Youth question

[Stc95]

ok so my youth group and I yesterday came up with a question about the whole Dinosaur and Man and the whole Earth being 103218450923175 years old... I told them i would ask you guys and see what ur opinions are.

basicaly we got to the point where God could have created the earth in millions of years, thats where the Earths age comes in. (and yes about the whole seven days i yelled at them about but they said that one of "God's Days" could be 1000 years to us..) and then we go to the part where in the Bible it does make references to giant walking animals (dinosaurs) and then the flood (killed dinosaurs). so i guess the real question was like Abraham a cave man or not.. or something...

Anyway, thanks for helping guys (and Dea & Kel ;))

[mist_01]

I tend to lean towards the 7 days of creation being simply that seven days. However, it dose not matter so i have never bothered to develop my opinion on the topic much.

[Coolspot]

I'd like to think that yes, he did do it in 6 days with taking a 7th day off to rest as an example to show us how we are to spend our time but those days could potentially be longer than what we know as a day because before we learned how to tell time there was no time and that God himself could be using (or at least to us) a different time system because he is both involved with his creation and out of creation at the same time.

[mist_01]

i am inclined to think that since it involved this world the time is the same as our time, but again i have no way of knowing

[sdenotter]

Well, you can toss this at them... CARBON DATING! What i have seen, Is that the oldest they have seen is 30 000 - 35 000 years... but there is one problem.. they only can accurately perform carbon dating if the radioactivity stayed constant... so guess who messes with the theories a bit, God. How? ok well the way to mess up carbon dating is with a large presence of water on top of the specimen being dated.... can anyone say the flood? So aparently, this messes up their theories... by making them too young.... compared to what 13billion years? So my question would be... so did they tweak their formula to make objects older? (remotely on this topic... i will post the coolest fact of God EVER)



Oh and also, I believe that God created the earth in 6 days. Cause he rested on the 7th.

[Stc95]

thats interesting Sdenotter, i wonder what my people will say about that. Personally i think he did create in seven days myself, but thats just what they said above.

Does anyone else have an opinions or things to through out on the topic of creation/age of the Earth/dinosaurs?

[sdenotter]

Well, I cant post the thing i wanted to, because i don't know where it is.

Basically, a group of Biblical Archaeologists found what they believe to be the actual Mount Zion...

Get this, they found a mountain, that has a black top. the thing is, it is granite, but its literally burned 5 inches through the rock. So with a rock 10 inches thick, the top 5 is black and the bottom 5 is normal granite color.

lol the way they got to see this, is they got night vision, waited until dark, and snuck across the Turkish border, (there was a civil war or something) and when the day came, they smashed a piece of the mountain face off, and realized... wow its burned 5 inched down and thats all. Which would explain why Mount Zion was smoking in Leviticus when God came down... (i personally got blown away by that)

[Stc95]

i dont think it was Civil War. I had always known that the Turkish people dont want other people to go to the mountain because if anyone found out that that is the place that it claims to be, then their religion would be forfeit

[Baron Squirrel]

could not God have created earth already old?

besides, you don't know how much time passes between "in the beginning" and "the earth was formless and void."

just throwing out my 3 cents. ;)

[Stc95]

Thanks baron, i forgot about that. I'll let you guys know what they say this sunday and wednesday.

[one2dredd]

Actually believe it or not the moon proves the Young Earth Theory. When the Astronauts landed on the moon they expected several feet of moon dust. When they landed on the moon it was several inches. Scientists calculated how much dust would form on the moon over several billion years and it came to feet not inches. Ever wonder why the landing gear on was so high? That is actually why. They expected to sink in several feet of dust.

[Stc95]

lol that would be funny. "Sir we have landed.." *sinking..* "Sir we have landed again.."

[one2dredd]

lol it would have the Astronauts were very suprised to learn that they did not sink lol.

[MaidMirawyn]

There are many, many problems with radiometric dating, including carbon dating, because of the assumptions inherent in the theory. And none of my professors addressed them in my quantum mechanics and modern physics class, even when we were learning how to do it and perform the calculations. Remember that scientists are just people like the rest of us, and they can be as willfully blind as anyone else.

On the point of days or ages: There are a LOT of things in the scientific world that point to a considerably shorter span of time. But consider this: in the Genesis account, plant life is created on the third day (1:11-12) and the sun on the fourth (1:14-18). If it's ages and not days, that opens up a whole new can of worms...what did the plant life do before the sun was made?

could not God have created earth already old?
That's called "apparent age." Realistically, if the Earth were created in six days, some things would have to be in a complete or mature state to be of any use. Through currently existing methods, such an item would have taken time to reach that point. So, if you didn't know any differently, you would naturally assume it was older.

One easy example would be fruit-bearing plants. Taking Genesis literally, birds and sea creatures were created on the fifth day and the other animals and man on the sixth. If the plants were created on the third day, those plants would be two days old when birds and sea creatures were made and three days old for the rest. So, there needed to be food in place by then, or else the new lifeforms would go hungry.

But how many plants go from seed in the ground to ready-to-eat fruit in only two or three days? If there were fruit in place for the birds and yummy kelp for the sea life by day five, then those plants would appear older than their actual age of two days. Is it dishonest on God's part, as some have claimed? Nope, just practical, and quite well-thought-out.

[Stc95]

Wow Dea.. that was very insightful.. always like ur mesmer self arnt you? im sure my people will like all this stuff tommarrow.. or well, i guess today. :) (MIDNIGHT FTW!)

[Lazarus]

could not God have created earth already old?

besides, you don't know how much time passes between "in the beginning" and "the earth was formless and void."

just throwing out my 3 cents. ;)

Why would God do something as deceitful as all that? ;)

[Baron Squirrel]

See MM's post above... she gave a pretty good explanation.

Is it dishonest on God's part, as some have claimed? Nope, just practical, and quite well-thought-out.

[dorkelf]

There are many scientific as well as archaeological evidences of a young earth, but they are simply not 'proof' in scientific terms, not anywhere close to it. For that reason, I feel the need to make one suggestion for those of you who want to argue the 'young earth' theory with your friends and foes - don't make the same mistake that evolutionists and global warming wackos like Al Gore make, by saying essentially 'there is no debate, my side has already been proven'. That is simply not true in terms of the scientific method. There is a VAST amount of scientific and archaeological evidence beyond carbon dating that points to the earth being much older than 5,000 years. To simply dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate, or to present anecdotal evidence of irregularities in the fossil record, doesn't even begin to crumble 'old earth' from a scientific standpoint, nor prove 'young earth'. It is evidence, but not conclusive evidence.

What about from a scriptural standpoint? Does one have to throw the Bible out the window to believe in old earth? That is commonly believed, unfortunately, but it isn't true at all. According to our best current understanding of ancient Hebrew there is SOLID PROOF that the word 'days' can have a broader meaning in certain contexts and NO SOLID PROOF that the context in Genesis prohibits such a broader meaning.

Paul

[MaidMirawyn]

On the subject of scientific inquiry, here's a good summary of the scientific method:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of natural or artificial phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Scientifically, neither evolution nor creation can be proven. Both are beyond the scope of the scientific method: there were no trained observers recording empirical, measurable data, and we can't exactly repeat the experiment...

Scientists can, of course, study anything currently existing, such as fossils, and make all sorts of measurements.

[Stc95]

Drdino.com has a great sermon on all this stuff! My church had a video they watched last sunday just about this stuff.


and thank you everyone! my youth group really liked all of it

[Wash.]

I know it may be a tad bit late to chime in on this question, but I thought I'd address another issue.

Scanning through the answers, I didn't see an answer for one of your last questions in the original post: Was Abraham a caveman or something?

Well, I'd like to answer that question now! I did a 10 page paper on refining ore in the middle east area. (copper, tin, bronze, iron, steel, etc.) Using that as a reference to technological advancements in early man-kind, I wanted to give a brief overview of how far man had come by Abraham's time. First of, the time between Adam and Eve to Noah had drastic technological advancements, such as civilization building, that is cities where people lived in a community, trade between those cities, ironworking, and other technologies that are considerably advanced compared to the millions of years that scientists tried to afford mankind. The flood kind of reset everything though, if you consider only 4 men lived to reinvent the world, it took time for those technologies to resurface. In any case, we can see in Gen 11 the building of the tower of babel, so clearly technologies once more were advanced quickly in a relatively short amount of time.
As archaeology permits, we can see that around 6,000 years ago, the resurfacing of copper weaponry and tools became a cornerstone in the continuing advancement of societies. We'll say Abraham probably lived around this time, when copper was the main metal used, eventually bronze developed as well. Sociologically, Abraham was more of a cheiftain leader than the father of a family. He lead a good number of servants, livestock, and riches nomadically throughout the palestinian area (modern day iran, jordan, israel, etc.). From him came the nation we call Israel, through his son Isaac and then on to Jacob (who was renamed Israel by God) In short, the mantle of cheiftain travelled down this way. But you'll see they rarely actually owned land. In fact, the first land they owned was the field that Abraham bought to bury Sarah in. In addition, throughout Scripture you see the different areas Abraham travelled through where he feared for his life because of her beauty - at the hands of the leader of those people in the area that remained there. If you recall, a few times he was asked to leave because his number was too great or he had upset locals.

Anyways, in short - Abraham wasn't a caveman. The caveman period was probably short as Adam and Eve were more or less super-genius creations of God, as were their children.

[Legandary Spartan]

late reply. but we know that these little things are minimal compaired what we need to know to walk with God. Things like these are fasinating and absalutly awinspireing (a spell check would make that easier to read =) ). God tell us what we need to know and he leaves out what we don't. These things can help awnser some unbeliever's and huge skeptics questions but the thing is that we should be careful not to study too indepth of these things and not enough in the rest of the bible. We, as believers, know that God made it. How God did it and what purpose God did it in we can only guess. We will know when we enter heaven.

[ChickenSoup]

ok so my youth group and I yesterday came up with a question about the whole Dinosaur and Man and the whole Earth being 103218450923175 years old... I told them i would ask you guys and see what ur opinions are.

basicaly we got to the point where God could have created the earth in millions of years, thats where the Earths age comes in. (and yes about the whole seven days i yelled at them about but they said that one of "God's Days" could be 1000 years to us..) and then we go to the part where in the Bible it does make references to giant walking animals (dinosaurs) and then the flood (killed dinosaurs). so i guess the real question was like Abraham a cave man or not.. or something...

Anyway, thanks for helping guys (and Dea & Kel ;))

I lean towards the 7 days (well 6 if you think about it, He rested on day 7... yeah.) because the writers would've wasted some ink writing "and it was the first day, evening and morning" or whatever it says. Pretty specific.

[ppar3566]

I hope I don't get slamed for this but I thought a different perspective might be helpful (if it doesn't fit with you so be it). I think two things are interesting to consider here:

1. Genesis is not a scientific text book, nor was it meant to be. It was written well-before any of the scientific knowledge we have today and thus the historical context must be taken into consideration (note that the bible is also a historical document as well as the word of God and this is its strength not its weakness).

2. Genesis may not have been written to inform the people about how the world was made but rather to affirm who made the world in a formate that was easily assessable to those whom it was written (i.e. those who have come out of Egypt and know that mythology better than the history of Israel). Indeed, someone recently pointed out to me (a Prof. from Regent College) that the creation story shares much of its content with the creation stories of the temple or RA (Egyption God)a story the people of Israle as slaves would have known far too well. Here the temple of Ra was built in 6 days (the first three days building the temple and then three days filling it - notice the similarities here). The pinicle of this story was where the image of RA was placed in the temple. The difference in Genesis being God's temple is the world rather than a poxy little temple and we are his image rather than some golden statue.

[Stc95]

I lean towards the 7 days (well 6 if you think about it, He rested on day 7... yeah.) because the writers would've wasted some ink writing "and it was the first day, evening and morning" or whatever it says. Pretty specific.

Your absolutly right C$. I now know that the Gap theory is totaly bogus. I still need to yell at them.

[dorkelf]

C$ - if you're interested to see a good counter-argument to the point you make about 'morning' and 'evening', there's a very well-written article at http://ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR040/40genday.htm

I'll quote the most relevant part below for those who don't want to read the whole thing...but be sure to read through the third paragraph:

"In Hebrew (the language of most of the Old Testament), as in English, a single word can have several meanings. The Hebrew word "day" can mean a period of daylight as opposed to night (Genesis 1.5,14), a twenty-four hour period (many examples), and a period of time of unspecified length. The last usage, which is figurative, occurs many times in the Old Testament. An example appears in the creation account itself: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2.4). As we can see from this verse, regardless of the meaning of "day" in Genesis chapter one, scripture uses "day" for the entire week of creation, thereby illustrating the figurative meaning of the word.

At first, this may seem strange, for English speakers do not often use "day" figuratively. It does, nevertheless, appear at times in expressions like "back in my day," "in this day and age," and "in the days of FDR." It should be noted that the plural form "days" occurs figuratively numerous times in Hebrew. In fact, consulting a concordance will show that about a quarter of all the uses of "day" and "days" are figurative. Hence there is no doubt that "day/days" can denote a period of time longer than twenty-four hours.

On the other hand, what about the terms "morning" and "evening"? Does not their use in conjunction with "day" strengthen the literal interpretation of "day?" The answer is "no," because Hebrew also uses "morning" and "evening" figuratively. For example, we read in Psalm 90, attributed to Moses, that human beings are like the grass that "though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered" (verse 6). I know of no grass that literally springs up in the morning and then is dead by the same evening. Rather, the psalmist has in mind the life cycle of grass in the Levant, which begins its growth with the November rains and dies with the hot, dry, March, desert winds. In this psalm, therefore, "morning" stands for the period of growth and "evening" stands for the period of death. This interpretation fits in with the tenor of the entire psalm which encourages humans to be mindful of their time on earth; for just as the life cycle of grass is short with respect to human life, human life itself is short with respect to the ongoing activities of God. The same comparison is made between humans and grass in Isaiah 40.6-8 and 1 Peter 1.24,25."

Paul

[mist_01]

However, this whole discussion kind of misses the point of the creation story. It wasn't written to tell us this, it was written to tell us about God.

[Stc95]

In my Bible it says (Gen 1:4) "God saw that the light was good, so he divided the light fromt he darkness. 5 God neamed the light "day" and the darkness "night" Evening passes and morning came. This was the first day."

Doesnt this mean that the DAY God created the Earth was in a 24 hr period? I know of no time that it was light out for more then however it is light out now.

Also if the Gap Theory is true (where God's "days" are really numbers and numbers of years long) it is a heresy and that is exactly what that website is saying. Because then you put death in before man. The Bible says (Romans 5: 12) "Sin came into the world because of what one man did, and with sin came death." Man bright death into the world. You cant have living animals (who are created before man) keep living to be immortal. They have to die. Which couldnt happen because man wasnt created yet so he couldn't bring death into the world. And im surprised that the website didnt say anything about that because i think that it should jump out at you.

[ppar3566]

This is all pretty speculative. Genesis has to be read in context. You cant take one section or a verse and basis you hypothesis on that without reference to who it was written to or why. The questions you we need to ask is this:

1. Who is it written to?
2. What is the purpose of writing?
3. What type of document is it (letter, history, story, poem, etc)?
4. What is the historical context that it is written in?

I suggest getting two books by Gorden Fee that are easily assessable and based on solid research. I also recommend any book by N.T. Wright or Ben Witherington.

1. How to read the bible for all its worth (Gorden Fee)
2. How to read the bible book by book (Gorden Fee).

[Stc95]

Yes, but dont we all agree that Adam and Eve brought death into the world through sin?

[mist_01]

This is all pretty speculative. Genesis has to be read in context. You cant take one section or a verse and basis you hypothesis on that without reference to who it was written to or why. The questions you we need to ask is this:

1. Who is it written to?
2. What is the purpose of writing?
3. What type of document is it (letter, history, story, poem, etc)?
4. What is the historical context that it is written in?

I suggest getting two books by Gorden Fee that are easily assessable and based on solid research. I also recommend any book by N.T. Wright or Ben Witherington.

1. How to read the bible for all its worth (Gorden Fee)
2. How to read the bible book by book (Gorden Fee).

Good Book. And I agree, The days don't matter. That is not why this book was written.

[ppar3566]

Good Book. And I agree, The days don't matter. That is not why this book was written.

Thanks and yes the days don't really matter. However the arguement does. The real question is what is it about our beliefs that are central to our faith in Christ and what are simply cultural.

I supose what I am trying to do by haveing a go at the seven days of creation thing is to suggest that we may not have to believe this to be a christian and thus we can intergrate the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of evolution with our faith and thus be both relavent to our community and committed to the Gospel.

[ppar3566]

Yes, but dont we all agree that Adam and Eve brought death into the world through sin?

Once again I am on my hobby horse here (I promise this will be one of the last.....at least for now). Why do I have to believe a literal Adam and Eve brought sin into the world? If Genesis is written in the formate of the Egyption tale on the creation of the temple to explain to the Isralites that God made the world and everything in it and we are his image (Ok take a deep breath), why can't the story of Adam and Eve be an illustration or metaphore (in the same vain as many mythology tales of the time) to explain our fractured relationship with God and our now broken reflection of him.

Don't know if i believe this or not but the point is that there is much more to the bible than what is on the surface. We need to work hard to uncover what it has to say to us and even harder to discover how to apply that message to our lives. :) lucky for us we have the holy spirit to help us.

[Stc95]

How do the days not matter?! If the days dont matter then the Bible doesnt matter because it lies. As Christians we need to defend our faith, we cant let the Devil consume it. The Devil started the whole evolution thing in the garden of eden and the Gap Theory is just one of the many ways he is trying to steal the glory from God. If Genesis days arnt really days then the crediblility of Jesus is at stake since he quoted it some 27 times. Theres more but i have to get ready for school

[ppar3566]

How do the days not matter?! If the days dont matter then the Bible doesnt matter because it lies. As Christians we need to defend our faith, we cant let the Devil consume it. The Devil started the whole evolution thing in the garden of eden and the Gap Theory is just one of the many ways he is trying to steal the glory from God. If Genesis days arnt really days then the crediblility of Jesus is at stake since he quoted it some 27 times. Theres more but i have to get ready for school

Fair enough, and let me say sorry. It is important I didn't mean to give the impression we should ignore it; rather I was saying that days, years, etc are not central to our belief in Jesus.

In relation to your other point I don't think Jesus credibility is in question here. Rather I think our credibility is in the firing line. The real question here is how do we go about reading the bible? What I am saying is that the bible is so important that we need to get it as right as we can. Even if we take the bible literally we still need to understand how our culture and our world view effects our reading of it.

It is worth noting here that evolution and gap theory are not from the devil. It is just humans trying to make sense of the world around them. It is also us that have decided that it opposes God. A good example here is that the Big Bang theory took along time to get traction in the science community as the Catholic Church suggested that this proved God created the world. Note that this is the same theory that gets used to beat us christians over the head to say God didn't create the world.

[Stc95]

Fair enough, and let me say sorry. It is important I didn't mean to give the impression we should ignore it; rather I was saying that days, years, etc are not central to our belief in Jesus.
yes this is true. Absolutly true. But we need to be able to answer any questions that anyone asks us. With our walk with Jesus the days dont have much importance, but we cant have doubt in the Bible. If the Bible lies then how are we supposed to get anyone to believe it?


It is worth noting here that evolution and gap theory are not from the devil. It is just humans trying to make sense of the world around them. It is also us that have decided that it opposes God.
No, the Evolution theory did not start with Charlie Darwin, it started in the Garden of Eden when Satan spoke to Eve and said "Ye shall not surely die" Which calls God a liar and said "ye shall be as gods." and thats how the idea for Evolution got started.

[Stc95]

why can't the story of Adam and Eve be an illustration or metaphore (in the same vain as many mythology tales of the time) to explain our fractured relationship with God and our now broken reflection of him.
Because Jesus said Adam was the first man. If Adam was a metaphore then Jesus would be lieing, which is a sin, which means hes not God, which means we arnt going to heaven, which means we need some sunblock... and lotion.

[ChickenSoup]

Yes, but dont we all agree that Adam and Eve brought death into the world through sin?
Because Jesus said Adam was the first man. If Adam was a metaphore then Jesus would be lieing, which is a sin, which means hes not God, which means we arnt going to heaven, which means we need some sunblock... and lotion.

That's a very good point.

And besides, if we don't find Genesis to be the true word of God than we can just pick and choose the other stuff we don't lie. I really don't see any reason why most of Genesis would be written as a metaphor, and like STC said, Jesus said Adam was the first man, and the core of our faith revolves around the deity of Christ.

It is worth noting here that evolution and gap theory are not from the devil. It is just humans trying to make sense of the world around them. It is also us that have decided that it opposes God. A good example here is that the Big Bang theory took along time to get traction in the science community as the Catholic Church suggested that this proved God created the world. Note that this is the same theory that gets used to beat us christians over the head to say God didn't create the world.

blech, not the big bang--or, as it is sometimes more aptly called, "The Horrendous Space Kablooie"--theory again. A tiny piece of incredibly dense matter (of unknown origin, e.g. where did it come from) that sat there for an unknown length of time that suddenly exploded for an unknown reason that should've led to some sort of an even distribution of matter but didn't.

[ppar3566]

The point isn't the big bang. The point is that our perceptions, the glasses we see the world through colour the way we argue and the way we read the bible. If we were haveing this debate when the Big Bang theory firt came out we would all be talking about how wonderful it is that we have finally found scientific proof that God made the world. But in the context we are in now say it and evolution is from the devil.

The question I am putting is not do these things go against the bible but does it go against your reading of the bible. If you so easily dismiss others readings of the bible so quickly without giving them due consideration are you not saying i know it all and everyone who has a different idea is stupid.If you are going to say that your reading is right and everyone else is wrong you need to provide some well considered arguement i.e. what context is Jesus talking about Adam, how did the people back then read Genesis (as a sciene book, a history, an illustration what), what is the style of the letter that Jesus' words appear in.

If you will indulge me let me give an example:

For years christians have used the "wives submit to your husbands" sections of Paul's letters as a way to justify both explicit and more recently implicirt ill treatment of women. However, this reading completely ignores the historical context. Let me illustrate. If you read up on Roman civalisation at the time you will find that they believed that for Rome to remain strong it must have strong families. Thus they created house hold codes or sets of rules that outlined how people should operate in a family. The important thing to note here is that they always talked to husbands and then wives, parents then children, masters before slaves. The wives submit to your husband sections of Pauls letters are a christian house hold code very similar to the Roman ones with one exception it mentions Wives before Husbands, Children before Parents and Slaves before Masters all in a context where Paul is talking about equality. This order is no accident Paul is saying we are all equal in Christ and former status distinctions are now no more.

[Stc95]

ppar3566, i think we arnt on the same page. Almost every post you have posted makes my head hurt(and thats a compliment BTW :)). Its only a miracle i've been able to come up with a debate from it.

I think what you are saying is that each different person veiws the reading of Bible differently. Kinda like different critsism forms (Feminist, New Crit, Historical) (Doing it in English right now, only reason i am bring it up.. and know it). If that is the case, I totaly agree. There are some parts of the Bible that are a little fuzzy. But again other parts there arnt. I dont want to sound "your wrong, im right!" but to me, it seems like if God didnt create the world in 6, 24hr days, then the whole Bible lost its credibility.

if you could try and say you point or.. something of that standard. That might help a bit. I really did enjoy this debate tho. I had fun. I want to start calling out on my teachers when they start preaching Evolution, so this was a fun practice round. Thanks for being my guinea pig :D

~Stc95

[ppar3566]

No worries mate. Let me try and break it down slowly (and please note I don't know if this is right it is just one point of view).

Before I make my point can I say that you, STC and C$ seem to me to be very intelligent guys (I am really chuffed to have had this discussion with you guys). I assume you will go to college soon which is why I am pursuing this point. I alienated many at my university for years when I refused to move from a seven day creation story. I now feel somewhat guilty for my strong and uncompromising point of view when I now feel I never needed to. With fundementalism being one of the greatest threats to christianity today you guys can't afford not to think very seriously about why you believe what you believe for anyone at college level to take you seriously.

Please hold tightly onto what you believe but make sure you are acquiring the tools you will need to truly provide the best answer you can to those who ask. Here we go.

1. Who is Genesis Written to: Genesis is written to a specific audience. In this case Israelites who have grown up in an Egyptian culture and know Egyptian mythology and have been taught that the Pharaoh is God on Earth and the temple of Ra is his throne.

2. What style is the book written in: The creation story is very similar to the story of the creation of the story of the creation of the temple of Ra. This makes sense as this is the only creation story the people of Israel would have been familiar with.

3. What would the original recipients have got from Genesis: They would have noticed the story instantly and seen the twist. God is LORD of all not Ra. The earth is his throne not a temple. We are his representatives on earth not the Pharaoh.

4. How do we apply this to our lives: No matter what theory of creation we hold onto God must be at the centre of it. He is the creator, He is lord of all, we are his image and representatives on earth.

A final point from this is that if we read Genesis like this the bible does not lose any of its credibility. We don't call poets liars. We don't accuse those who use metaphors or speak with examples to help us understand as liars. In this case the bible is not a liar and does not stand in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I am a PhD student at an Ivy league school in Aus and I have tried to find convincing evidence against it but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of evidence supports it.

[mist_01]

In this case the bible is not a liar and does not stand in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I am a PhD student at an Ivy league school in Aus and I have tried to find convincing evidence against it but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of evidence supports it.

Evolution happening now on a small scale and all of creation being made through evolution are very different issues. Almost no on will deny that evolution is occurring. It is a fact. However, that does not mean that the world was created through it. I don't deny that it is possible. God certainly could have used evolution, however, I doubt it.

Furthermore, although we can't deny evolution is occurring, it is a huge jump to say that evolution can take an single celled organism and come out with a person by mere probability. The only way that you can make an argument for evolution occurring (macro evolution) is by assuming that there are an infinite number of inhabitable planets. Otherwise, the probability is so small it is laughable. However, as I stated before, this does not mean that God could not have used it. I am suggesting, thought, that this would be an even greater mirical than the traditional 7 24 hour day creation view.

However, in conclusion, the point of the creation story is not to tell us how God did it. He is God. He did it however he felt like doing it. The point of the creation story was to tell Israel, and us, about our God and his greatness and faithfulness.

[Stc95]

Ppar, i am very interested in what you believe. Could you tell us what you believe. Like millions of years ago God created the Earth, evolution.. you know, when someone asks you how the Earth and the universe got created, what do you say back?

[dorkelf]

In my Bible it says (Gen 1:4) "God saw that the light was good, so he divided the light fromt he darkness. 5 God neamed the light "day" and the darkness "night" Evening passes and morning came. This was the first day."

Doesnt this mean that the DAY God created the Earth was in a 24 hr period? I know of no time that it was light out for more then however it is light out now.

A frequent criticism of scientists is that they look at what exists now...for instance, the current decay rate of Carbon 14...and they extrapolate these current parameters to the very beginning of our universe. I would encourage you not to make the same kind of logical mistake. If you look at how things are now...for example, the fact that we have sunlight...and from that you extrapolate that life would have been impossible on this planet without that sunlight...well, how do you know that, exactly? Does the Bible say explicitly that life cannot exist without sunlight? Would God have been incapable of sustaining life without help from the sun? The thing about God is...if we really believe that he is truly omnipotent, then we really can't believe something like that would be impossible for him. The Bible says time and time again that God is bathed in glory...and one of the names we have for him is 'sustainer', isn't it? I think he would have been more than capable of sustaining life without the sun.

Also if the Gap Theory is true (where God's "days" are really numbers and numbers of years long) it is a heresy and that is exactly what that website is saying. Because then you put death in before man. The Bible says (Romans 5: 12) "Sin came into the world because of what one man did, and with sin came death." Man bright death into the world. You cant have living animals (who are created before man) keep living to be immortal. They have to die. Which couldnt happen because man wasnt created yet so he couldn't bring death into the world. And im surprised that the website didnt say anything about that because i think that it should jump out at you.

When you say that animals would have to die...again, I think you're applying your understanding of how things happen now. I can do the same to present a counter-argument...recent scientific study of the aging process and DNA shows that aging seems to be 'programmed' into our very genetic makeup. Animals certainly have DNA too. And I think it is perfectly reasonable, if one believes God is omnipotent, to believe that the ultimate 'High Programmer' :D can change and has changed this over time. After all STC...do you believe that people literally lived for hundreds of years as the Bible said they do? If so...how can you believe that and not believe that even longer spans of life would have been possible for animals, as they bathed in the very glory of God in the first era of their creation?

Paul

[Stc95]

Paul i see what you are saying. And it is all possible, but i believe that God knew that Satan would birth the evolution theory and that he left TONS of proof that HE, God Almighty, created the Earth.
And another thing about Carbon-Dating, i know very little about it, but i do know that if there was a flood (which there was) it would make Carbon-dating seem more years then it actually is. (which is what ultimatly happened)

And i do believe that people those days lived for 900 years. And people and things did live for 900 years, but that 900 years is a big difference than millions of years. Reptiles do not ever stop growing, and if things were living for 900 years, you get big lizards! AKA: Dinosaurs.

Evolution happening now on a small scale and all of creation being made through evolution are very different issues. Almost no on will deny that evolution is occurring. It is a fact. However, that does not mean that the world was created through it. I don't deny that it is possible. God certainly could have used evolution, however, I doubt it.

of course Evolution is happening! Thats a no brainer, we have actually seen it! But Evolution is a tricky word. Since there are six definitions:
1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space, and matter (Big Bang)
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star form.
4. Organic Evolution: Origin of Life. No body has a clue how life started from non-living material
5. Macro-Evolution: Changing from one kind into another. Nobody has seen a dog produce a non-dog,ever.
6. Micro-Evolution: Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed. Changes within the kinds.

5 out of those 6 definitions are purely religions, the 6th one is a science. If you ever want to win a debate on Evolution you will win if you just define what you are talking about, and you will find that they only give examples for number 6.

I believe in Micro-Evolution, that you can have variations within kinds. Noah didnt bring all 100 breeds of Dogs on the Arc, thats insane. I think that Noah didnt even see a Chuauaua. (that small Taco Bell dog thing...)

God certainly could have used evolution, however, I doubt it.
a god who uses evolution to create life is cruel, wasteful, and decitful. And its not the God of the Bible.

[ppar3566]

STC you asked what I believe. I must confess that I have not the foggiest. I lean towards evolution though I am still trying to figure it all out (and I am a long way from this as yet). A few points I would like to make in this respect is as follows:

Te distinction between macro and micro evolution could well be a false one. This is because it assumes that different species are QUALITATIVELY different (i.e. distinct and unconnected). However, it is quite possible that the differences are much more QUALITATIVE in nature (i.e. exist on a continuum with lower animals on one end and high animals on the other). It is worth reading Climbing mount Impossible by Richard Dawkins here (note that his recent book the God Delusion is a serious miscarriage of science and appallingly illogical in places).

In relation to a god using evolution being cruel, I don't really get the connection.

Lastly Dork elf's comment about us looking at things now and extrapolating into the past I think is somewhat correct but needs one cravat. As humans you believe God is able to create whatever he wants but we should use our logic to explore the natural order of things. C.S. Lewis uses this idea in Christianity explained (I think) where you can not tell the source of a light in a basement looking at it sideways (taking a cross-section view of the world - I think this is your point here Dork elf and it is a good one) but we can by looking alone it and following it as far as we can. In other words we should not assume the world today is the same as the world when God created it but we can take a developmental approach to explore how God may have created it (this is where I think evolution is potentially useful).

Lastly, thanks for this enlightening discussion. Again let me say how proud I am to be discussing this with people who are obviously very intelligent. Kudos guys.

[Stc95]

Evolution is a cruel thing. Its like the whole "do the ends justify the means" thing. Like did Stalin's Industrialization of Russia, and possibly save the world from Nazi Germany, justify that he killed millions of people to do it?
And there is so much evidance for a young, 6,000 or less year old Earth. Idk any proof for a longer one, or at least one that i dont have an opposite theory.


Lastly, thanks for this enlightening discussion. Again let me say how proud I am to be discussing this with people who are obviously very intelligent. Kudos guys.

Ya not bad for 15, eh? :D

Im thinking about doing some creation science in college. I think right now God is calling me to do it. Tho i dont like science... kinda. idk... IM SO CONFUSED!

and i feel the same way Ppar, this guild/group of people are amazing. i know that if i had had this discussion with any other online forum i probably would have been flammed. Its nice to know we arnt in the fire here. PRAISE GOD!

[ChickenSoup]

To make this simple I'm putting my comments in bold.

No worries mate. Let me try and break it down slowly (and please note I don't know if this is right it is just one point of view).

Before I make my point can I say that you, STC and C$ seem to me to be very intelligent guys (I am really chuffed to have had this discussion with you guys). I assume you will go to college soon which is why I am pursuing this point. I alienated many at my university for years when I refused to move from a seven day creation story. I now feel somewhat guilty for my strong and uncompromising point of view when I now feel I never needed to. With fundementalism being one of the greatest threats to christianity today you guys can't afford not to think very seriously about why you believe what you believe for anyone at college level to take you seriously.

Yep, college soon. Graphic Design :D

Fundamentalism is a threat to Christianity? You mean, taking the Bible literally and all that? Hmm. Anyway, if you think I've never thought long and hard about why I believe what I do than you're quite mistaken.

Please hold tightly onto what you believe but make sure you are acquiring the tools you will need to truly provide the best answer you can to those who ask. Here we go.

1. Who is Genesis Written to: Genesis is written to a specific audience. In this case Israelites who have grown up in an Egyptian culture and know Egyptian mythology and have been taught that the Pharaoh is God on Earth and the temple of Ra is his throne.

2. What style is the book written in: The creation story is very similar to the story of the creation of the story of the creation of the temple of Ra. This makes sense as this is the only creation story the people of Israel would have been familiar with.

Aha, but numerous civilizations have all had their accounts of creation, and many of a worldwide flood... I think it could go the other way around--they're similar to the Biblical account because what the Bible depicts actually happened. The ancient Chinese symbol for "create" (maybe "to create") includes the symbols for breath, dust, man, life, and "to walk". It seems they believed we were created from dust in some way, and "breath" + "life" seem to be similar to the Biblical account of creation also... although it isn't particularly clear, either, so it can be interpreted many different ways. My point: Many peoples believed similar things to the Bible, and maybe for a reason.

3. What would the original recipients have got from Genesis: They would have noticed the story instantly and seen the twist. God is LORD of all not Ra. The earth is his throne not a temple. We are his representatives on earth not the Pharaoh.

You got that from the Creation account?

4. How do we apply this to our lives: No matter what theory of creation we hold onto God must be at the centre of it. He is the creator, He is lord of all, we are his image and representatives on earth.

I would agree somewhat, but if you can take one book of the Bible and say "no, that's not true" than the rest of it cannot be taken seriously. "Well, I don't think the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, either. It was just written as a metaphor." "Well, I don't think Revelations is true because at the time, John must've gone mad." "Well, I don't really think David, a boy at the time, could've thrown one rock and killed a giant." You detract from the whole thing.

A final point from this is that if we read Genesis like this the bible does not lose any of its credibility. We don't call poets liars. We don't accuse those who use metaphors or speak with examples to help us understand as liars. In this case the bible is not a liar and does not stand in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. I am a PhD student at an Ivy league school in Aus and I have tried to find convincing evidence against it but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of evidence supports it.
I frankly don't see the point in God using a big bang and then having us evolve. Maybe it would show how He is infinitely complex, but it seems to me that He would create us specifically, carefully, and for a purpose.


After all STC...do you believe that people literally lived for hundreds of years as the Bible said they do? If so...how can you believe that and not believe that even longer spans of life would have been possible for animals, as they bathed in the very glory of God in the first era of their creation?

Paul

I personally believe that animals lived longer when the humans did (and reptiles grow their entire lives, right? makes for some fairly large animals...), but after the flood you fail to see extravagantly long-lived humans anymore, and I suppose the animals would be affected also.

[Stc95]

I frankly don't see the point in God using a big bang and then having us evolve. Maybe it would show how He is infinitely complex, but it seems to me that He would create us specifically, carefully, and for a purpose.
No, God created us with a purpose. and for a reason. Evolution teaches that we all came from rock-soup. How is there purpose in life if we came from soup? Every time i eat Chicken Noodles am i eating Grandpa? Or maybe i just killed another civilation because they didnt have time to evolve. And He created us in His image. We cant be God's image if we evolved, yes He could guide us, but then whats the point, if He knows what we are going to be in the end, just skip all the violence and get us there AND show His glory. Also God is a jealous God, He doesnt want us worshiping others, He would rather have us now than watch us fight for billions of years, killing each other until we become the super-race. Unless God is a fan of reality shows.


I personally believe that animals lived longer when the humans did (and reptiles grow their entire lives, right? makes for some fairly large animals...), but after the flood you fail to see extravagantly long-lived humans anymore, and I suppose the animals would be affected also.
Your exactly right C$. Tho there are scientific theories (based on the Bible) that give a scientific reasoning to it. Not that God needs any reasoning, but so we can help pursuade people FROM Evolution TO God.

[ppar3566]

C$ I didn't mean to offend by assuming that you had not thought about it (you obviously have) just that it is always good to hear other viewpoints to expand our understanding.

Also great to hear you are doing design. My wife just finished her GD degree last year.

Yes there are heaps of other stories that follow the biblical example. The point I am making is the story of Ra pre-dates the biblical story and is used as a formate to translate to the people of Israel the awesomeness of God in a form that was accessible to them. By the way this does not mean the bible is lying far from it. Indeed I never said Genesis is not true. Rather that our interpretation of it is not true. When someone writes a love letter we understand from the context that they are not really going to climb the highest mountain etc. but rather it is a way of illustrating how much they love the person they are writing about. They are not lying at all just using a technique to explain that thing that is real (i.e. their love for the other person). On a side point no one takes the bible 100% literally ever. You don't assume Song of Songs is to be taken literally but rather that the author is using poetry to express real emotions.

Finally, your argument that I am suggesting we can just now dismiss bits of the bible as we please due to my Genesis revelation is quite simply wrong. I am suggesting that we need to take the bible message very seriously and try to understand what the author intended (by the way the slippery slope argument you make here is a heuristic – a mental shortcut - rather than a logical deduction).

[ppar3566]

Evolution is a cruel thing. Its like the whole "do the ends justify the means" thing. Like did Stalin's Industrialization of Russia, and possibly save the world from Nazi Germany, justify that he killed millions of people to do it?
And there is so much evidance for a young, 6,000 or less year old Earth. Idk any proof for a longer one, or at least one that i dont have an opposite theory.



Ya not bad for 15, eh? :D

Im thinking about doing some creation science in college. I think right now God is calling me to do it. Tho i dont like science... kinda. idk... IM SO CONFUSED!

and i feel the same way Ppar, this guild/group of people are amazing. i know that if i had had this discussion with any other online forum i probably would have been flammed. Its nice to know we arnt in the fire here. PRAISE GOD!

Good one you mate. Could I suggest though that you seem to have the smarts to go to a top notch college and get a degree that the secular world understands. That way you could have even more impact.

I believe God uses what we must enjoy. If you like science go for it. If you like theology go for that. If you like something else do that. You will do best doing what you love.

Just quickly I understand the ends/mean explination in general but still cannot see the connection to evolution. By the by, in relation to your comment "FROM evolution TO God", my relationship with God has not been effected one-bit by me considering whether evolution is true (indeed I am slightly offended by the suggestion ;). I also have an even greater respect for the word of God. Genesis is truely awesome.

[Stc95]

Ppar i had no intention to say that your walk with God was hindered or... below par, or anything of that nature. Im sorry you took it that way and i apologize.

[ppar3566]

Ppar i had no intention to say that your walk with God was hindered or... below par, or anything of that nature. Im sorry you took it that way and i apologize.

Just joken mate no offence taken (I was just pulling your chain :D). Truth is this discussion has brought a spark into my spiritual life that has been somewhat lacking of recent (bit frustrated at church, Father-in-law pastor, enough said). So truth is I should be thanking you.

[ChickenSoup]

C$ I didn't mean to offend by assuming that you had not thought about it (you obviously have) just that it is always good to hear other viewpoints to expand our understanding

No no, you didn't offend. :)

Finally, your argument that I am suggesting we can just now dismiss bits of the bible as we please due to my Genesis revelation is quite simply wrong. I am suggesting that we need to take the bible message very seriously and try to understand what the author intended (by the way the slippery slope argument you make here is a heuristic – a mental shortcut - rather than a logical deduction).

Maybe the stories that Jonah was swallowed by a whale was just a metaphor that things may seem bad at times but God will deliver when we repent. Maybe the Israelites' crossing the Red Sea on dry land is just a metaphor that God will provide a way that we don't expect. Maybe Jesus didn't really come to save us, and it's just a metaphor that God loves us and will forgive us.

See? You detract from the whole thing.

The point I am making is the story of Ra pre-dates the biblical story and is used as a formate to translate to the people of Israel the awesomeness of God in a form that was accessible to them. By the way this does not mean the bible is lying far from it. Indeed I never said Genesis is not true. Rather that our interpretation of it is not true.

It doesn't matter. Just because it was written after doesn't mean that it was based on it.

I think Genesis was very direct. The creation account was mentioned various times throughout the Bible, but never--EVER--do we find anything that ever suggested evolution in any way shape or form.

When someone writes a love letter we understand from the context that they are not really going to climb the highest mountain etc. but rather it is a way of illustrating how much they love the person they are writing about. They are not lying at all just using a technique to explain that thing that is real (i.e. their love for the other person). On a side point no one takes the bible 100% literally ever. You don't assume Song of Songs is to be taken literally but rather that the author is using poetry to express real emotions.


Genesis wasn't a love letter. You'll note that the other 4 books of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), believed to be written for the most part by Moses, have been very literal--in fact, I can hardly stand to read the latter three not because I don't like them but because they're so drawn out and exact in measurements and directions and everything. Nothing suggests that Genesis was a love letter, either. As a last note, I don't see why God would purposefully spell out all of that, without pointing out that it was, in fact, a metaphor, when He knew that it would confuse most of the Christians who have ever lived.

[Stc95]

Just joken mate no offence taken (I was just pulling your chain :D). Truth is this discussion has brought a spark into my spiritual life that has been somewhat lacking of recent (bit frustrated at church, Father-in-law pastor, enough said). So truth is I should be thanking you.

lol, the ';)' through me off, but i wanted to be safe.

anyway.. um.. i guess your welcome.

[ppar3566]

No no, you didn't offend. :)



Maybe the stories that Jonah was swallowed by a whale was just a metaphor that things may seem bad at times but God will deliver when we repent. Maybe the Israelites' crossing the Red Sea on dry land is just a metaphor that God will provide a way that we don't expect. Maybe Jesus didn't really come to save us, and it's just a metaphor that God loves us and will forgive us.

See? You detract from the whole thing.



It doesn't matter. Just because it was written after doesn't mean that it was based on it.

I think Genesis was very direct. The creation account was mentioned various times throughout the Bible, but never--EVER--do we find anything that ever suggested evolution in any way shape or form.



Genesis wasn't a love letter. You'll note that the other 4 books of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), believed to be written for the most part by Moses, have been very literal--in fact, I can hardly stand to read the latter three not because I don't like them but because they're so drawn out and exact in measurements and directions and everything. Nothing suggests that Genesis was a love letter, either. As a last note, I don't see why God would purposefully spell out all of that, without pointing out that it was, in fact, a metaphor, when He knew that it would confuse most of the Christians who have ever lived.

Come on C$ that is ridicules. Paul uses metaphors to explain the church (i.e. the body). You don't go around assuming that you are really an arm or a leg you understand what he is trying to do. Further, you don't simply go ok everything he has written is a metaphor because that bit was.

My simple point is this: We understand how to read things, what they are trying to do, and what should be taken literally or not, in everyday readings by looking at the context:
1. If we read Dear ... we know that what will follow is a letter
2. Strange layout of text = poetry.

This is what I was trying to get at not that Genesis is a love letter, it is not.

How do we tell what is a metaphor or not? Simply put (but difficult to do)we need to get as much information as possible. I.e. we know the story of Jesus is not a metaphor because the writers of the gospel tell us that is not what the book are meant to do (i.e. Luke says right up front that he is writing a history)

[dorkelf]

No, God created us with a purpose. and for a reason. Evolution teaches that we all came from rock-soup. How is there purpose in life if we came from soup? Every time i eat Chicken Noodles am i eating Grandpa? Or maybe i just killed another civilation because they didnt have time to evolve. And He created us in His image. We cant be God's image if we evolved, yes He could guide us, but then whats the point, if He knows what we are going to be in the end, just skip all the violence and get us there AND show His glory. Also God is a jealous God, He doesnt want us worshiping others, He would rather have us now than watch us fight for billions of years, killing each other until we become the super-race. Unless God is a fan of reality shows.


Your exactly right C$. Tho there are scientific theories (based on the Bible) that give a scientific reasoning to it. Not that God needs any reasoning, but so we can help pursuade people FROM Evolution TO God.

Your post made me hungry.

The Bible said that we came from dust. Now, we could have a discussion about which is more dignified...dust, or pond scum...but I don't personally take any more offense to the idea that my ultimate ancestor was a speck of slime than I do that it was a speck of dust. What I do take offense to is that evolution as a means for life to adapt (an observable phenomenon) has been extrapolated into the related but separate theory that this explains the origin of our species - and, of course, the minor detail that this theory is treated as indisputable scientific law. :mad:

Paul

[Stc95]

Your post made me hungry.

The Bible said that we came from dust. Now, we could have a discussion about which is more dignified...dust, or pond scum...but I don't personally take any more offense to the idea that my ultimate ancestor was a speck of slime than I do that it was a speck of dust. What I do take offense to is that evolution as a means for life to adapt (an observable phenomenon) has been extrapolated into the related but separate theory that this explains the origin of our species - and, of course, the minor detail that this theory is treated as indisputable scientific law. :mad:

Paul


Oh ya Paul. Thats what gets me infuriated. That their RELIGION is taught in public schools as A LAW! Last year my teacher is like "i dont care what you believe in, Evolution is true and theres no way around it." You seriously dont know how much i wanted to walk out of that room and hit something.. or her.. but that would be mean.
See, the question is, not whether religion should be taugh in school (cause it is!) but whether we should have Public schools. I want to go to a school that DOESNT believe in Evolution, but then again, think of all the good i could do in a Evolution school. VIVA LA CREATION!

Also the thing about Dust and Slime. I think i was trying to get as is
Creation: In the beginning God.
Evolution: In the beginning Rock.

I think that the creation story is SO much more logical than evolution. Its funny to think that even science proffesors dont even realize how dumb their theory sounds.

[mist_01]

I agree that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than creationism, ironically.

[Stc95]

I agree that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than creationism, ironically.

yet its "science"...

[ChickenSoup]

Come on C$ that is ridicules. Paul uses metaphors to explain the church (i.e. the body). You don't go around assuming that you are really an arm or a leg you understand what he is trying to do. Further, you don't simply go ok everything he has written is a metaphor because that bit was.

My simple point is this: We understand how to read things, what they are trying to do, and what should be taken literally or not, in everyday readings by looking at the context:
1. If we read Dear ... we know that what will follow is a letter
2. Strange layout of text = poetry.

This is what I was trying to get at not that Genesis is a love letter, it is not.

How do we tell what is a metaphor or not? Simply put (but difficult to do)we need to get as much information as possible. I.e. we know the story of Jesus is not a metaphor because the writers of the gospel tell us that is not what the book are meant to do (i.e. Luke says right up front that he is writing a history)


We do not see a dear, and the layout of the text is chronological. Methinks it was not a metaphor, especially since nowhere was it hinted to be a metaphor.

[Jawsofwar]

Suprised how many Christians believe in evolution.

[mist_01]

Evolution on a small scale does happen. However, to believe that a species or humans could evolve is just funny.

[Stc95]

Evolution on a small scale does happen. However, to believe that a species or humans could evolve is just funny.

oh ur absolutly right. Evolution is being done without a doubt! But see, as i have posted before, there are 6 different TYPES of Evolution. and only the last one is true and a science, the rest are religion.

and besides, Noah would have needed BIG BIG arc to take just all the 100 TYPES of dogs. But really, he just took 2 dogs, and they repreduced after their KINDS. Its these words that the Devil likes to get us confused with.


But to say that we all came from a cosmic burp 100000000 billion years ago is just insane. And that life came from non-life.. you know we've never seen a rock make a animal? We've been here oh around 6,000 years, and not once has a rock made.. well anything! What i find hilarious is that these professors dont even know how dumb their theory sounds.

anyway, enough of this for tonight, i gots a field trip manana! WOO!

[ppar3566]

Hi All. I haven't been on for a while with university exams. I came across this link which pretty much says some similar stuff to what I have said here before. I don't agree 100% with what is said here but it is pretty good.

http://www.tonywatkins.co.uk/science/articles/handling_genesis.htm

Hope you are all enjoying the lead up to Christmas and Thanksgiving.

[Stc95]

They still didnt answer how you can have death before sin... which is what the Gap Theory says.

The big issues in Genesis 1 are not scientific. It doesn't really matter if creation was a quick miracle or a slow one.

1) Yes it is scientific. God wanted to show his glory by making the Earth and people etc. He wouldnt write a poem about it, he would actually say what he did!
2)It does matter if it was fast or slow. If it was fast=more glory. slow=no glory. There is so much more evidance to prove that the Earth is only baout 6,000 years old. There is NO proof for a billion year old Earth. And also, what a work day God has in each of "his days." lets see: "go to work, say some words, VACATION FOR A BILLION YEARS!" Genesis' language does not leave room for more than ONE day to pass from Day 1 to Day 2. In Hebrew its permanent.. 1 24 hr day.

[ppar3566]

Actually the Hebrew word for day (yom - singular/yamin - plural) can refer to either a literal 24hour period or as simply a period on time (Father is a lecturer in biblical languages). It depends on the context as to whether it is literal or figurative. Admittedly the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is used in a rather unusual way which makes looking at the context difficult.

In response to other comments:
1. No Genesis is not scientific. It can't be it is written in a pre-scientific age.
2. I disagree that slow means no glory. You are implicitly assuming speed = power. I think slow and infinitely complex is just as amazing.

[Stc95]

Actually the Hebrew word for day (yom - singular/yamin - plural) can refer to either a literal 24hour period or as simply a period on time (Father is a lecturer in biblical languages). It depends on the context as to whether it is literal or figurative. Admittedly the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is used in a rather unusual way which makes looking at the context difficult.

In response to other comments:
1. No Genesis is not scientific. It can't be it is written in a pre-scientific age.
2. I disagree that slow means no glory. You are implicitly assuming speed = power. I think slow and infinitely complex is just as amazing.

Gen 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass.. and the fruit tree.... 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day."
Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night... 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
Now this we both have problems. Plants (like grass and trees) and survive without sunlight. I have a problem because they survived a couple days without light, but your problem is that they survived for a coupld millions years without light. There is light, for God said "let there be light" on the first day. But plants need SUNlight. Thats the only thing that can use sunlight for good. Otherwise sunlight just kills everything.

Also, if the Earth is millions of years old. Where's all the proof? I have seen no proof for a billion years old Earth. I am willing to put a hold on the Gen debate if someone can give me proof for a billion year old Earth. Im just using Gen as a little Power-up on my 6,000 year old Earth thing.

[ppar3566]

Remember my account of Genesis is that it is written in prose in a form that the Jews could easily understand to counter-act the pagan mythology that surrounded the nation of Israel. In this case I don't need plants surviving for millions of years without light i.e. the order of creation is important from a transmitting Gods truth point of view not for a literal explanation of how things happened.

I think it is worth pointing out here that just because something is a metaphor does not mean I do not believe in a reality underlying that metaphor (namely God made the world and everything in it, we have dominion of the world under Gods authority as his image/representatives on earth). Secondly just because something is expressed in metaphorical language does not mean it should not be taken very seriously. Nor does it mean that we should not live our lives in light of this message.

[Stc95]

Secondly just because something is expressed in metaphorical language does not mean it should not be taken very seriously. Nor does it mean that we should not live our lives in light of this message.

But there is so much more proof that it WASNT a metaphore. What evidance is there to support the fact that its a metaphore? Yes they needed a non-pagan creation story. Doesnt mean God made one up for them. Why would God lie? I dont think God would say "I made it this way, but im going to tell you another way." And God is infinatly wise. The future is His past. He is the past, present, and future. And God can multi-task. God knew that Satan would sprout about the Evolution idea. The best way to disprove that is by having the truth! There was only one person present when God made the Earth, and that was God, so that means that we have to take the word of the only person that was there.. GOD!

[ppar3566]

But there is so much more proof that it WASNT a metaphore. What evidance is there to support the fact that its a metaphore? Yes they needed a non-pagan creation story. Doesnt mean God made one up for them. Why would God lie? I dont think God would say "I made it this way, but im going to tell you another way." And God is infinatly wise. The future is His past. He is the past, present, and future. And God can multi-task. God knew that Satan would sprout about the Evolution idea. The best way to disprove that is by having the truth! There was only one person present when God made the Earth, and that was God, so that means that we have to take the word of the only person that was there.. GOD!

Metaphor = lie (why?). Paul uses a metaphor of the body to discribe the church. Jesus uses a metaphor of yeast to describe religious hipocrites. James uses many metaphors to describe the evil of the tongue. You would agree these are metaphors but you would not consider them to be lies. They express deep truths in a way that is easy to understand. You are assuming that just because we do not recognise Genesis as an illustrative account of creation that the Jews who were the first readers would have also read it as literal. Proof is a elusive word but my evidence is as follows:

1. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is written in a style not seen anywhere else in the bible. It is unique.
2. The story is similar not only in style but in content to pagan stories written about the creation of the world/temple of Ra.
3. One of the most familiar story to the Jews at the time was the story of Ra
4. The story of Genesis has some important changes to these pagan stories that re-assert God as creator of all, As ruler over all, and as humans as not only important but the very image/representative of God.
5. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific era
6. Yes God wrote Genesis but he did so through a person, a person who wrote for a specific purpose to a specific audience, in a specific genre.

Person = Moses
Audience = newly freed slaves born and raised in Egypt
Purpose = to re-assert God as ruler of all things and humans as the pinnacle of creation.
Style = either prose or poetry

[Stc95]

What you said above does not limit it to a metaphore at all.

Number 5 i would have to disagree with. How can you have a pre-scientific era? Thats like Pre-historic. It just doesnt work. You cant have something before history and you cant have something before science. So far you have said nothing that proves it to be a metaphore. Ok, so maybe God wrote it in a fancy language, maybe that was how they wrote way back when. There are lots of creation stories, and all about the same.. maybe because it all happend the same! Do you know there are hundreds of flood stories all the same. Does that mean that the flood was a metaphore?

Im not saying that the Jews didnt read it as a metaphore or illustrative thingy-maboby. They could have read it anyway for all i care. But what i am saying is that what Genisis says is truth. And that God made the Earth in six 24 hr days.

[ChickenSoup]

Metaphor = lie (why?). Paul uses a metaphor of the body to discribe the church. Jesus uses a metaphor of yeast to describe religious hipocrites. James uses many metaphors to describe the evil of the tongue. You would agree these are metaphors but you would not consider them to be lies. They express deep truths in a way that is easy to understand. You are assuming that just because we do not recognise Genesis as an illustrative account of creation that the Jews who were the first readers would have also read it as literal. Proof is a elusive word but my evidence is as follows:

1. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is written in a style not seen anywhere else in the bible. It is unique.
2. The story is similar not only in style but in content to pagan stories written about the creation of the world/temple of Ra.
3. One of the most familiar story to the Jews at the time was the story of Ra
4. The story of Genesis has some important changes to these pagan stories that re-assert God as creator of all, As ruler over all, and as humans as not only important but the very image/representative of God.
5. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific era
6. Yes God wrote Genesis but he did so through a person, a person who wrote for a specific purpose to a specific audience, in a specific genre.

Person = Moses
Audience = newly freed slaves born and raised in Egypt
Purpose = to re-assert God as ruler of all things and humans as the pinnacle of creation.
Style = either prose or poetry

1. Good, the style should show it's set apart.
2. Many cultures have a similar Flood story. Does that mean the Jews copied them?
3. Scripture is God-breathed, not inspired by the writings of pagans. Unless, of course, you don't believe Paul.
4. That should make the Creatoin story even more convincing for the Christian!
5. Irrelevant. If Scripture is God-breathed, what does it matter that it was written in a pre-scientific era? If Scripture is God-breathed, it wouldn't matter when it was written because it is the plenary verbal Word of God.
6. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED. Yes, a man wrote it, but do you honestly believe that Moses got a good idea to write what he thought God would have him write? You detract from the value of the book as a whole.

Person: Probably Moses.
Audience: the Jews (and later Christians)
Purpose: to show God's greatness by demonstrating how He created the world and created us with a special purpose.

A special note: It is chronological and is very specific, and is not preceded by words that would indicate a metaphor, nor is it followed by words that would suggest a metaphor. I note this especially because it is followed by a recap in more detail (Genesis 2:4-25) and then the fall of man (Genesis 3). Genesis 4 is the story of Cain and Abel, and there ends what evolutionist Christians generally consider the metaphor.

No indication that what it says is taken from anything else or is a nice story.

It seems to be very specific:
1 This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-108a)] " 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-135c)] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.


After that, it leads up to the flood story. I assume you find that to be a metaphor also, even though there are no phrases or words that suggest a metaphor. I also assume you find the Tower of Babel story to be a metaphor...

But, it contains very detailed records amongst all of this (which you'd have to assume were bunk), all the way at least to chapter 12 (the call of Abram) with no phrases or words to indicate a metaphor, and when it at last shifts into what you would call "what actually happened", nothing changes. Like I've said so many times, there are no words to suggest that what the reader had just read was an analogy or a metaphor or anything. Instead, it goes into the history of what had happened up until Moses' time. The big thing is that since there are no transitional words that indicate a shift from fanciful story to actual fact, you must assume the entire thing is either fact or fiction. What's it going to be?

I know it's a long post, but I'll end with recommending that you read 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Heck, I'll just post it.
16[B]All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


If you detract from the divine inspiration of Genesis, you detract from the credibility of Paul. Do you see where the credibility of the whole thing starts to get a bit looser?

[ppar3566]

I think you are mixing up two very different issues here.

1. Is the bible God breath /God Inspired, is it perfect, is it true? To all questions I would say yes and fight with anyone who said otherwise. In other words I am most definitely on your side here.

2. The second issue is one of interpretation of the scriptures. We all interpret the bible when we read it (in other words the bible is not self-evident). The things that influence our interpretation are cultural/social (e.g. capitalism has given rise to the prosperity gospel:(, church/denomination (my denomination puts a lot of emphasis on the holy spirit others do not), our friends/family/ other important people (my father is a lecturer at a theology college this influences how I read the bible) and individual (my personal experience and my personality). My point is that these influences are dramatically different from the ones that the original readers of Genesis. So to get the best interpretation possible we need to understand their context and how they would have interpreted Genesis.

What I am saying is that I hold the bible as sacred and the divine revelation of God. However, I am also suggesting that your interpretation of Genesis may not be a correct one. This has nothing to do with the validity of the scriptures. This is where reading the bible gets difficult because we can not just copy and paste the bible without understanding how the context of the writing (i.e. each book was written in a specific time for a specific purpose to a specific audience). This is where we differ. It is my belief that to interpret the bible correctly then we need to try to put ourselves as best we can in the shoes of those who first received it to try and understand how they would have interpreted it. This is what I have being trying to do, though perhaps not very successfully. When using the knowledge of historians and theologians with a better understanding than me on the issue, I don’t feel the Jews would have read the Genesis account literally but rather figuratively. I could be wrong, that is plain, but I am trying to treat the bible with as much respect as I can in the way I feel most appropriate.

Again this is where we agree that respect and reverence is needed when reading the bible.
p.s. C$ you are right Moses most likely rather than definately wrote Genesis. Thanks for picking me up on this :)

[Stc95]

I don’t feel the Jews would have read the Genesis account literally but rather figuratively.
They could have read it as an epic poem written by Plato! It could be a horror story by Alfred Hitchcock. Or maybe a romance with Leonardo Di Caprio. Heck, even a James Bond movie! Just because someone says something, does not make it write. God could have written Genisis to tell the Jews that that is how the Earth was made and that GOD did it. It doesnt have to be a metaphore. They can still read it as such, but that doesnt make it so. and there is so much more evidance that GOD made the world like he said he did, than any other way.

[ppar3566]

I think we have done as much as we can on this topic and I think it is worth agreeing to disagree. Thank you for your considered opinions on the matter and I look forward to many more discussions on various topics.