YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Didn't say he did.

Sure it works.

Try to imagine someone else posted this and you'll begin to see the merits.

No, George posted it earlier as a possibility and I opposed it then, too.   It doesn't make any sense since time dilation would only work as a theory if we assume that God created the earth from millions  or billions or trillions of miles away and doesn't ever operate inside linear time, as we do.  

It's just a whole lot better and more in keeping with Scripture and just accept that God is correct and He created the earth in six 24 hour days.  Just believe Him without having to find a way to compromise with an unbiblical hypothesis.   Science should not presented by anyone as the infallible standard by which we judge the Bible.

[JohnD]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, George posted it earlier as a possibility and I opposed it then, too.   It doesn't make any sense since time dilation would only work as a theory if we assume that God created the earth from millions  or billions or trillions of miles away and doesn't ever operate inside linear time, as we do.  

It's just a whole lot better and more in keeping with Scripture and just accept that God is correct and He created the earth in six 24 hour days.  Just believe Him without having to find a way to compromise with an unbiblical hypothesis.   Science should not presented by anyone as the infallible standard by which we judge the Bible.

But how does an omnipotent God create from a distance?

You impose your straw man argument in supposition. 

My only point is time is not consistent everywhere as those who set to determine how many earth years did this or that take.

Your equal opportunity antagonism is noted for future reference.

No further interest in your responses.

God bless and keep you...

[Guest shiloh357]

19 minutes ago, JohnD said:

But how does an omnipotent God create from a distance?

You impose your straw man argument in supposition. 

My only point is time is not consistent everywhere as those who set to determine how many earth years did this or that take.

Your equal opportunity antagonism is noted for future reference.

No further interest in your responses.

God bless and keep you...

I think you meant "omnipresent."  I have made no straw man argument.  

The point I am making is that the time dilation argument is about how time appears to move faster on earth that it does millions of mile away from earth.   The time dilation argument only works if the creation of the earth is being viewed from millions of miles away.   But the story of Creation is written as if viewed from a person standing on the earth, not millions of miles away.

My response is only seen as antagonistic because you can't really mount a refutation to the actual point I made and I don't care if you are interested in my responses.  I will counter any argument by anyone as I see fit.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Your rejection of it here, is only motivated by your commitment to the  unbiblical myth of Evolution.

I don't reject the doctrine of the virgin birth, I only reject your interpretation of "her seed" as prophecy of the virgin birth. I completely agree that this passage is referring to the eventual incarnation of Jesus Christ in the form of a human, but I don't see it as a foundation of the virgin birth. There's a rather sizable difference between rejecting doctrine and disagreeing with what you feel are verses that support the doctrine.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I don't reject the doctrine of the virgin birth, I only reject your interpretation of "her seed" as prophecy of the virgin birth.e. I completely agree that this passage is referring to the eventual incarnation of Jesus Christ in the form of a human, but I don't see it as a foundation of the virgin birth

I never accused you of rejecting the doctrine of the virgin birth, (though many theistic evolutionists do) but you cannot actually provide a refutation against the fact that "seed" comes through the male, not the female.  I can understand that anything that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 would be problematic for you given that you MUST view the events of Genesis as non-historical, therefore non-literal in order to make room for the myth of Evolution.

Quote

There's a rather sizable difference between rejecting doctrine and disagreeing with what you feel are verses that support the doctrine

 I am not worried about you disagreeing with me.

I simply noted that your rejection of this verse relative to the virgin birth has nothing to do with a hermeneutic problem, as you cite no hermeneutic problems.  Rather your problem with Genesis 3:15 speaking of the virgin birth stems from your rejection of  Genesis 1-3 as a literal, historical narrative.  And your rejection of Genesis 1-3 as a literal historical narrative is rooted in your unswerving faith in the myth of Evolution, and not in the authority of Scripture as touching Gen. 1-3.

[one.opinion]

On 8/23/2017 at 3:13 AM, shiloh357 said:

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; 

I'm afraid we got side-tracked on whether or not Genesis 1-3 lays the foundation for the doctrine of the virgin birth. Allow me to take a moment to re-emphasize my point from a few pages ago. I affirm each and every doctrine you have listed here. I would absolutely agree that most of these doctrines are initially derived from Genesis. Thus, even though we view the details differently, we largely see eye-to-eye on doctrinal issues from the exact same passage.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm afraid we got side-tracked on whether or not Genesis 1-3 lays the foundation for the doctrine of the virgin birth. Allow me to take a moment to re-emphasize my point from a few pages ago. I affirm each and every doctrine you have listed here. I would absolutely agree that most of these doctrines are initially derived from Genesis. Thus, even though we view the details differently, we largely see eye-to-eye on doctrinal issues from the exact same passage.

If so, you can then see the problem in treating Genesis 1-3 as figurative, as opposed to a literal historical account,  right?

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If so, you can then see the problem in treating Genesis 1-3 as figurative, as opposed to a literal historical account,  right?

Nope, not at all. I said that we agree on the doctrinal issues presented in Genesis 1-3. How is it a problem if I see the details differently?

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

You believe random chance and evolutionary accidents as "wondrous?"

Nope, I believe that God's surpassing creativity and control of the intricate details that allow evolution to be possible is wondrous. I think it is an incredible shame that scientists like Richard Dawkins can see what appears to be design in creation, but reject it out of hand. Psalms 19 and 139 are some of my favorites! Here are a couple of verses from 139:

¹³ For you formed my inward parts;
    you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
¹⁴ I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.^[a]
Wonderful are your works;
    my soul knows it very well.

Of course, David had no concept of the cell or the intricate details created by God that make them work, but the more the scientific community discovers about those intricate details, the more I praise my Lord and God for what He made.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Nope, not at all. I said that we agree on the doctrinal issues presented in Genesis 1-3. How is it a problem if I see the details differently?

Because we are not dealing with details.   We are dealing with clear statements of Scripture about the creation acccount.   And the rest of the Bible builds on those statements and the rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1-3 as literal history.   The Bible is a system of progressive revelation and as such, Genesis 1-3, besides being literal history is an explanation for the need for redemption.  By not taking Genesis 1-3 literally, you are denying the authority of Scripture that teaches them as literal history.  You basically contradict the entire body of Scripture.

If Genesis 1-3 is not a literal account of history and cannot be trusted as such, it casts a shadow of suspicion on the rest of the Bible.  If Genesis 1-3 isn't literal history, how much is the rest of Genesis literal history?   Why is Genesis 1-3 not to be taken literally, but the story of Jesus' death, and resurrection to be taken literally?   Why believe in the miracles of Jesus if not all of the Bible can be taken literally?   What is the method of interpretation that allows you to treat the Bible like a smorgasbord.

It's a problem if we take Genesis 3 non-literally because if that is the case, man didn't really fall in the Garden and the death of Jesus is meaningless because the Bible only gives us one historical origin of sin.   We have no other authority to base the origin of sin on outside of Genesis 3.   So if that didn't happen,if man didn't fall,  there was non curse for us to be redeemed from.