Youth question

Wash.

New Member
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.
 
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

Banned
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

New Member
Alternative view

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.
 
Last edited:

Stc95

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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

Active Member
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

New Member
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

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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.
 
Last edited:

ppar3566

New Member
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

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
Yes, but dont we all agree that Adam and Eve brought death into the world through sin?
 

mist_01

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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

New Member
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

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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

Banned
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

New Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Stc95

Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
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
 
Top