Old Earth vs Young Earth

[TheGrungeDiva]

I have been over every post and you have not given any Bible to support your theories. You have only given your opinion on what you think the Bible says.

Again, I offer the WHOLE of Scripture. Sorry if I choose not to "cut and paste" from Genesis 1 through the final chapter of Revelation to make my point.

And yes, I have given "my opinion" of what the Bible says, and you have given yours.

The difference is, my opinion of what the Bible says is consistent with what exists. Your opinion of what the Bible says makes God out to be a liar.

So yes, I will continue to cling to "my opinion" that God is not a liar.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

wow your a christian who believes in evolution?

Well, "believes in" would not be the phrase, but yes.

I am one of millions of Christians around the world who accepts evolution as the correct explanation for biological complexity on our planet. For some time, we have been in the majority, at least world-wide. I think in the US we might be a minority, but I haven't seen any recent stats, so I won't say for sure.

 

[chesser]

Because you have not shown any Bible then it is safe to say that what you are saying is just your opinion with no Biblical support.

well, theres the fact that its obviously supposed to be allegory, can you prove to me that the chronicles of narnia arent literally true and there is no magic wardrobe or talking lion or 4 kings and queens who are really little kids? using ONLY quotes from the books(and no using logic!)

 

[twosparrows]

No it is not a contradiction if you consider all the uses of yom.

 

[frankleespeaking]

Well, "believes in" would not be the phrase, but yes.

I am one of millions of Christians around the world who accepts evolution as the correct explanation for biological complexity on our planet. For some time, we have been in the majority, at least world-wide. I think in the US we might be a minority, but I haven't seen any recent stats, so I won't say for sure.

so who's that a photo of, or is it you an evolved Kuala bear who knows how to type?........lol.......I'm sorry christianity today is evolving into complete nonsense! if your any indication of where its headed It won't be much longer before Christ returns and collects His evolved monkeys

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

You want Scripture? Here's Scripture:

Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Oops.

If this were literal, Gen 2:5 is a lie, because vegetation, rain, and even man had already been created in Genesis 1, and we're past Day 7 already.

Or maybe it's 2:5 that's true, and 1:1-2:4 that's the lie.

Again, do you want to call God a liar, or do you want to accept that maybe this isn't supposed to be literal? The choice is yours. As for me and my house, we shall worship the LORD.

 

[twosparrows]

Stimulating thread btw

 

[twosparrows]

You want Scripture? Here's Scripture:

Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Oops.

If this were literal, Gen 2:5 is a lie, because vegetation, rain, and even man had already been created in Genesis 1, and we're past Day 7 already.

Or maybe it's 2:5 that's true, and 1:1-2:4 that's the lie.

Again, do you want to call God a liar, or do you want to accept that maybe this isn't supposed to be literal? The choice is yours. As for me and my house, we shall worship the LORD.

hope this works right cuz I'm new at this, you'll have to forgive me if not. No I'm not calling God a lier, I'm saying He spoke Hebrew (YOM) before English (DAY) and I'm saying that one Hebrew word has more than one meaning because the language is not as diverse as English. The word Yom could be used to identify an entire age. "The day of the Lord" What ONLY a day, or an ENTIRE AGE? YOUR choice .

 

[twosparrows]

I will dwell in the house of the lord forever. Not just a day.

 

[distantshores]

'The stories are more important than the accuracy of them. And it's the same with Scripture. What the stories say, the morals, the lessons they teach, the REASON God chose those particular stories to pass on to us, that is what is important, not whether or not they actually happened that way. And if you're so caught up in trying to "prove" historical accuracy, let me assure you, you're missing the point.'

King Arthur is fiction. Even with all our historical sources, scholars are very uncertain who King Arthur was in the first place and which decade of which century he lived in. The reason why Arthurian legend is important is that it is a reflection of other things that we know are true because we have a sounder historical basis for them -- the writings in the Bible.

I don't think that you really believe that this is true. There must be some historical foundation for our moral beliefs. Otherwise, they have no basis. What makes the Bible truer than existential fiction? It isn't because the Bible is more palatable; it is because the events in the Bible really happened. If this weren't so, we could just pick and choose from any religious book or work of fiction and use that as a basis for our lives.

Much in the book of Genesis matches real historical events and fits well with the time period during which it supposedly happened. While we can never know for sure whether the days themselves were literal or figurative, we have no good reason to doubt the lives of the patriarchs or the later events in Genesis.

The accuracy of the stories is critical; without it, we have no reason to use them as a guide for our lives.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

hope this works right cuz I'm new at this,

Worked fine, good job. And welcome!

No I'm not calling God a lier,

(It's spelled "liar," but no biggee) ... My post was not directed at you, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. Actually, I think you and I may be closer to the same position.

I'm saying that one Hebrew word has more than one meaning because the language is not as diverse as English. The word Yom could be used to identify an entire age.

Well, yes and no. Unless you've taken a lot of Hebrew, I can understand why you might think this, but it's not quite the case. The Hebrew word "yom" does not mean "age," it means "day." Hebrew has a different word for "age." But just as, in English, the word "day" can be used in different, non-literal ways, the Hebrew word "yom" is the same. For example, in English, you could say, "These days it seems everyone...." You don't mean just today, yesterday, and tomorrow, or anything specific like that. You could say "In this age," or "In this day and age." It is important to note that this richer meaning of the word "day," both in English and in Hebrew ("yom") is poetic. It is NOT the literal meaning of the word.

There are a lot of words that mean things other than what they mean in a literal sense. For example, you might refer to your car as "wheels." That is not literal. Literally, that would be just the four rubber things that roll on the ground. But if you said, "Let's take my wheels out for a spin," everyone would understand that you didn't mean you were going to remove the 4 tires from your vehicle and spin them around. It is clear and understood, but it is not "literal." That is what we call "poetic speech."

In the same way, the literal meaning of the word "yom" is "day." In Hebrew, the word "yom" is sometimes used to refer to "age," but that is not a LITERAL use of the word, it is a poetic one. Same as in English.

So, if you believe that the author (whether you believe that author to be God, Moses, or the J-source) used the word "yom" in the poetic sense meaning "age" rather than "a 24-hour period from sundown of one day to sundown of the next," then by definition, you are not taking Genesis literally.

And, for the record, if you understand it this way (non-literally), you are in agreement with almost all Jewish scholars, almost all Christian scholars until about 1880, and many Christian scholars since then. There's really just a tiny wedge of Christians, in the grand scheme of things, who want to make it literal. I still can't get a good reason why.

Perhaps they are misunderstanding the word "literal" like you, and they don't realize that just because something isn't "literal" doesn't mean it isn't true. Though I've explained it a million different ways (that's another type of poetic speech, btw, called hyperbole) and they still don't get it, so I just don't know.

 

[distantshores]

If this were literal, Gen 2:5 is a lie, because vegetation, rain, and even man had already been created in Genesis 1, and we're past Day 7 already.

Sadeh and eretz in Genesis (in Genesis 2) do not necessarily refer to the entire earth, but might refer to a certain area. Being the scholar you are (or purport to be), you should be aware of the attempts to harmonize the two creation accounts, and the fact that many view them as complimentary, not contradictory, without viewing them as merely allegorical.

 

[distantshores]

'Unless you've taken a lot of Hebrew'

... or unless you've googled it.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

King Arthur is fiction. Even with all our historical sources, scholars are very uncertain who King Arthur was in the first place and which decade of which century he lived in.

Actually, they have the century pegged down pretty well. Some of the details are still sketchy, but like you say, most of the "details" are fiction.

There must be some historical foundation for our moral beliefs. Otherwise, they have no basis.

Really?

Are you really arguing that those who do not follow the Bible are less moral than those who do?

Do you really want to go there?

And goodness me, if we use the stories of the Old Testament (which, I'm sorry, I do still insist are primarily fiction) as a "guide" for our "moral life" we would be highly immoral: having sex with our daughters and sisters-in-law ... cheating on spouses, and then killing of the other spouse before they can find out ... multiple wives ... idolatry ... This is Morality?

And even some of the things in the Old Testament that are highlighted as righteous: offering up your own daughters to a frenzied crowd to rape, so that your male guests are not harmed. This is Morality?

I'm sorry, but if you really think that sort of behavior is moral, there's something seriously wrong.

The accuracy of the stories is critical; without it, we have no reason to use them as a guide for our lives.

I so disagree.

Ever hear of Aesop's fables? Those are some of the richest and best-sustained moral lessons in western civilization, and yet they are absolutely known to be "fables" and not historical events.

In fact, I would argue that the less "historically accurate" something is, the more trusted it can be as a moral compass. Take any hero of any era: Alexander the Great, Robin Hood, Thomas Jefferson. If you dig into their ACTUAL lives, remove the tall tales from the historical facts, you will find they weren't such great people. They were ordinary men (some women throughout history) who just did one or two good things. They were sinners same as you and me. The myths that surround them make them out to be heroes, but the accuracy and historical facts, eh, they're no better than any other human ... just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, and maybe smart enough to make a good decision.

Follow the myth as your moral compass. Don't follow the actuality.

 

[Tethered]

According to Genesis, the earth was formless until end of Day 2.
Do you expect Day 1 and 2 to be the same length as 3,4,5 etc considering the conservation of angular momentum?

not that I believe in what i'm saying, just stirring the pot

 

[distantshores]

'Are you really arguing that those who do not follow the Bible are less moral than those who do?'

Their actions are moral, but if they do not believe in God and the Bible, they have no rational basis for behaving morally, unless they merely act morally for personal gain, in which case they are basically being hypocrites.

'And goodness me, if we use the stories of the Old Testament (which, I'm sorry, I do still insist are primarily fiction) as a "guide" for our "moral life" we would be highly immoral: having sex with our daughters and sisters-in-law ... cheating on spouses, and then killing of the other spouse before they can find out ... multiple wives ... idolatry ... This is Morality?'

We know that these things are wrong because God forbids them in the books of the law and elsewhere in the Bible.

'Ever hear of Aesop's fables? Those are some of the richest and best-sustained moral lessons in western civilization, and yet they are absolutely known to be "fables" and not historical events.'

They are valuable because, like Arthurian legend, some of them reflects what we know to be true in the Bible.

'Follow the myth as your moral compass. Don't follow the actuality.'

I don't need to follow your advice. The events in the Bible really happened, and Jesus is real.

 

[Laodicea]

You want Scripture? Here's Scripture:

Gen 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Oops.

If this were literal, Gen 2:5 is a lie, because vegetation, rain, and even man had already been created in Genesis 1, and we're past Day 7 already.

Or maybe it's 2:5 that's true, and 1:1-2:4 that's the lie.

Again, do you want to call God a liar, or do you want to accept that maybe this isn't supposed to be literal? The choice is yours. As for me and my house, we shall worship the LORD.

At last some Bible, which has been interpreted incorrectly. Genesis 2:4 begins a new thought, Genesis is not in chronological order.
[FONT=&quot]¶[/FONT]Genesis 2:4
(4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Notice the symbol next to 2:4 [FONT=&quot]¶[/FONT]? that is in the Bible it is telling us that it is beginning a new thought

 

[Laodicea]

well, theres the fact that its obviously supposed to be allegory, can you prove to me that the chronicles of narnia arent literally true and there is no magic wardrobe or talking lion or 4 kings and queens who are really little kids? using ONLY quotes from the books(and no using logic!)

You keep on claiming that Genesis is allegorical and I keep on asking you to explain to me what you understand a allegory to be? Also don't compare the Bible to some fictional book.

 

[Doobs]

Hey Distantshores, I'm sort of new to all this forum but I was just wondering, is eternal life an allegory too? I'm just trying to get a hold on what you are saying here and what you believe?

 

[twosparrows]

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

I love their podcasts, and they do a remarkable job. I am new to Reasons, but if you want to say "wow I didn't know that" lol, check it out. They are all authors as well I believe.