-
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.
C
Proof the earth is over 6000 years old? ok, the entire study of geology, anthropology, astronomy, evolution, all of science basically. and scriptual proof that the creation story was taken allegorically before, none really but if you do a bit of research(and i dont mean from answers in genisis or creation wiki or anything) ypu will find that it was taken allegorically for a long time before the true age of the earth was discovored(atually, there is one instance of paul taking a part of genisis allegorially at one point)
M
I hold to an old earth view. God is the author of scripture and the universe, so the two cannot contradict. If there seems to be a contradiction it is because we are misunderstanding one of them. I challenge everyone here, if this issue really interests you, to look at all the evidence with an open mind. I have read all the arguments in favor of a young earth, and I have looked at the data supporting an old earth.
To put it quite plainly, all of the scientific data reveals a very old earth. If the earth is really only a few thousand years old then all of biology, geology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, and medicine are wrong. Problem is, we take advantage of all these fields of science regularly, and they produce real results in the real world. The data upon which they are founded is sound, the earth is very old. Again, I would charge everyone to look at the scientific data with an open mind, don't just listen to Kent Hovind and the ICR people.
You know, when I was an atheist, I used to mock Christians and laugh at Christianity, because I assumed all Christians believed in a young earth and that humans frolicked around with dinosaurs. You know what keeps so many nonbelievers from even taking the gospel seriously? The fact that so many Christians, unfortunately, just outright reject science; while at the same time utilizing the things science has brought us.
Also, an old-earth perspective is a totally valid biblical interpretation. Reasons to believe has done a lot of great work on this, I highly recommend checking out their articles for those interested in a Biblical view of old-earth creationism.
Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
To put it quite plainly, all of the scientific data reveals a very old earth. If the earth is really only a few thousand years old then all of biology, geology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, and medicine are wrong. Problem is, we take advantage of all these fields of science regularly, and they produce real results in the real world. The data upon which they are founded is sound, the earth is very old. Again, I would charge everyone to look at the scientific data with an open mind, don't just listen to Kent Hovind and the ICR people.
You know, when I was an atheist, I used to mock Christians and laugh at Christianity, because I assumed all Christians believed in a young earth and that humans frolicked around with dinosaurs. You know what keeps so many nonbelievers from even taking the gospel seriously? The fact that so many Christians, unfortunately, just outright reject science; while at the same time utilizing the things science has brought us.
Also, an old-earth perspective is a totally valid biblical interpretation. Reasons to believe has done a lot of great work on this, I highly recommend checking out their articles for those interested in a Biblical view of old-earth creationism.
Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
G
I may not know for sure -- but, the Bible says it - and I believe it!
A am guessing that the earth was already spinning... Any "fixed-point-in-space" light source that God provided (Light from Himself in [the third] Heaven, perhaps?) would have caused the same effect...
I do not discount 'details' of the Bible just because I do not fully understand them. I believe what the Bible says and ask God for a more clear understanding of it.
One thing I do know for sure:
A proper interpretation of the Bible always begins with the answer to the question:
"What does it say?" (as in, "What does it actually say?")
And, before you even begin to try to answer the question "What does it mean?" - you must FIRST [properly] answer the question "What does it say?"...
People like to get lost in/on the details. People like to "manufacture" doctrine based on what they understand about the details - instead of the "base-level" statement of truth - which is "simply stated"...
If you are going to believe the Bible -- then you must FIRST believe what it says -- that there was an evening and morning - even if you don't understand how it existed.
If you focus on the "details" so much that you loose sight of the initial "statement of truth" of it ("What does it say?") - you will get "off path" - and end up with an incorrect interpretation -- every single time...
Don't dis-believe, dis-regard, or "re-manufacture" the whole thing because you don't understand some of the details...
.
A am guessing that the earth was already spinning... Any "fixed-point-in-space" light source that God provided (Light from Himself in [the third] Heaven, perhaps?) would have caused the same effect...
I do not discount 'details' of the Bible just because I do not fully understand them. I believe what the Bible says and ask God for a more clear understanding of it.
One thing I do know for sure:
A proper interpretation of the Bible always begins with the answer to the question:
"What does it say?" (as in, "What does it actually say?")
And, before you even begin to try to answer the question "What does it mean?" - you must FIRST [properly] answer the question "What does it say?"...
People like to get lost in/on the details. People like to "manufacture" doctrine based on what they understand about the details - instead of the "base-level" statement of truth - which is "simply stated"...
If you are going to believe the Bible -- then you must FIRST believe what it says -- that there was an evening and morning - even if you don't understand how it existed.
If you focus on the "details" so much that you loose sight of the initial "statement of truth" of it ("What does it say?") - you will get "off path" - and end up with an incorrect interpretation -- every single time...
Don't dis-believe, dis-regard, or "re-manufacture" the whole thing because you don't understand some of the details...
.
C
day or yom can mean a 12 hour period, 24 hour period or an undefined long period. cant mean 12 cause there was both morning and evening, cant mean 24 because on the 6th day adam had to name all the animals(would have taken at least a month) and on the 4th day all the plants grew(trees take morethan a day to grow fromseeds to full trees), so what does that leave us with? going to use the morning and evening excuse? one again for most days there was no sun so evening just meant end of the time period and morning the beginning of the next period of creation.
T
Before you ask, "What does it say," you need to ask, "What is it?"
Let's say you find a book. It has no title or binding information. It could be a cookbook, it could be a romance novel. So the question, "What does it say" is really premature, until you answer the question "What is it?"
And how do you answer that question? Well, you open it and read it, but read it without any preconceptions.
If the first sentence says, "Once upon a time...." then that tells you something about what kind of book it is. If the first sentence is "Chapter One: Functions and Graphing," that tells you something very different. You would then proceed to read the books very differently, right?
Now, what if you open up your book, and it's in a different language. Well, you would want to talk to someone who is fluent in that language. Right?
If the experts who speak that language tell you that the first sentence is, in its own culture and time, the equivalent of "Once upon a time," then you would accept that it's a story instead of a biology or history textbook, wouldn't you?
And yet, that is exactly what has happened. Genesis 1:1-2:4 is a myth. Those who are fluent in Hebrew teach that it reads that way. There is no reason to believe that God did not write it. In fact, Jews and Christians alike believe that God wrote the Bible, and that He chose parable as one of many media in which to do it. And why shouldn't he? After all, Jesus used parables often when he walked on this earth. If we believe that Jesus is God incarnate, why would God not also use this medium to communicate with the children he loves so much?
So since Genesis 1:1 opens with the ancient Hebrew equivalent of "Once Upon A Time," we know that it is a myth, and it has no intention of being any more -- or any less -- than that. God, in these first few verses of the Bible, is not trying to tell us "when" or "how" He created Heaven and Earth. He is telling us Who and Why. As others have said, long before the theory of evolution was even a concept, scholars accepted that Genesis was not intended to be taken as literal or historically accurate. It was written, by God, as a grand parable, and anyone who refuses to accept that is denying God's intentions.
Let's say you find a book. It has no title or binding information. It could be a cookbook, it could be a romance novel. So the question, "What does it say" is really premature, until you answer the question "What is it?"
And how do you answer that question? Well, you open it and read it, but read it without any preconceptions.
If the first sentence says, "Once upon a time...." then that tells you something about what kind of book it is. If the first sentence is "Chapter One: Functions and Graphing," that tells you something very different. You would then proceed to read the books very differently, right?
Now, what if you open up your book, and it's in a different language. Well, you would want to talk to someone who is fluent in that language. Right?
If the experts who speak that language tell you that the first sentence is, in its own culture and time, the equivalent of "Once upon a time," then you would accept that it's a story instead of a biology or history textbook, wouldn't you?
And yet, that is exactly what has happened. Genesis 1:1-2:4 is a myth. Those who are fluent in Hebrew teach that it reads that way. There is no reason to believe that God did not write it. In fact, Jews and Christians alike believe that God wrote the Bible, and that He chose parable as one of many media in which to do it. And why shouldn't he? After all, Jesus used parables often when he walked on this earth. If we believe that Jesus is God incarnate, why would God not also use this medium to communicate with the children he loves so much?
So since Genesis 1:1 opens with the ancient Hebrew equivalent of "Once Upon A Time," we know that it is a myth, and it has no intention of being any more -- or any less -- than that. God, in these first few verses of the Bible, is not trying to tell us "when" or "how" He created Heaven and Earth. He is telling us Who and Why. As others have said, long before the theory of evolution was even a concept, scholars accepted that Genesis was not intended to be taken as literal or historically accurate. It was written, by God, as a grand parable, and anyone who refuses to accept that is denying God's intentions.
T
Well, I don't know what "it" is you're referring to.
I accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact: it's not a matter of opinion.
If you're talking about belief in God, one could call that "opinion," but I prefer to call that "faith."
Yes, God certainly could do that. Let me ask you this: why would God do something like that?
Think of it this way:
It's possible for me to complete a job in 10 minutes that others might take 4 hours to do. If I did it in 10 minutes, but then reported to my employer that it took me 4 hours, that would be a lie. It would be fraud: illegal in most countries, immoral by any standard, and just plain slimy.
So you're telling me you would rather believe in a slimy, lying, fraudulent god who lies about what he does, than simply to accept what the experts have been saying for thousands of years: that Genesis was written as myth, was never intended to be taken literally, and that God uses evolution to create the world, just like the evidence says.
Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would want to worship a god who lies.
I accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact: it's not a matter of opinion.
If you're talking about belief in God, one could call that "opinion," but I prefer to call that "faith."
Yes, God certainly could do that. Let me ask you this: why would God do something like that?
Think of it this way:
It's possible for me to complete a job in 10 minutes that others might take 4 hours to do. If I did it in 10 minutes, but then reported to my employer that it took me 4 hours, that would be a lie. It would be fraud: illegal in most countries, immoral by any standard, and just plain slimy.
So you're telling me you would rather believe in a slimy, lying, fraudulent god who lies about what he does, than simply to accept what the experts have been saying for thousands of years: that Genesis was written as myth, was never intended to be taken literally, and that God uses evolution to create the world, just like the evidence says.
Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would want to worship a god who lies.
L
That is right it is a theory and it is not scientific fact.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution
The OT was given us by God, not to satisfy our curiosity about history but to show God in our world, and the God principles our world is operated with.
The Hebrews would not have considered an explanation of how God created our world at all necessary. Knowing that God was the creator was what was important to them. We even have a name for thier thinking and our thinking. Iit is called Hebrew thinking and Greek thinking. Learning the difference can open up much of the OT to our greek thinking understanding.
I don’t think that we can discount the literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps we don’t understand what God meant by “day”. I don’t know. But I do know that our literal usually has a spiritual dimension just as the OT literal showed God principles. What is happening, and what we do literally, has a spiritual counterpart. The entire Hebrew language was literal, yet it was well understood that the literal represented the abstract of the spiritual. They didn’t say “fear” they said “shiver”. They didn’t say “love” they said “bring gifts”. That was their language, but they understood that if something made them shiver, it was fear. Our modern church has been preaching the extreme of what almost amounts to Gnostic thinking, that the spiritual is all that counts. They say just put on Christ! Yet it is very possible to have the emotion without any of the action. It is impossible to shiver with fear without feeling fear. Scripture doesn’t lie about the literal, but asks us to see the God principles it exposes.
The Hebrews would not have considered an explanation of how God created our world at all necessary. Knowing that God was the creator was what was important to them. We even have a name for thier thinking and our thinking. Iit is called Hebrew thinking and Greek thinking. Learning the difference can open up much of the OT to our greek thinking understanding.
I don’t think that we can discount the literal interpretation of the bible. Perhaps we don’t understand what God meant by “day”. I don’t know. But I do know that our literal usually has a spiritual dimension just as the OT literal showed God principles. What is happening, and what we do literally, has a spiritual counterpart. The entire Hebrew language was literal, yet it was well understood that the literal represented the abstract of the spiritual. They didn’t say “fear” they said “shiver”. They didn’t say “love” they said “bring gifts”. That was their language, but they understood that if something made them shiver, it was fear. Our modern church has been preaching the extreme of what almost amounts to Gnostic thinking, that the spiritual is all that counts. They say just put on Christ! Yet it is very possible to have the emotion without any of the action. It is impossible to shiver with fear without feeling fear. Scripture doesn’t lie about the literal, but asks us to see the God principles it exposes.
L
Exodus 20:11 must be read with Exodus 16 which also talks about the sabbath.
Exodus 16:25-26
(25) And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
(26) Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
This is talking about literal 24 hour days now let us look at chapter 20.
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Reading it in context it is literal 24 hour days in Exodus 20:11. Now if you are going to try to prove otherwise you need to use the Bible.
Exodus 16:25-26
(25) And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
(26) Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.
This is talking about literal 24 hour days now let us look at chapter 20.
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Reading it in context it is literal 24 hour days in Exodus 20:11. Now if you are going to try to prove otherwise you need to use the Bible.
M
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
2 Peter 3:8
God's days are not our days. His days can be very long periods of time, as the above verse shows. God created the solar 24 hour days for us. Say God created in six (very long) "days" and then stopped creating (rested). He sanctifies this and gives us an observance, telling us to work for six days and rest on the seventh. He is mirroring his (very long) days in our (24 hour) days. The day-age theory in no way contradicts a biblical understanding of the sabbath.
2 Peter 3:8
God's days are not our days. His days can be very long periods of time, as the above verse shows. God created the solar 24 hour days for us. Say God created in six (very long) "days" and then stopped creating (rested). He sanctifies this and gives us an observance, telling us to work for six days and rest on the seventh. He is mirroring his (very long) days in our (24 hour) days. The day-age theory in no way contradicts a biblical understanding of the sabbath.
T
*shakes head*
... excuses, excuses...
... tsk, tsk...
Some people will go to such great lengths to wrap the Bible around their own little view of things...
(so that they do not have to accept what God says and can convince themselves that it is OK to believe whatever they want)
.
... excuses, excuses...
... tsk, tsk...
Some people will go to such great lengths to wrap the Bible around their own little view of things...
(so that they do not have to accept what God says and can convince themselves that it is OK to believe whatever they want)
.
But you must not have read what I wrote, even though you quoted the whole darn post.
A simple, straight-forward reading of the text of Genesis 1:1-2:4, without any twists or changes, is that it is an allegory. Believers of the One True God have known that for thousands of years.
In order to think that the story is literal requires wrapping of the Bible and twisting of the words. Just like those who said the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, and "The Bible says so, and those who say otherwise are blasphemers against Scripture."
It is literalists who are wrapping the Bible around their own little view of things. It is they who cannot accept what God has said in his Creation, and are trying to convince themselves that the Creation is a lie.
The sad thing is, they don't have to. They have been brainwashed into it, tricked into worshiping a "god who lies" by the Great Trickster, and it saddens me to no end.
L
The Bible needs to be read in context. Exodus 16 is talking about 6 24 hour days so then Exodus 20 is 6 24 hour days. Genesis 1 is talking about 6 24 hour days because it tells us in there what consisted of each day an evening and a morning. 2 Peter 3:8 is talking about the return of Jesus and the patience of God, God is not willing that any perish but, that all come to repentance and has patience for it.
To us a thousand years is a long time but, to God a thousand years is not a long time. 2 Peter 3:8 cannot be used in the creation of the world because creation is not mentioned in that chapter. To apply it to creation is to take it out of context.
To us a thousand years is a long time but, to God a thousand years is not a long time. 2 Peter 3:8 cannot be used in the creation of the world because creation is not mentioned in that chapter. To apply it to creation is to take it out of context.
T
I guess I can see where that might be confusing, if you haven't read a lot of poetic literature.
Even before I was fluent in Hebrew, even when I read it in English for the first time when I was 5 or 6, it was clear to me that the phrase "and it was evening, and it was morning," was a poetic device to separate the verses of a song. That phrase, in fact, is part of what makes it obvious to the reader that it is NOT to be taken literally.
But I guess I can see that if you had a childhood that was not exposed to forms of literature like song, poetry, etc., you might miss that hint. Still, it seems like you have to ignore an awful lot of obvious clues in Scripture, clues that shout that it is NOT to be taken literally, not to mention the obvious clues in the very creation that God made, this earth, and all that is in it. Why would anyone let one little phrase like that, "and it was evening, and it was morning," steer them away from the thousands of obvious clues to the contrary?
Even before I was fluent in Hebrew, even when I read it in English for the first time when I was 5 or 6, it was clear to me that the phrase "and it was evening, and it was morning," was a poetic device to separate the verses of a song. That phrase, in fact, is part of what makes it obvious to the reader that it is NOT to be taken literally.
But I guess I can see that if you had a childhood that was not exposed to forms of literature like song, poetry, etc., you might miss that hint. Still, it seems like you have to ignore an awful lot of obvious clues in Scripture, clues that shout that it is NOT to be taken literally, not to mention the obvious clues in the very creation that God made, this earth, and all that is in it. Why would anyone let one little phrase like that, "and it was evening, and it was morning," steer them away from the thousands of obvious clues to the contrary?