Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[crossnote]

Please see the above. Im done talking to you and tintin. You arent willing to read the sources i put forth and tintin has been trying to minimize his backtracking after calling me a naturalist since he first got called on it.

If you can’t back up your view with Scripture, then it's on the wrong forum.

 

[JackH]

If you can’t back up your view with Scripture, then it's on the wrong forum.

Old Earth Creationists can back up their view with Scripture.

Just as Young Earth Creationists can.

And so can Theistic Evolutionists.

Of course, each is going to insist that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

But then you go to science and Young Earth Creationists fail.

There is nothing in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals claiming that the earth is around 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, or that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

 

[GaryA]

It doesn't matter, however, an older earth coincides with scientific evidence and is more logical. I personally believe the earth is old, but creation is newer. In other words, the earth that was, existed in a previous earth age (millions of yrs ago), while the earth that we know and experience today, was created 6000 yrs ago.

Many Christians believe there is a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void". 'Was' is the wrong English word here. The Hebrew word used for 'was' is 'hayah' (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). 'Hayah' means; to become or came to pass. So that second verse could be better translated "the earth became void".

"Sorry, but you have mis-read the Strong's definition..."

You took your notion from:

"to exist; i.e. be or become, come to pass" ( "[to] be"; "[to] become"; "[to] come to pass" )

'to exist' is the main definition; the 'i.e.' part is descriptive of the "sense and tense" of the word 'exist'

back to the verse -- 'was' accentuates 'earth', not 'without form and void':

"And the earth was." ( existed - "to be" [ stand-alone ] )

or

"And the earth existed without form and void" / "And the earth was in existence without form and void"

"without form and void" is descriptive of how the earth was ( i.e. - the 'state' in which it existed; it does not indicate that it "changed states" )

The only proper way to interject "come to pass" into this would be:

"And [ it came to pass that ] the earth was."

It is not saying that the earth became "without form and void" - it is saying, in effect, that ( we would say, today ) "it already was":

"And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

'darkness' did not become ( as in, change ) "upon the face of the deep" -- "it already was" upon the face of the deep...

Both 'was' words came from the Hebrew word defined by Strong's 1961.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Old Earth Creationists can back up their view with Scripture.

Just as Young Earth Creationists can.

And so can Theistic Evolutionists.

Of course, each is going to insist that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

But then you go to science and Young Earth Creationists fail.

There is nothing in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals claiming that the earth is around 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, or that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

Well, Unless you ignore the word of God, or twist what the word of God has to say.

While your right in saying anyone can use scripture to supposedly back up their view.

Only YEC's can use the literal interpretation of Gods word to back up their view, while evolutionary and OEC's have to twist, distort and allegories Gods word to back their so called claims..

Thanks, But God gave us his word to teach us about him, Not have us twist his words to make him say things he never said.

 

[Tankman131]

http://youtu.be/on4pmpAzDmY

 

[Tankman131]

If you can’t back up your view with Scripture, then it's on the wrong forum.

I linked him to scriptural arguments. He wouldnt read them, which is exactly why i said what i said in your quote.

 

[valiant]

There is nothing in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals claiming that the earth is around 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, or that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

There wouldn't be. It is automatically barred. They will not publish anything that goes against their theories. But there are reputable scientists who believe what you deny. However, they are simply dismissed and not given a hearing. That is not science, it is arrogance,

 

[valiant]

Only YEC's can use the literal interpretation of Gods word to back up their view, while evolutionary and OEC's have to twist, distort and allegories Gods word to back their so called claims..

That is your view, but it simply is not true. It is a heavily biased distortion of the facts. The word YOM means period of time, not 'day', and when it is used of 'day' it refers to day in contrast with night. Indeed I have yet to be convinced that it EVER mean a 24 hour day in Scripture

The concept of 'natural' days and nights did not occur until the fourth YOM. Dogmatism is therefore ruled out as to the initial meaning of YOM, except of course by dogmatists LOL....

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That is your view, but it simply is not true. It is a heavily biased distortion of the facts. The word YOM means period of time, not 'day', and when it is used of 'day' it refers to day in contrast with night. Indeed I have yet to be convinced that it EVER mean a 24 hour day in Scripture

The concept of 'natural' days and nights did not occur until the fourth YOM. Dogmatism is therefore ruled out as to the initial meaning of YOM, except of course by dogmatists LOL....

lol.. Again your view.

But moses wrote it, God told him what to write for HIM and everyone who read it in a way they would understand it.

He said evening and morning were the first day. Moses understood that to mean only one thing, Moses would never think the days time periods were different on the first 3 days than the last three only because their was no sun or moon yet. He probably did not even think of this. Because his mind was focused on what God did, not like some people who want to make a mountain of of a molehill and make it say more..

 

[Tankman131]

If you can’t back up your view with Scripture, then it's on the wrong forum.

http://youtu.be/S2InalJfkEo

 

[JackH]

There wouldn't be. It is automatically barred. They will not publish anything that goes against their theories. But there are reputable scientists who believe what you deny. However, they are simply dismissed and not given a hearing. That is not science, it is arrogance,

Baloney.

YEC can't be published in reputable scientific journals because it is pseudoscience not science.

YEC scientists don't even bother to submit articles to such journals, at least not articles that claim the earth is around 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with humans, or there was a global flood around 4,000 years ago, because they know they will be easily refuted and made to look foolish.

But yeah, chalk it up to some conspiracy.

That's what you do when you have no argument.

What has happened when YEC scientific arguments make it to federal courts?

FAIL.

 

[Jimbone]

it doesn't.

the only thing about any of this that bothers me is that believers today are sometimes pressured to believe in a 6,000 year old universe or told they're not really believers if they don't. so that conversations like this turn into accusations instead of conversations.

Ok, I see your point and I honestly hope that no one thinks that was my intention or my point. I wasn’t denying anyone’s Christianity, that’s between the person and God, I understand that my opinions, beliefs, and/or comments have no bearing on that what so ever on anything but my own relationship with God. I also saw the earlier comment that you posted that said, “i did 4 years of astrophysics at an university, and Genesis still really makes a lot of sense, even more now to me than it did before i got taught lots of cosmology. my belief never changed; only my understanding.” And would be super interested in learning more about how that came to be, and more details on exactly how and why that came about, and not as a challenge just as an interesting testimony to hear, and get another perspective. I’m all for that.

The main point for my response to this comment was to let you know that I was in no way trying to call your salvation into question or even suggest that people that don’t agree with YEC, or what I believe are anything less, less saved than me, or any such silliness. I know there are some out there that do feel like that, but that was not what I was suggesting in any way.

Sorry about this being so far from the comment, the pages filled up fast over the weekend.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

Actually the Bible does not teach the earth is only 6,000 years old, 2Pe.3:5-6 the earth that then was [first world age] was destroyed during satan's rebellion, Jer.4:19-27, one day with the Lord is a thousand year for us 2Pe.3:8.

The creation in Gen. is the recreation after the first world age was destroyed, in Gen.1:28 God told man to replenish the earth which means it was ounce was populated, also the proper translation in Gen.1:2 is the earth became void, not was void.

The recreation took 6 days, that's 6 thousand years for us and he rested on the seventh day, that's 7 thousand years and Adam was formed on the eight day and that's 6 thousand years ago so the second world age is about 14 thousand years old, but the earth itself was created millions of years ago. God bless

This is GAP theory and has no truth in scripture. Put the Dake Bible down and his companion book God's Plan for Man.

Both are false teachings.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

Dat condescension further proving the point.

this is why i lean OEC when in reality i fall on the "ill ask God when i see him" side. The OECs usually point out facts and discuss counterpoints. YEC usually do something like call you a disrespectful youth and a false prophet in a lab coat while saying you arent saved because you disagree with them.

I called you a disrespectful youth, because you have been very disrespectful to older folks on other threads, not because you back OEC. When I was talking about the false prophets wearing lab coasts I was referring to evolutionists, secular humanists, and Atheists.

COme to full age.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

Even looking at this thread, it follows what i proposed. The OECs here have said it isnt a salvation sticking point while a couple YECs have insulted me and/or said the view of old vs young earth is a salvation sticking point.

Evolution seeks to remove the fall in the garden and even Adam and eve. If you remove Adam and eve, then there was no fall, if there was no fall, there was no sin, if there was no sin, then there is no need for a savior to die for sin.

IOW no need for Jesus. Any form of Evolution, whether theistic or humanist is a the spirit of antichrist, because it teaches Jesus did not come in the flesh.

This is evolution 101. If you look hard enough, you will also see that evolution assist the homsexual agenda.

Do not tell me, that the creation debate is not central to salvation.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

It's not a salvation sticking point, but it most certainly can be a stumbling block. I've read a comprehensive book on Hugh Ross' beliefs (Refuting Compromise) and how to combat them, among other resources. I know the stuff they believe and how and why it doesn't line up with God's Word.

Charles Templeton lost his faith, because seminary professors at Princeton, convinced him Genesis was wrong and that OEC was correct.

 

[Sirk]

Evolution seeks to remove the fall in the garden and even Adam and eve. If you remove Adam and eve, then there was no fall, if there was no fall, there was no sin, if there was no sin, then there is no need for a savior to die for sin.

IOW no need for Jesus. Any form of Evolution, whether theistic or humanist is a the spirit of antichrist, because it teaches Jesus did not come in the flesh.

This is evolution 101. If you look hard enough, you will also see that evolution assist the homsexual agenda.

Do not tell me, that the creation debate is not central to salvation.

Never thought of it this way....even though I don't believe in evolution.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

It doesn't matter, however, an older earth coincides with scientific evidence and is more logical. I personally believe the earth is old, but creation is newer. In other words, the earth that was, existed in a previous earth age (millions of yrs ago), while the earth that we know and experience today, was created 6000 yrs ago.

Many Christians believe there is a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void". 'Was' is the wrong English word here. The Hebrew word used for 'was' is 'hayah' (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). 'Hayah' means; to become or came to pass. So that second verse could be better translated "the earth became void".

GAP is just another lie from hell.

 

[Joshua_Generation]

No. You can parrot the gap theory all you want, it doesn't make it true. It's all Schofield's fault for making it mainstream.

Scofield and later Finis Dake.

 

[popeye]

Originally Posted by Joshua_Generation

Evolution seeks to remove the fall in the garden and even Adam and eve. If you remove Adam and eve, then there was no fall, if there was no fall, there was no sin, if there was no sin, then there is no need for a savior to die for sin.

IOW no need for Jesus. Any form of Evolution, whether theistic or humanist is a the spirit of antichrist, because it teaches Jesus did not come in the flesh.

This is evolution 101. If you look hard enough, you will also see that evolution assist the homsexual agenda.

Do not tell me, that the creation debate is not central to salvation.

Never thought of it this way....even though I don't believe in evolution.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This perversion we are witnessing in society,according to romans 1, actually begins with the disenfranchisement of God as creator,and evolves, (wink) ,into the loss of reason,and then into the sexual perversion.