Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[flob]

But did the first man adam have the potential of death before sin?

he had the choice.
But more broadly, in regard to death, Lucifer fell (long) before Adam. I do not see why death could
not have come to the pre-Adam world (before it then got judged and destroyed), Gen 1:2; Isa 45:18.

If adam was created an immortal then technically he could never die he could only be destroyed by that which created him,

He wasn't created 'immortal,' 1 Cor 15:53.

also, what exactly is the tree of life and what was its purpose?

Now! There's a question!
In fact: The question of questions

 

[kedge]

He wasn't created 'immortal,' 1 Cor 15:53.

Yeah i can't remember exactly what the discrepancy was?, somethin to do with the gap theory?.

YEC's believe God created the universe and everything within it in 144 hours and that death occured after sin entered into the world?, something like that?, i know i asked what would be the issue with the gap theory and someone mentioned something like the above. In the Beginning God created the heavens and earth...........GAP.............then created living things on the earth?, so the universe could be billions of years old?

 

[Pumicestone]

Apply that "absurdity" in your mind, to evolution, and Poooof! ,we have the beginnig of understanding.

Of course the whole story is 'absurd'.

It is so full of impossibilities that I actually sympathize with the very small percentage of modern humans who struggle to defend it.
I am convinced that, deep, deep down, they know it is nonsense - but to concede that, opens a can of worms that consumes their entire belief system.

They cannot acknowledge that the ark story is the very natural type of myth and legend which all ancient tribal groups developed to explain their beginnings and their environment.

To do so concedes that their 'bible' contains error. And that means that none of it can be trusted.
This threatens all they hold dear and have usually believed since childhood.

So, every effort must be made to twist language, defy science and abandon logic.
The alternative is just too frightening for them.

 

[kedge]

The alternative is just too frightening for them.

What is the alternative?

 

[Pumicestone]

Evolution ..... and acceptance that the whole Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark stuff is myth and legend
and therefore their bible contains error
and therefore none of it can be accepted with certainty.

Quite understandably, that is frightening for some -
until they realize that they have actually had a huge burden lifted from their shoulders.
No longer are they shackled by 'sin' and guilt and primitive superstitious nonsense. They are FREE !

 

[JackH]

Evolution ..... and acceptance that the whole Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark stuff is myth and legend
and therefore their bible contains error
and therefore none of it can be accepted with certainty.

Quite understandably, that is frightening for some -
until they realize that they have actually had a huge burden lifted from their shoulders.
No longer are they shackled by 'sin' and guilt and primitive superstitious nonsense. They are FREE !

You made a few good points but then you went due south and right in the tank with this.

Young earth vs. old earth and the resurrection of Christ et al are totally separate issues.

Many Christians believe in an old earth and the resurrection of Christ et al.

Trying to merge the two, which YECs and non-believers both do for different reasons, is nonsense.

 

[Jimbone]

Evolution ..... and acceptance that the whole Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark stuff is myth and legend
and therefore their bible contains error
and therefore none of it can be accepted with certainty.

Quite understandably, that is frightening for some -
until they realize that they have actually had a huge burden lifted from their shoulders.
No longer are they shackled by 'sin' and guilt and primitive superstitious nonsense. They are FREE !

That's not where true freedom comes from man. I agree that “WE” can do nothing about our sin and will frustrate ourselves trying. True freedom comes when you get to a place where you KNOW that YOU can do nothing good in this world and submit yourself to His will. Then a supernatural event happens and the Holy Spirit enters you forever shattering the veil and removing any doubt of God while regenerating and changing you from the inside out into a new creature, forever freeing you from the chains of this world and the sin over you. I promise being open to all sin only seems like freedom temporarily, that freedom will always come back to bite you, and anything you put your hope in other than Christ can be taken from you. I don't make these claims lightly and when through quite a bit of sin and your kind of "freedom" to realize what a slave I was. I would be more than happy to discuss how I came to these conclusions and how I can be so sure of them. I can tell you that I didn't start following a list of rules, or make a simple promise then join a social club. God Himself, the creator of everything came into me and showed me, just like He did every other true Christian. I know you can say "I'm a Christian, really think you are, and not be", I thought I was one for 5 years before the miracle took place, so there is so much more to it than you think man, I promise, and will pray He opens your heart pulls you to this truth. Like I said man I am more than willing to talk about or explain more about anything you want, if you want.

 

[Pumicestone]

Jack, that last post of mine which you cited - was in response to the query (immediately above it) from Kedge.



Jim, thanks for the offer which I have no doubt is made with the best possible motives.
But I reckon we are just too far apart - philosophically - to ever find common ground.

If you wish, you may gain some insight by having a peek at the thread "The Vigilant Pumicestone".

 

[tanach]

I do believe that everything was created by God. Whether or not the account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally is another matter. The main problem I have noticed is that those who advocate a young earth cannot explain in a believable way why there are so many fossils of creatures that obviously existed sometime in the past but are not here now.
There are thousands of species and more are found every year. In particular China and South America seem to have a tremendous amount. Too many to squeeze on an Ark. Perhaps God did a trial run before he settled for the present state of affairs. Having said all this the only important thing is our salvation.

 

[Jimbone]

Jack, that last post of mine which you cited - was in response to the query (immediately above it) from Kedge.



Jim, thanks for the offer which I have no doubt is made with the best possible motives.
But I reckon we are just too far apart - philosophically - to ever find common ground.

If you wish, you may gain some insight by having a peek at the thread "The Vigilant Pumicestone".

Fair enough, I'll check it out. Also thanks for the civil response and understanding my intention at least.

 

[flob]

If adam was created an immortal then technically he could never die he could only be destroyed by that which created him. i can't remember exactly what the discrepancy was?, somethin to do with the gap theory?
YEC's believe...that death occured after sin entered into the world?, something like that?

Ohh okay........I think I understand now what you were saying. (About 'immortal.')
What I read is that God designed us to match Him, 1:26, made us in Their own image, for Himself,
the 3-1. And, in Genesis 2's picture: to be God's counterpart, His buddy, friend.........His wife, and His Body.
His containers, and expression. For Him to rule.......and rule with, and to rule through.

But He wants that to be volitional, and so right away He put us in front of two trees, two sources. Even though He warned us, and wants us, to take Him; He intended that Adam choose. And choose quick. So that's what I mean by 'immortal.' God created us as human life. Created life. But we're made............ for the Immortal Life. The Eternal Life. Which is a Person.
He made us to eat Him. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him......would have The Eternal Life. He who eats Me, even he shall live because of Me.

(This is true whether there's a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which God does not detail, because that is not His main concern----a time to allow for Satan to rebel and lead a rebellion --------John 3:15; Gen 1:26; 2:9; Jn 1:4; 11:25; 6:54; Colossians 3:4; 1 Jn 1:1-4; etc, is true whether you're a YEC or OEC, GOEC or DOEC, lol............it's true for the whole human race, Jn 3:16.)

i In the Beginning God created the heavens and earth...........GAP.............then created living things on the earth?, so the universe could be billions of years old?

Uhh.......yes : )
Though because of the Bible's references to the rebels, he also created life of various sorts before Genesis 1:2.
Since 'waste and void' (Heb 'tohu + bohu') indicates judgment.
In any case, Genesis 1:2-26 also pictures the New Testament new creation.
Us Christians' full salvation

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

From the Smithsonian:

Homo neanderthalensis is the first extinct human species to have its DNA decoded. Scientists mapped the Neanderthal genome from fragments of DNA taken from three Neanderthal fossil bones, each from different individuals. The fossils come from Vindija Cave, Croatia, and are around 44,000 years old. We can now compare the Neanderthal DNA with the genome of living humans to try to figure out how the modern human species (Homo sapiens) is genetically unique.

The research shows that many living European and Asian people have a small number of Neanderthal genes—about 1% to 4% of the genome. None have been found so far in a small sample of living Africans. As the earliest populations of Homo sapiens spread from Africa to Asia and Europe around 60,000 years ago, they met and rarely interbred with Neanderthal groups. Homo sapiens populations that stayed in Africa would never have met Neanderthals.

| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Do you have some scientific evidence that the 44,000 years if off by almost 40,000 years?

Why would you accept the evidence on Neanderthal DNA in modern humans but not the rest of it?

you are showing yet again that you don't understand at all how science works...science is not an 'all or nothing' set of propositional truths...you can reject one theory while accepting others...

this is especially true in cases like this...genetic testing of neanderthal fossils and dating of neanderthal fossils rest on entirely different methodologies...i merely view one methodology as credible and the other methodology as not so credible...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that you made the stretch that you did without help from ICR, or AIG or CMI, who also have articles on the subject.

Although I am going to have much more to say on this subject of these YEC propaganda machines distorting science specifically on this issue and in general, let me just cut to the chase.

No DNA has been found in dinosaur bones.

maybe the truth is just that these organizations and i are both capable of seeing the obvious...

in any case...strong evidence of DNA -has- been found in dinosaur fossils...i understand your reluctance to accept the strength of the evidence because it would present a problem for your old earth worldview...but who would have thought that young earth creationists would be more accepting of scientific evidence than you?

 

[GaryA]

I'm going to need more than your word, scientifically speaking, that the geological record in Montana and the Dakotas was all created by a worldwide flood around 4500 years ago.

The geological record speaks for itself...

Common sense and real facts are all that is needed to understand what it is trying to show you and tell you.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

This is the lexical definition.






Gen 5 is a recap of Gen 1.

Only Adam & Eve were created in the image and likeness of God.

The Gen 5 genealogy then lists out the males BEGOTTEN in the image and likeness of fallen Adam.

Study up...

you can appeal to any dubious 'lexical definition'...but everyone knows that actual usage in spoken language and literature should not be expected to conform rigidly to 'lexical definitions' developed thousands of years later...

i have shown several exceptions to this 'lexical definition' you are trying to impose on the text...making it clear that the bible simply doesn't follow the rules you have made up...

you continue to avoid my point about genesis 5:2...which for that matter also applies to genesis 1:27...while creation in the image and likeness of God are a new thing...the making of distinct male and female creatures was -not- a new thing by the time humans were created...so according to your artificial rule the author should have used 'asah' instead of 'bara'...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

Your replies follow the YEC information available at their website, to the T...






Show us ANY Hebrew Lexicon or grammar which supports your assertion.

Good.

Luck.

first of all i will say the same thing to you that i said to jackh...maybe my exegesis of the text agrees with the position of answers in genesis because both answers in genesis and i are capable of seeing the obvious...


next i will point out that while you continually stall by demanding substantiation of every little thing...including those things you already understand to be true...you practically never substantiate any of your own claims... for example in spite of your repeated appeals to lexicons you have yet to quote from or even cite any specific lexicon...meanwhile demanding that i present support from a lexicon...

this is very hypocritical on your part and it seems that you believe you have license to operate under different rules from everyone else...


anyway i looked up 'bara' in the brown-driver-briggs hebrew and english lexicon...the definition they give for the root 'bara' is 'shape, create'

their definition for the qal form is 'shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity, with accusative rei, seldom except in P and isaiah 2'...and as possible objects they list...

1...heaven and earth; mankind; the host of heaven; heavens; ends of the earth; north and south; wind; the taninim
2...the individual man; the smith and the water; israel as a nation; jacob; the seed of israel
3...new conditions and circumstances: righteousness and salvation; darkness and evil; fruit of the lips; a new thing chadashah; b'riy'ah; cloud and flame over zion
4...of transformation: a clean heart; new heaven and earth (in place of old); transformation of nature; with double accusative transform jerusalem into rejoicing

for the niphal form...
1...be created: heaven and earth; creatures; mankind; heavens
2...with reference to birth: in the place where thou wast created (i.e. native land); day when thou wast created (king of tyre); 'am nibra'
3...of something new, astonishing: miracles; new things

pi'el form...
1...cut down: a forest
2...cut out: yad hand, as an index

each of these usages lists example scriptures...many of which refer to the creation of things that are not brand new...

i also looked up strong's definition since strong's concordance is readily available...

bara' a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):--choose, create, creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make, make fat

so 'bara' as a term specific to something new is key to only two out of several possible usages of the word listed in brown-driver-briggs...and a mention of newness of the thing being created is completely left out of strong's definition...

and what's more...in some cases 'bara' -doesn't even mean created-!

so what we have here is a textbook example of you -overstating your case- and insisting on a rule when there are clearly many exceptions and alternate usages of 'bara'...


finally regarding hebrew parallelism...this is the first time i have seen -anyone- question the idea that synonymous parallelism is a key feature of the hebrew literary style...even the most ignorant people i have encountered at least know better than to openly challenge this well known fact...

i really don't know what to say to this display of either astonishing ignorance or deliberate obtuseness...other than to recommend that you pick up any basic treatment of biblical hebrew and read it...dobson's 'learn biblical hebrew' has an easy to understand explanation of parallelism in his chapter on translating hebrew poetry...

there is also this section from the asbury bible commentary available on biblegateway...
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Major-Characteristics-Hebrew

this site also has a pretty good explanation of hebrew parallelism with examples...
Parallelism in Hebrew Writing
especially clear is their defintion of synonymous parallelism..."the second line repeats the first in different words having the same meaning"

even the wikipedia article is an ok place to start...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_poetry#Parallelism


now please stop wasting everyone's time and at least know what you are talking about before you chime in again...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You have yet to even state the prediction....let alone where it 'fails'.

i stated the prediction about neanderthals made by ross' reasons to believe several times...if you continue to press this then i will go back and copy and paste every single place in this thread where i did it...

but in order to keep you from stalling any further on this issue...here are direct quotations from ross and his 'reasons to believe' associate fazale rana...

hugh ross...

“Our theory maintains that there is no evolutionary connection between Neanderthals and modern humans,” states Ross. “If this is the case, then Neanderthals should prove to be genetically distinct from modern humans—precisely why this new research on the nuclear DNA of Neanderthals is so vitally important.”

fazale rana...

“With the Neanderthal genome in hand, we will be able to definitively test the predictions of our creation model.”

Scientists Sequence Neanderthal Genome for First Time - Christian Newswire

fazale rana...

If so, then it would have been impossible for humans and Neanderthals to interbreed, as originally predicted by RTB’s biblical human origins model.

Reasons To Believe : The Latest on Neanderthal Extinctions


now we all await some kind of flippantly obtuse response such as 'so...?' from you...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Then, by extension, you MUST also accept that your relatives are tens of thousands of years old.

Again..imploding your YEC worldview.


Try thinking your 'arguments' through....

actually i -don't- have to accept that 'my relatives are tens of thousands of years old'...your misunderstanding of science is the same as jackh's...maybe i should accuse you of copying from him the same way you accused me of copying from answers in genesis...

regardless the answer is the same...science is not an 'all or nothing' set of propositional truths...science is a set of methods for arriving at likely explanations... science welcomes people to doubt any conclusion if you think the method used to arrive at that conclusion is not in accord with proper practice of the scientific method...

so i can accept the DNA evidence for modern human and neanderthal interbreeding...because i find the methods of DNA sequencing and comparison to be credible...and i can reject the dating of the neanderthal fossils...because i don't find the dating methods to be credible...

even 'reasons to believe' has indicated that the dating of neanderthal fossils has not always been accurate...see the last article in my previous post...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

Posting scripture without explaining it, is not refuting anything at all.

We realize that this is what they do at AIG, but that does not work here...







So...

Your reasoning just does NOT seem to fit with the 197 OT instances of the term...like, right here, for example... 1 Sam 20:34...'on the second day of the new moon'.....which is quite specific....not your 'around that time'....

Get a grip...

'posting scripture without explaining it' is definitely -not- what i did...here is a link to your original reply to my post...this is the obtuse reply that i was complaining about in your present quotation...

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...s-matter-what-you-believe-27.html#post2130613

as anyone can see...what you were evasively replying to was -not- me just 'posting scripture without explaining it'...i stated what i intended to establish and then gave scripture references as evidence...

and pretty much anyone at this point can also see that you are obviously not participating in this discussion in good faith...there is no other reasonable explanation for the way you are pretending to be unaware of parts of the discussion -that you were directly involved in-

 

[Tintin]

Of course the whole story is 'absurd'.

It is so full of impossibilities that I actually sympathize with the very small percentage of modern humans who struggle to defend it.
I am convinced that, deep, deep down, they know it is nonsense - but to concede that, opens a can of worms that consumes their entire belief system.

They cannot acknowledge that the ark story is the very natural type of myth and legend which all ancient tribal groups developed to explain their beginnings and their environment.

To do so concedes that their 'bible' contains error. And that means that none of it can be trusted.
This threatens all they hold dear and have usually believed since childhood.

So, every effort must be made to twist language, defy science and abandon logic.
The alternative is just too frightening for them.

Of course the whole story is 'absurd'.

It is so full of impossibilities that I actually sympathize with the very large percentage of humans who struggle to defend it.
I am convinced that, deep, deep down, they know it is nonsense - but to concede that, opens a can of worms that consumes their entire belief system.

They cannot acknowledge that evolution is a ridiculous adult fairytale which modern humanity built on, beginning with the musings of ancient Greek philosophers, then developing it further to explain their beginnings and their environment sans God.

To do so concedes that their evolution story contains errors. And that means that none of it can be trusted. This threatens all they hold dear and have usually believed since childhood.

So, every effort must be made to twist language, defy science and abandon logic.
The alternative is just too frightening for them.

eg. there really is a God? Oh crap!