Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?
- Thread starter Preach2u
- 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.
R
his point was made tactlessly maybe...but he made a strong point nonetheless...
the point being that 'soulless humanoids' are nowhere to be found in genesis 1...this idea was not the result of innocent exegesis from the text as progressive creationists would have us to believe...
where this 'soulless humanoids' notion actually originated is from hugh ross' attempt at incorporating -now outdated- evolutionist opinions about neanderthals into his progressive creation scenario...
and you know scientifically speaking the discovery of neanderthal DNA in the modern human genome would be considered a -failed prediction- of the progressive creationist model...so who is disregarding science now?
the point being that 'soulless humanoids' are nowhere to be found in genesis 1...this idea was not the result of innocent exegesis from the text as progressive creationists would have us to believe...
where this 'soulless humanoids' notion actually originated is from hugh ross' attempt at incorporating -now outdated- evolutionist opinions about neanderthals into his progressive creation scenario...
and you know scientifically speaking the discovery of neanderthal DNA in the modern human genome would be considered a -failed prediction- of the progressive creationist model...so who is disregarding science now?
T
Oh, yes. I lost all tact sometime back in the thread. It's very frustrating to talk with people who just don't listen. I've talked to so many theistic evolutionists and asked them to look into biblical creationist resources etc. to find out what we really believe. The response is always along the lines of: "Why would I want to do that? I know what they believe, I don't need to read their crap!" It's much the same with many (not all) OECs. Many biblical creationists on the other hand, have no problem with exploring evolutionary resources to compare and contrast and see what evolutionists really believe. How would you know what 'the other side' believes if you don't go straight to the horse's mouth? Oh, maybe because then the strawman arguments would be found wanting! Can't have that now, can we? 
Finally, it's important to critically examine what we believe and why and make it an ongoing/regular exercise. I do it all the time, even though I believe my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Word of God. I wonder if theistic evolutionists and old-earthers critically examine their beliefs and regularly?
Finally, it's important to critically examine what we believe and why and make it an ongoing/regular exercise. I do it all the time, even though I believe my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Word of God. I wonder if theistic evolutionists and old-earthers critically examine their beliefs and regularly?
Last edited by a moderator:
R
well day one can be treated in this way without much trouble...although i would argue that the particular interpretation of genesis 1:4 shown here is outside the author's obvious intended meaning...
where day age creationists run into insurmountable sequencing difficulties is in the last three days of creation week...
where day age creationists run into insurmountable sequencing difficulties is in the last three days of creation week...
T
Day 1:4 is definitely interesting to consider, and the website alters the timeline slightly saying the earth was made into a planet before verse 1:4 and it actually was a great expanse of water.
Also, i apologize if i insulted you in this thread rachel. I got a bit angry and have been arguing a position i dont really hold simply because someone said im a naturalist because im a scientist (yes i know you dont think so, but it was quite clear the implications). I lean OEC because of how YECs like tintin act verses how the conversations ive had with OECs have gone.
I dont want to hide from the other sides argument, i want to consider it and find the truth. When YECs like tintin ignore my argument and attack me i find it hard to respect the position
Also, i apologize if i insulted you in this thread rachel. I got a bit angry and have been arguing a position i dont really hold simply because someone said im a naturalist because im a scientist (yes i know you dont think so, but it was quite clear the implications). I lean OEC because of how YECs like tintin act verses how the conversations ive had with OECs have gone.
I dont want to hide from the other sides argument, i want to consider it and find the truth. When YECs like tintin ignore my argument and attack me i find it hard to respect the position
G
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
"evening and morning" is like saying "night and day"
'evening' marks the beginning of the night ( dark ); 'morning' marks the beginning of the day ( light )
"evening and morning" is, in effect, saying "one rotation of the earth"
I have never heard anyone dispute that - from day seven onward - every day since creation ( with a couple of biblical exceptions ) has been a ~24 hour day.
If any of the first week days were longer - at the very least - they would have had to fit into a realistic pattern of acceleration of the Earth as it "spun up" to reach the every-day ~24 hour cycle we are all familiar with.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
"evening and morning" is like saying "night and day"
'evening' marks the beginning of the night ( dark ); 'morning' marks the beginning of the day ( light )
"evening and morning" is, in effect, saying "one rotation of the earth"
I have never heard anyone dispute that - from day seven onward - every day since creation ( with a couple of biblical exceptions ) has been a ~24 hour day.
If any of the first week days were longer - at the very least - they would have had to fit into a realistic pattern of acceleration of the Earth as it "spun up" to reach the every-day ~24 hour cycle we are all familiar with.
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".
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".
E
But no one knows how long the six yoms were in Genesis. They were God's 'days' not men's. When they began the length of a yom had not been determined. Thus we can believe that God took as long as He liked. It was after all His decision.
what's a few billion years to God
The point about the creation story was why He created. Not when and how long,
what's a few billion years to God
The point about the creation story was why He created. Not when and how long,
