I responded to a thread earlier about man walking with dinosaurs, and it brought up a great question (at least to me anyway). Do you believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of G-d? If it is, is Genesis correct with the its story of creation and death came into the world because of sin or did the Bible miss it and death came before sin and evolution is right? Either the world is about 6thousand years old or its millions, billions … whatever it keeps changing…. There is the gap theory too… which personally I do not believe but all discussion welcome.
Which theory is correct or is the Bible correct?
- Thread starter mcubed
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I know people personally whom I respect, who hold differing views on this issue. I'm looking forward to the other responses.
I view Genesis 1 as literal, straightforward narrative which means essentially what it says... six literal days. There is good evidence from the sciences to support a recent creation, so I have no difficulty with it. As for humans "walking with dinosaurs", the footprint evidence may or may not be real, but that can't prove it didn't happen. There are evidences around the world up to fairly recent times which suggest knowledge of living dinosaurs (not skeletons). I also believe in a relatively-recent global flood, and though evidence is not "proof" (they are distinct concepts), to me the evidence is conclusive. I am convinced, from personal experience, that God is good and powerful. His Word supports that, and I have no good reason to think that His story of creation is anything but true.
Blessings,
Dino (that's "Deeno", not "Dyno"
I view Genesis 1 as literal, straightforward narrative which means essentially what it says... six literal days. There is good evidence from the sciences to support a recent creation, so I have no difficulty with it. As for humans "walking with dinosaurs", the footprint evidence may or may not be real, but that can't prove it didn't happen. There are evidences around the world up to fairly recent times which suggest knowledge of living dinosaurs (not skeletons). I also believe in a relatively-recent global flood, and though evidence is not "proof" (they are distinct concepts), to me the evidence is conclusive. I am convinced, from personal experience, that God is good and powerful. His Word supports that, and I have no good reason to think that His story of creation is anything but true.
Blessings,
Dino (that's "Deeno", not "Dyno"
Dino246, I love your response, mainly because you are right in the fact evidence is not proof on both sides of the coin. Is a rock a rock? Does it come dated and timed stamped? Of course not. The differences between evolution science and creationist sciences is world view. My quest goes much deeper if creation is wrong how can Y-shua be right? Why should the Bible be trusted? A man died on the cross so the whole world is saved? Why is that not just as crazy? If Genesis is false why the world should be saved then? Are we created and have to answer to some creator if creation is false? The Bible is either wrong or right it can’t be both… truth or fiction!?!
In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
When the Bible talks about death, it isn't talking about death in the sense we cease to exist. Death is a word used to symbolize suffering. Suffering came into the world because of our sin. Here is an example:
[17] "Yet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just'; when it is their own way that is not just.
[18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.
[19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it.
[20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways." Ezekiel 33:17-20 RSV
[17] "Yet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just'; when it is their own way that is not just.
[18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.
[19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it.
[20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways." Ezekiel 33:17-20 RSV
E
Accuse to me means Jesus is our lawyer when he said do not think I shall accuse you.. Moses gave us the Ten Commandments already we are already accused of breaking commandments if any has among us.
Correct me if needed did Moses write of about the coming of Jesus
Traditionally Moses is understood as the author, although the book of Exodus (does not make that direct assertion.)While many interpreters concede great antiquity to many sections of the book and even consider Moses at the core of its origin, Moses is not seen as the single author in a contemporary sense of authorship.
Correct me if needed did Moses write of about the coming of Jesus
Traditionally Moses is understood as the author, although the book of Exodus (does not make that direct assertion.)While many interpreters concede great antiquity to many sections of the book and even consider Moses at the core of its origin, Moses is not seen as the single author in a contemporary sense of authorship.
S
I think there are strengths and weaknesses regarding each of the major views.
Sometimes this issue gets to be a cause of contention with individuals calling each other heretics based on their differences of opinions.
I believed the gap theory for many years. I see a lot of merit in the 6 day creation view now. I also see merit in the "long day" view.
The uncompromising issues for me are this: 1) literal special creation of man 2) literal account of the fall 3) no macroevolution (in other words, no "kinds" have evolved into other "kinds"). That is where I am with it.
6 day creation people tend to consider others to be heretical and that aggravates me.
Sometimes this issue gets to be a cause of contention with individuals calling each other heretics based on their differences of opinions.
I believed the gap theory for many years. I see a lot of merit in the 6 day creation view now. I also see merit in the "long day" view.
The uncompromising issues for me are this: 1) literal special creation of man 2) literal account of the fall 3) no macroevolution (in other words, no "kinds" have evolved into other "kinds"). That is where I am with it.
6 day creation people tend to consider others to be heretical and that aggravates me.
One line of evidence I like to show quick creation is 'polystrate fossils'
This is fossilised trees, going through multiple layers of rock and coal in a hill. In some cases the trees even have breaks in them, as if very quickly covered.
Macro evolution would assume the hill is millions of years old.. but if one of the trees is only thousands of years old or less.. then most of the hill side would then be around that age.
I think macro evolution would say that this is indeed a young hill, but then isolate it, and remove it from the rest of the landscape around it and say the rest of the land is millions of years old.. but not that hill
This is fossilised trees, going through multiple layers of rock and coal in a hill. In some cases the trees even have breaks in them, as if very quickly covered.
Macro evolution would assume the hill is millions of years old.. but if one of the trees is only thousands of years old or less.. then most of the hill side would then be around that age.
I think macro evolution would say that this is indeed a young hill, but then isolate it, and remove it from the rest of the landscape around it and say the rest of the land is millions of years old.. but not that hill