bible in portions that run counter to what they want to believe.   Theistic Evolutionists accept the Bible's authority when it comes to salvation, but reject the Bible's authority in other places, like Genesis 1-11.   In that regard, they are willing to allow the carnal wisdom of man to be the infallible standard and authority by which to judge the Bible.  It is an internally inconsistent approach and it creates an incoherent theology.

 

 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I didn't' say believing in 6 24-hour days in Genesis 1 is required for salvation.

You used the word "indispensably". Indispensable means absolutely necessary. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but it is what you said.

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Doctrines that have their point of origin, literally in Genesis 1-3  include:

• The incommunicable attributes of God (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence);
• The eternal nature/existence of God;
• The Holy Spirit;
• The authority of God's Word (inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, immutability);
• Holiness;
• God's love/benevolence
• Eternal life;
• The origin of sin;
• Death;
• The doctrines regarding Satan/angels;
• The doctrines of marriage and human sexuality;
• Man made in God's image;
• Judgment/justice;
• The first Messianic prophecy (ch. 3)
• The virgin birth;
• The first and second coming of Christ (ch.3);
• The blood atonement; 

I hold all of these doctrines, so I'm not really understanding your argument. We could quibble about bits and pieces here, some I would not say arise from Genesis 1-3, but I don't see anything here that requires a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

 

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There are three places the Bible speaks to the days of creation (Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31: 17).  In each of those cases, the use of "day"  is used in the ordinary sense of 24 hour days.   If the Bible is wrong in those places, then why should we trust it anywhere else?

It is entirely plausible that the instructions in Exodus regarding the Sabbath are symbolic. Would you argue that God needed rest and refreshment after creation? The Sabbath is a time for reflection on God and His creation, not a ritual of duplication.

[enoob57]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is entirely plausible that the instructions in Exodus regarding the Sabbath are symbolic. Would you argue that God needed rest and refreshment after creation? The Sabbath is a time for reflection on God and His creation, not a ritual of duplication.

Imaginative 'it could be stuff'  when it comes to Scripture is sin... 

2 Corinthians 10:5 (KJV)

[5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

You see this is a priority hermeneutic within study: unless the Scripture allows for possibility then we literally take stand upon what literally is there. You are not communicating that reality in your study. Thus we who do cannot accept you position as Scripturally based but other! A life that orders itself upon the Scripture will in fact seek Scriptural approval of all thought ...

[Guest shiloh357]

22 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You used the word "indispensably". Indispensable means absolutely necessary. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but it is what you said.

Yes, but I said,  "a literal interpretation of the biblical accounts of Genesis 1-11 are indispensably and theologically connected to the biblical doctrines surrounding Jesus' death, resurrection and salvation."   I did not say that believing in a literal 24 hour, 6 day week in Genesis was necessary for salvation.   You keep trying to either intentionally twist what I said, or you are confused and trying to refute an argument I didn't raise.  

Quote

I hold all of these doctrines, so I'm not really understanding your argument.

The argument is that everyone of those doctrines/concepts find their origin in Genesis 1-3 and as such depend on a literal interpretation of those chapters.

Quote

We could quibble about bits and pieces here, some I would not say arise from Genesis 1-3,

And you would be completely wrong.

Quote

but I don't see anything here that requires a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

Take for instance, the origin of sin.  Let's say that the story of the serpent, the forbidden fruit, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were just metaphors, not to be taken as literal, and the story of man's fall as recorded, didn't really happen, but is simply metaphor or a parable (as some assert).   If that is true, then Eve wasn't tempted by Satan, Adam didn't really cause the fall of man, Adam and Eve weren't judged by God and death has nothing to do with man or with the Biblically stated origin of sin.    So, why would Jesus need to come to earth to be the last Adam, if Adam didn't bring the cruse of physical and spiritual death on mankind (Rom. 5:12-21).   Paul makes it clear that Jesus' death was a reversal of curse brought by Adam's disobedience.   If the story is just a metaphor, then Adam didn't really fall, and Paul's' statements in Rom. 5:12-21 make no sense.

The doctrines of marriage find their origin in Genesis 2. That is where we find the Bible's origins on the teaching of what marriage is and how marriage is defined.  If, again, Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is marriage and on what authority does the Bible in Leviticus, define homosexuality (and by extension gay marriage) an abomination (detestable, abhorrent) to God, if there is no original pattern for marriage given in Scripture?

The doctrine of the virgin birth (incarnation of Christ), the Second Coming of Christ are found in Genesis 3:15 and are given in response to the fall of man.  It's first Messianic prophecy in that it tells us that Jesus will be born of the seed of woman (the virgin birth) and that Satan will bruise His heel (crucifixion), but that Jesus will crush Satan's head (resurrection, Second Coming, final end time victory over Satan and eradication of sin).

Everything about salvation depends on Genesis 1-3 having happened exactly as stated, particularly as it relates to the origin of sin and the promises of Jesus death, burial and resurrection encapsulated in a single prophetic verse.

Quote

It is entirely plausible that the instructions in Exodus regarding the Sabbath are symbolic. Would you argue that God needed rest and refreshment after creation? The Sabbath is a time for reflection on God and His creation, not a ritual of duplication.

Well, the problem there is that you have made a textual argument and thus the onus is on you to provide the internal textual devices/indicators that demand that those verses be understood purely symbolically.   Even then, symbols are for the purpose of pointing to a literal teaching or literal understanding of the text.  Symbolism, like metaphors and similes, are simply literary devices the author uses to communicate the literal meaning of the text.    But the problem for you is proving that symbolism is being used at all.   Please provide the internal indicators from all three passages cited that indicate symbolism.

Show that the original audience of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 would have naturally understood "6 days" to mean something else.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

And you would be completely wrong.

Very well, please explain the doctrine of the virgin birth using only Genesis 1-3. Then we can further discuss whether or not I am "completely wrong".

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

So, why would Jesus need to come to earth to be the last Adam, if Adam didn't bring the cruse of physical and spiritual death on mankind (Rom. 5:12-21).   Paul makes it clear that Jesus' death was a reversal of curse brought by Adam's disobedience.   If the story is just a metaphor, then Adam didn't really fall, and Paul's' statements in Rom. 5:12-21 make no sense.

I am not denying the sinful nature of mankind. We can look around us and easily pick out examples. When we are honest with ourselves, we can also easily reflect inward and see our own sinful natures. There are many evolutionary creationists that maintain a literal Adam and Eve (among many other people), while others use Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity. After all, Adam can be translated as "man". Regardless of exactly how it happened, Genesis teaches that sin entered the world each one of us to this day is a slave to it, without the saving power of Jesus Christ. The Romans passage is relevant and vital, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, not because of one man's sin or the sin of all mankind. Jesus sacrifice was for ALL mankind, and not just for a single man and woman.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

You see this is a priority hermeneutic within study: unless the Scripture allows for possibility then we literally take stand upon what literally is there. You are not communicating that reality in your study. Thus we who do cannot accept you position as Scripturally based but other! A life that orders itself upon the Scripture will in fact seek Scriptural approval of all thought

Since God does not literally need rest and refreshment, it would seem to indicate that a strictly literal view of the Exodus passages may not be the best approach.