Menu

Did God Create Over Billions of Years

S
sermonindex


Published: 6 October 2011(GMT+10)
Often, people challenge biblical creationists with comments along the lines of, “I believe God created, and I don’t believe in evolution, but He could have taken billions of years, so what’s the big deal about the age of the earth?” Some claim that an emphasis on ‘6 literal days, 6,000 years ago’ even keeps people away from the faith, so “Why be so dogmatic? Why emphasize something so strongly that’s not a salvation issue?”

It might come as a surprise that we agree—to a point. The timescale in and of itself is not the important issue. So why does CMI emphasize it? It’s important because the issue ultimately comes down to, “Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says?” It therefore goes to the heart of the trustworthiness of Scripture. As such, compromising with long ages also severely undermines the whole gospel message, thus creating crises of faith for many as well as huge problems with evangelism.

Continues at http://creation.com/did-god-create-over-billions-of-years

M
mguldner

It's called the Gap theory...basically the earth from the beginning with everything else ie Big Bang theory type stuff, they really cling to the words Earth was formless for Gap Theorist this is enough to conclude at creation Earth was and had some kind of form.

Basically the theory is the idea Earth and the rest of the universe set formless without order and God 6000 years ago brought about that order and created man.

What happened during the gap? the billions of years that scientist cling to and break down but essentially Dinosaurs. I know its seems pretty far fetched but hey that why it's a theory. I personally don't believe it but I have a very basic understanding of it.

Some even go to the length of saying that the 6000 year old mark is simply the "known world" to men at the time. Ie the earth is billions of years old but Adam didn't know about it so recorded it as such, which is invariably what Moses recorded.

G
ginnyrose

It might make for an enlightening study of you were to check out the WORD about God's creation, how long it took. Exodus refers to God creating in six days and because he did, they were to work six days and rest the Sabbath because God did. Now spiritualize that, if you can!

The point is, you will find other references to God creating that would indicate 24 hour periods. Check it out.

A person could explain it all to you, but if you do a personal study - beginning with Genesis 1 and reading all the way through the WORD - you will find it much more meaningful.

Have fun - and it will be, I promise! You will go on many rabbit trails, see some delightful scenery along the way.

T
TrueWitness

I do believe in the Gap Theory. By verse 2 in Genesis 1, the Earth and all the oceans are in place, and when I say Earth I mean the rocky planet, not the living things we are familiar with on it's surface and oceans and skies. Verse 2 talks about the Earth being formless and void. Well that doesn't sound like something God would do, making something chaotic like that. Could it be that Satan had already fallen like lightning to the Earth and caused upheaval and disturbance on the Earth? By the way, do you believe Satan was created during the 6 days of creation? If so, he sure had to move fast to get 1/3 of the angels to follow him and get kicked out of heaven. I don't want to get dogmatic about exactly how God created everything or how long it took. I think that it is possible to believe that there is a gap of millions if not billions of years between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2. So God made Earth (just the rocky sphere, not life yet)and the oceans initially. And by the time Gen. 1:3 starts the six days of creation, we are millions or billions of years later. Again I don't want to be dogmatic about these things because the Bible does not give lots of details here, such as when Satan was created and when Satan got to Earth, etc. I refuse to argue about the matter. I have an opinion, I am willing to listen to yours, and if I don't agree with yours, that's fine, I don't hold it against you. If you want a fuller treatise on the Gap Theory you might consult 2 books on the subject:
Earth's Earliest Ages by G. H. Pember
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earliest-Ages-G-Pember/dp/0825435331/
and
Another Time, Another Place, Another Man by Finis J. Dake
http://www.amazon.com/Another-Time-Place-Man/dp/1558291105/
This is probably the easiest and best book on the subject.

And to those who think that the days of creation could have been 1000 years each: That would mean that when God instructed man in the Garden of Eden about the two trees, Adam would have been 1000 years old. Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day (1000 years). So I think it is fairly certain that a day is not nor could have been 1000 years.

S
staff

Hi Churinga,
I want to try and address the issue of the billions of years rather than evolution.However I think a couple of things have to be said firstly.Evolution is incompatible with christianity either one is wrong and the other right.
The simple reason for this incompatibility is the bible states that Adam brought sin and death into the world and evolution says that death has been recuring for billions of years.If death is in the world billions of years before Adam then their is no need for a second Adam namely Christ.

Now 2 points
1.Why do christians who believe in billions of years think that it is important to believe in billions of years?
2 Why do christians who believe in billions of years not listen to scientists that are christian and listen to secular evolutionist scientists instead?

Yours Staff

M
MrBillPro

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. this right here is a verse "no man" will ever figure out. When was the beginning? "no one knows" just how big is the Heavens? "no one knows" Were did God come from? "no one knows" How old is God? "no one knows" is there actually a end to the Heavens were it stops, and you would just run into a wall/dead-end? "no one knows" and the best question yet, for us believers, do we really need the answers to the above questions?

1
1000faces

Ginny,

I don't want add just another opinion, but I want to know what you think. Going by what you said, that one would "Check it out" to "find other references to God creating that would indicate 24 hour periods," I read in Genesis 2.4, in the Hebrew, that it is the account of the heavens and the earth "in the day" (bayom) they were created. It seems to suggest a single day for the entire process.

Now, responsible reading and exegesis wouldn't allow for large arguments based on a single word, but it remains to be seen that the account in the second chapter suggests something other than the first.

This doesn't mean billions of years or gap theory or any other latter day back readings, but could it be that the text itself resists our efforts be dogmatically reduce it to doctrine?

This is not an attack or a criticism. I'm not familiar with the common arguments for the different theories, but I was recently surprised by this as I was learning the basics of biblical Hebrew. I don't know how to take Genesis 2.4 against the inscribing of the sabbath in Exodus, as you suggested. But I would love to hear your thoughts or anyone else's.

thanks

M
mguldner

I also want to point something else that is another factor in all of this.

God is without time, meaning before the Heavens and Earth were made IE the Solar System and the earth rotating around the Sun, time as we as humans know it didn't exist. Why? Because our method of keeping track of time is by the revelations of the earth and then further time is calculated by how many time the earth rotates around the sun ie years. Without this time as we know it doesn't really exist.

I honestly can say its okay that I don't know the answer to the question. We all kind of have our "theories" but ultimately God's word is true and we will have to submit to His interpretation on that day, right? :)

S
staff

Hi MrBillpro,
On the 7th day god rested,he was giving an example that even God rested and the example of sabbath.If god didnt create the heavens and earth on the start of day one then this example would not be valid.All through the bible from the beginning their is an example of rest.
This is why the beginning is on the beginning of the first day because he rested on the 7th
Yours Staff

S
sermonindex

Point 1/ It can be because of the saturation from early age that the world as portrayed by secular interests is billions of years old,we are all bombarded with unsubstantiated sources that such is the case,and sheer repetition completes the indoctrination.Popular presenters like Attenborough and the like brainwash people on a regular basis, especially our children,plus contending for the faith by going public that one is a creationist to friends and work mates will draw a lot of reaction to put people down and make them uncomfortable.

Point 2/ Because Creationism gets such a poor run in the secular world you must dig deep to find credible sources to support the creationist side of the coin,some Churches do not believe that such teaching is relevant,and Apostate Pastors and Liberals pander to the non believers,fortunately the internet does provide a level playing field and several sites have excellent teaching material for all those interested,not only Christians.

S
staff

Hi TrueWitness,
On your comment below- why would God wait a period of time to bring order to the world?And if he did how do you know how long that period is?And like I said in another post why did God rest on the 7th but apparently made the heavens and the earth but did not rest?
Considering that God in constructing the bible is fanatical about recording times such as wilderness wonderings,captivities,sabbaths,jubliee years etc it is hard to believe that this is not part of the first day and that that time is recorded as well.

" talks about the Earth being formless and void. Well that doesn't sound like something God would do, making something chaotic like that."

Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi All,
For those Christians who believe in evolution:We know that Adam was created on the sixth day and we know how old adam was when he died and we know that 5 days before Adam was created that Light was created and we know that without light their can be no evolution.Hence no need for millions or billions of years.

Gen1.2 the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi Churanga,
I have no doubt that this world has indoctrinated most people with evolution and billions of years but I think you misunderstood my point.
My point is that Christians who believe in millions of years and argue for evolution believe it because it is the easy thing to do,instead of looking foolish they take the easy way out.
The second point is aimed at Christians who have both information from the secular scientists about evolution and from scietists that are christians and choose to believe the secular scientists,
Yours Staff

M
MrBillPro

Genesis clearly teaches that the days were not 24 hours.

S
staff

Hi,
Could you please elaborate on this clear teaching?

Adam was created on the sixth day and after the sixth day was a seventh day.The bible clearly records the age of Adam's death at 930years.Adam lived through the seventh day which had to be literal or it would be recorded in Gen 5:5 and it is not.For instance if the seventh day were actually 15000 years in duration then Adam could not be only 930 years.Look what it says below in Genesis "ALL THE DAYS" not some "ALL" including the sixth and seventh days

"Genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died."

Their are three main types of beliefs regarding Genesis as I see it.
1.Christians who believe in a literal six days with no room for evolution
2.People who believe in millions or billions of years and evolution
3.Christians who believe in a gap theory which involves the possibility of millions of years.

I can easily understand the beliefs of the first two clearly but the third type is harder to understand other than they are christians who lean towards the belief in evolution which is incompatible with Christ being savior.
The only reason a knowledgable Christians can argue for millions of years is because they believe in evolution
Yours Staff

M
MrBillPro

The Bible says in II Peter 3:8 that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. God does not see time the same way we do! To him, one second could be a million years. Therefore, no matter what the interpretation is of the original Hebrew for the word “day,” it does not apply to an infinite God.

G
ginnyrose

Genesis 1:5:5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8: God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13:There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19: There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23: There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31: God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

All my life an evening and morning consisted of 24 hour periods, just like it is described here. If this were longer periods of time I think God would have been clear about it in this record.

I find it easier to believe the WORD just as it is written rather then try to finagle it to fit secular philosophies.


S
sermonindex

Genesis clearly teaches that the days were not 24 hours.

Actually it clearly teaches that the days were all 24 hours.

Gen 1:14 teaches that the length of days were set and to be measured by the sun and moon. The length of days before and after this day are all recorded as being the same length. Since they are measured by sun and moon as they still are today, it can only mean they were 24 hour days.

A
ArtB

Here is a topic that I have some expertise in.

To begin with, Science has clearly said "NO" to The Theory of Evolution. If you want me to share the evidence against evolution, Just ask. However, adaptation of the species to ecological niches is a reality.

If you wish to believe that God created the universe and all animals in six days, then the universe is nothing more than a stage made to look like billions of years old. This is not a bad theory, when a Producer decides to finance a stage production of the play 'South Pacific', he does not plant a Palm Tree seed on his stage and wait for the Palm Tree to grow 12 feet high before he could start his play. He buys a full size Palm tree and place it on the stage, so the show may begin promptly.

Similarly God may have made the universe to look billions of years old, for whatever reason He intended it to be that way.

On the other hand, our universe may actually be Billions of years old, and God may have had many other uses for such a universe. Who can say we are the only planet with life on it?

Complicating the situation is the fact that the universe is accelerating in its expansion at near the speed of light. Therefore Einstein Theory of relativity must be accounted for, thus Billions years may have passed in our time frame, and only 6 days in God's time frame.

And then there is Creationary scientists Russel Humphreys White Hole Theory, which I think is rather good concept, but needed more work last I looked at it..

As for Creationary scientists, I believe there are more who believe the universe is many millions or even Billions of years old from Earths' vantage point than those who believe the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Finally, the universe can not be infinitely old. Time always has to be finite. Time is not an abstract concept, it is a concrete concept based upon actual movements in the real world we live in.

A
ArtB

by Old_Joe on 2012/1/28 21:58:45


Actually (Genesis) clearly teaches that the days were all 24 hours.

Gen 1:14 teaches that the length of days were set and to be measured by the sun and moon. The length of days before and after this day are all recorded as being the same length. Since they are measured by sun and moon as they still are today, it can only mean they were 24 hour days.

The Jewish Midrash claims they were 24 hour periods.

T
TrueWitness

Where in Genesis chapter one is the creation of our Sun mentioned? Answer: verses 16-18:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!

Right there we can say that the length of a day in this 6 day creation account is uncertain. What was the length of days one, two and three if there was no SUN yet.

It is also odd that plants were created on day three before there was a SUN.

M
MrBillPro

TrueWitness..Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!

Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)

S
staff

Hi True witness,
Death and Sin had not entered the world at this stage so the plant could not die

"It is also odd that plants were created on day three before there was a SUN"

Do you believe in Evolution?

Yours Staff

M
MrBillPro

ArtB...Here is a topic that I have some expertise in.

And a topic I have none in, just common sense, and common sense may not be enough.

S
sermonindex

Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)

They were measured by 'morning and evening' making them the same length as the days after the sun and moon were created.

OJ

S
staff

Hi Mrbillpro,
If you cant measure isnt it possible that it is exactly 24hrs?
Also could you address the issue of Gen 5.5 which says that All the days of Adams life was 930years including day 6 and 7.
Do you believe in evolution?

M
MrBillPro

staff....Hi Mrbillpro..Do you believe in evolution?

You know, I don't know who you are, but I am here to learn, and sometimes during debates info/reactions/opinions of others are what gathers understanding for all. For you to ask me if I believe in evolution, just takes me farther away from any opinion or beliefs you might interject. This would be no different than us talking about alcohol, and someone disagreeing with you, and you ask them if their an alcoholic. You really need to pray before interjecting your questions to others so freely. No, I don't believe in evolution, if so I would not be a member of SI, I am here because I believe in Jesus Christ, and love to discuss him, and not things that no one really knows for sure but you.

T
TrueWitness

No, I absolutely do not believe in evolution. I do however believe in a long age for the Earth (millions and perhaps billions of years old). I know that evolutionists require a long age for the Earth if their theory is to have any credibility. Remember, there are two parts to evolution. They believe 1) life sprang from dead molecules without any assistance from sentient being(s). And
2) once life did take hold on Earth, these life forms slowly evolved in shape and function into different organisms.
I whole-heartedly reject and renounce the first assertion about dead molecules randomly colliding and then at a certain point a fortuitous collision and perhaps energy from a lightning bolt created a living cell. Preposterous.
As to point 2, I do not believe that a species of plant or animal can "evolve" into another species. So I reject any notion of humans having fish or lizard or ape ancestors. I do believe that God does furnish beneficial changes to a specie in an isolated environment in order to help them cope with that environment. So I do believe that God providentially gave black people dark skin pigment to help them cope with sunny climates. I do not classify this as evolution. I call it adaptation. Because let me ask you a question: What race were Adam and Eve? Whatever answer you give me, my next question would be: From where or how did the other races come into existence? As a creationist, you had better have an answer, and if you are like me who does not believe in evolution, adaptation makes sense. Again, I believe that adaptation is only relatively minor things that occurs in a specie and does not make a specie a new specie. I am not a trained biologist so I don't know how big a change would make a specie a new specie, but I am sure it would have to be quite significant. I don't believe a specie can have any changes without the providential hand of God initiating and producing it and there is no record of a specie becoming a new specie. Anyone who says they have record of one is looking at two species which always existed as separate species, one of which or perhaps both is now extinct.
I believe in an old age Earth and Universe mainly because we know for certain that the most distant stars (quasars) are 13 - 15 billion light years away. Also radiometric dating of rocks here on Earth indicates an old age for Earth. But just because I believe in an old age for Earth does not mean I believe in evolution. I don't.

T
twayneb

Quote:

TrueWitness..Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!

Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)

Actually days are not governed by the sun and the moon. Days are governed by the rotation of the earth. The moon governs months (roughly) and the trip around the sun combined with the tilt of the earth's axis governs a year combined with its seasons.

T
twayneb

Have thought about and studied this topic for years now. Here are some things that I would like to throw out for consideration.

Some thoughts on the day age theory.

I came from a movement that taught very dogmatically that the creation days were thousand year periods. I always wondered where that dogma came from. The only scripture that was used as a proof text was 2Peter 3:7-9.

(7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But as I study this passage I realize that it speaks of the sure coming of the Lord’s judgment even if the time seems to be long to us. God is outside of time and He is sure to execute His will regardless of what the intervening generations seem to suggest. Look just a few verses earlier and you will see the statement that Peter is addressing.

2Pe 3:4
(4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

So I do not believe this verse can be used as a proof text for the day-age theory unless it is yanked from its context.

Like I said, I always wondered where this idea came from and one day I was reading some of Parham’s sermons and I came across what seems to me to be the answer, at least for Parham. The following is a quote from one of his sermons. “Long ago the theory that the seven days of creation were of twenty-four hours duration began to lose its force upon the minds of the people, and today is found only in narrow intellects with a moss covered growth…During the first day (age or thousand years), the Bible and science beautifully agree.”, The Selected Sermons of the Late Charles F. Parham.

I have seen this over and over again. When new scientific discoveries seem to contradict the Bible we will latch onto man’s wisdom rather than holding firmly to the word of God. It seems from his comments, “narrow intellects”, and, “the Bible and science beautifully agree”, that Parham left the Word and got into the intellect on this one. We are all apt to do the same in some area or another.

The day age theory does not agree with a straight-forward reading of Genesis. In other words, if you did not need a day age theory for some extra-Biblical reason then you would never have reason to see a day age theory in what you were reading. With the coming of old-earth ideas to the forefront of secular science came pressure to reinterpret the Bible so the two would agree. But to reinterpret the Bible to try to fit extra-Biblical ideas is to, in my opinion, violate the Word of God.

One interesting question for day-age proponents. If Adam were formed on day 6 (and it would have to have been somewhat early since Adam was brought all of the animals to name), and if God rested on day 7, and if the temptation was on day 8, then we have a contradiction in scripture that cannot be reconciled. Scripture clearly states how many years after the birth of Seth that
Adam lived. It also clearly states how old Adam was when He died. But if the days were 1000 years then the Bible is off by at least 1000 years (the length of the day of rest in day-age belief) when it reports Adam’s age. Parham recognized this and invented a difference in the created and formed race which was an idea that was even odder than the 1000 year days.

If there is not compelling Biblical reason to take a passage as anything other than literal then I believe we should take it at face value. I believe they were 24 hour days. By the way, there was a time when the church was debating whether or not the days were 24 hours or SHORTER time periods as they argued that God was so great that it should not have taken Him that long. But again, man’s reasoning seeking to change scripture.

The same can be said of the gap theory. It runs hand in hand with the idea of ruin-reconstruction. Look at this quote from Dake. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible: “When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.” The motivation for the theory is to try to make the Bible fit with what secular scientists are saying. I have studies the scriptures that Dake et.al. have tried to use to support this idea. But like 1 Peter 3, they are all pulled out of context to some degree or another. If it were not for needing to make the Bible agree with old-earth evolutionary ideas one would never need to put a gap between the first two chapter of Genesis. I will say that one thing that the gap theory has going for it is that it has been around longer than popularized evolution and old-earth ideas. It can be traced back to about 1600. But does this mean it is right? The age of an idea is no indicator of its veracity.

T
twayneb

I believe in an old age Earth and Universe mainly because we know for certain that the most distant stars (quasars) are 13 - 15 billion light years away. Also radiometric dating of rocks here on Earth indicates an old age for Earth. But just because I believe in an old age for Earth does not mean I believe in evolution. I don't.

Truewitness: The starlight and time issue is one that I think a lot of people wrestle with. But I think if we concede that the Genesis account is true regardless of what things look like to our natural scientific understanding then we can patiently wait until science catches up with truth. There are a couple interesting videos now posted on the answers in genesis website that deal with this topic of cosmology and starlight and time specifically by an astrophysicist that is on staff with that ministry. Pretty compelling stuff. If our view of the universe is geocentric and if we take literally the statement that God flung the stars out into space then we have an expanding universe. This basic cosmological viewpoint, which would start with scripture, can be coupled with the known laws of physics to explain how stars could be billions of light years away now and yet were created as recently as 6000 years ago. Having been trained and certified in physics as an educator I have a cursory understanding of some of these laws, and while I am FAR FAR from being well versed in any of them I do understand enough to know that the physics that this man is describing is accurate and feasible. Worth taking a look at anyway.

S
staff

Hi Truewitness,
Thank you for your answer,
Why I asked is I want to know what your motivation is for believing in millions of years.The reasons you mainly believe in for an old earth are scientific reasons but not scriptural reasons.My point is that if you had no info from science at all you would most probably take the genesis account as literal.
By your answer you believe in science from the predominately from the secular world,Why do you not believe in science from christians?
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi Mrbillpro,
I think it was a fair question.The reason I asked was I wanted to know the motivation for believing in millions of years.If it isnt evolution,what is it?True witness said for instance that it was scientific reasons.
I am here for the same reasons as you,I am sure though that evolution is lie from hell and that" millions of years "is just one step that leads to another,That is a worry dont you think.
Yours Staff

A
ArtB

by staff on 2012/1/29 13:03:30

"Hi Mrbillpro,
I think it was a fair question.The reason I asked was I wanted to know the motivation for believing in millions of years.If it isnt evolution,what is it?True witness said for instance that it was scientific reasons.
I am here for the same reasons as you,I am sure though that evolution is lie from hell and that" millions of years "is just one step that leads to another,That is a worry dont you think.
Yours Staff"

Staff, even if the universe was a trillion years old, it remains impossible for evolution and/or abiogenesis to arrive at life as we know it.

S
sermonindex

The reasons you mainly believe in for an old earth are scientific reasons but not scriptural reasons.My point is that if you had no info from science at all you would most probably take the genesis account as literal.

For those same reasons I don't believe there was such a thing as dinosaurs either. It's a matter of faith.

OJ

S
Sidewalk

OK, I have not read all the posts in this thread, and I don't know how old everything is. But I do think about all this stuff.

I think about the egg to baseball sized stones in Israel and while I don't know their age, I wonder how many times each one has been thrown at someone over the past four millenia. I'll bet some of those rocks have some history of bloody contact and hundreds of hurls...

I live in San Diego, but I ride my motorcycle all over the country and don't listen to a radio. I look at the terrain go by and wonder. From here east, there are magnificent valleys and high rocky cliffs that look like at one time the high surfaces stretched flat for miles but massive deluges washed the valleys into existence. Where did that water come from, where did it go? And admittedly- I'd like to know how long ago.

I toy with the theory that vast oceans of water lurked beneath the surface of the land, and that in God's timing the ground collapsed and the water gushed to create the oceans. Knowing nothing really, I just tell God that in Glory I want to watch the videos of how He did it. For now- that's enough.

I hope you have the time someday to ride or drive through Southern Utah and see Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, and Zion National Parks. And talk to God as you look.

Then maybe report back here!?

Great are His mysteries!

S
sermonindex

Greetings from downunder.
No need to toy with theories when you can make an informed decision about the source of water etc.

IN telling us about the globe-covering Flood in the days of Noah,
the Bible gives us information about where the waters came from
and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis
7:11 as ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and the ‘windows of heaven’.
The fountains of the great deep
The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of
heaven’, indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
What are the ‘fountains of the great deep’? This phrase is used only
in Genesis 7:11. ‘Fountains of the deep’ is used in Genesis 8:2, where it
172~Chapter 12
clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise
meaning is not clear. ‘The great deep’ is used three other times: Isaiah
51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire
of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and
Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/
judgment. ‘The deep’ is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans
(e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13,
Eze. 26:19, Jon. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water
(Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means
‘fountain, spring, well’ (Strong’s Concordance).
So, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly
subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it
could mean both.
If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters,
then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested
that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the
third day of creation, some of the water that covered the Earth became
trapped underneath and within the dry land.1
Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a
‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water,
possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters
that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.
There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil
layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during
Noah’s Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great
deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of
water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% or
more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form
of steam.


The conclusion of this article can be read at:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf

S
Sidewalk

Wow Churinga! You are way ahead of me! Great compilation of the things God has already given!

I don't know if you have been to America, but I expect there are similar topographical wonders in Australia. Ayers Rock comes to mind.

Here's another idea I have thought about. Suppose all the water, or much of it, existed in a big ball surrounding the earth at one time- a giant ball of ice that would have carried the sunlight all around the earth and kept everything light and the temperature even. Like a big terrarium. Then the "Tohu Bohu" that crashed the water down to the surface. Voila- seasons, oceans, weather.

I am still intrigued by the wooly mammoths recovered from the permafrost in northern Russia with tropical plants in their bellies. How'd that happen??

Earth's history, no matter how long, has been dramatic and exciting.

Here in San Diego we have the museum of Creation Research. Lots of interesting things there, including evidence that the Grand Canyon was not formed over millions of years, but probably less than 30 days!

S
sermonindex

Haven't been outside Australia.

This extremely dry continent has a vast amount of evidence in support of a worldwide flood and many other things to support the reliability of Gods Word.

I am giving you a link about the Woolly Mammoth which is but one of very many hope you find it of interest.

by Michael Oard

Summary
Apart from formerly glaciated areas, woolly mammoth remains are abundant in the surficial sediments of the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, including western Europe, northern and eastern Asia, Alaska and the Yukon. There are probably millions of mammoths buried in the permafrost of Siberia alone. The mammoths are found with a wide variety of other mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. They lived in a grassland environment with a long growing season, mild winters, very little permafrost, and a wide diversity of plants—quite different from the climate in the region today.

The mammoths and other animals colonised the region after the Flood during the ice age. The region’s climate during the ice age was ideal for rapid population growth and, in the 600 or so years before their demise, the population had grown to many millions of animals. They were buried in the dust storms that deposited the loess blankets found in those regions today. Some were entombed in a standing position. The good state of preservation of the stomach contents does not call for super-rapid freezing of the carcasses. Rather than food digestion, the mammoth stomach acts as a food storage pouch. The mammoths became extinct when, at the end of the ice age, the climate in the region became more continental, with colder winters, warmer summers, and drier conditions.

Frozen carcasses and many thousands of tons of bones and tusks of woolly mammoths are buried in Siberia and Alaska. In March 2000, the Discovery Channel produced a special on the excavation of a carcass in north central Siberia, called the Jarkov mammoth. This mammoth was cut out of the permafrost and transported by helicopter into cold storage for future analysis and possible cloning.1

Mammoth remains have puzzled scientists and laymen for hundreds of years. Many explanations have been offered. One of the most popular hypotheses is that one eventful day, the hairy elephants were peacefully grazing on grass and buttercups when suddenly, tragedy struck, and millions of them froze instantly.

This article examines the life and death of the woolly mammoth in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory of Canada. These areas, together with the surrounding shallow ocean (Bering Strait), are called Beringia. There are still unknowns associated with the woolly mammoth and its environment in Beringia. Some information is conflicting. However, the data is pointing to a unique environment and extinction of the woolly mammoths in Beringia.

The conclusion to this article can be read at :

http://creation.com/the-extinction-of-the-woolly-mammoth-was-it-a-quick-freeze

J
jochbaptist

Dear TrueWitness

You wrote:
I do believe in the Gap Theory. By verse 2 in Genesis 1, the Earth and all the oceans are in place, and when I say Earth I mean the rocky planet, not the living things we are familiar with on it's surface and oceans and skies.


After I studied this subject for a while, the only verse that stood in the way of the Gap Theory for me was this one ...

Exd 20:11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, ....

Here it specifies that "the rocky planet" AND the rest of creation came into existance in 6 days.

Or do you interpret it differently?

I also would like to recommend an amazing resource I found, and learned a lot from. - The Doorway Papers and books by ARTHUR CUSTANCE

All we see, ..... created out of nothing. How awesome is our God?!!!!!!!!!

Blessings.
Joch

R
roadsign

In whatever way we think through this, let’s guard against stabbing our own toes, in other words, creating hindrances to the real purpose of Scripture: that man may come to know God and be saved. I address some red flags come to mind as I read this thread.

The reasons you mainly believe in for an old earth are scientific reasons
but not scriptural reasons.

…. In other words: but not my UNDERSTANDING of scripture.

There are fine believers in both old and young earth camps. Old earth theory need not contradict creation. But note also: There are fine believers who thought the earth was flat. There are fine believers in ancient times who accepted the generally held view of their day – as in this biblical writer:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Ex. 20:3-5

This was how the civilization understood their universe back then. The earth had a big dome over it, and water under it. The concern for the biblical writers was the relationship with God. Trusting in the creation (as they saw it) threatened their trust in God. Same thing today. Even our creation theories can become idols. Even in defending Genesis 1 and 2, we may be are partnering with Eve in Gen. 3 by taking the fruit: We want to conquer knowledge and be masters – as god.

If we insist on absolute finite literalism as a means of deducing scientific data from Gen 1, then it stands to reason that we apply that method consistently in scripture. Should we not also believe the earth has four corners? No! We know the Bible writers used a large assortment of literacy devises – especially in poetry. They didn’t write in the style of a scientific journal.

We can’t turn the creation account into scientific data, and then judge another’s spirituality by our own conclusions.


Caution is needed when pitting science against the bible. Science, in its purity, can serve to REVEAL truth about a Creator. We are justified in pointing to scientific data about a leaf to point to God as creator. But then - what about when we turn around and insist that what they measure through their telescopes is unreliable evidence?

God could indeed have made a young earth LOOK old for reasons we cannot understand. Or, fossils could have been formed in an instant. However, let’s think about the heart of God. He wants people to trust in him, and he helps them out with evidence of his existence, even in their unbelief. “The heavens declare the glory of God”. Jesus did signs and miracles so that they would see the EVIDENCE and trust God. Likewise God was not out to spoof humanity with misleading evidence, but to build trust, not blind trust but trust in a reality. That goes for scientists too.


Science today has become a religion in itself, certainly the obsessive search for origin. Science is our modern day Babel tower, the workings of humanity’s hunger to find something “under the sun” (in the created order) – something which can give meaning and purpose to life. Surely God can use the billions of years (proven or not) just like he can use the billions of stars: To reveal that God is infinitely more than we can fathom or imagine. The mightiest searches of man cannot reach the perimeters of our finite world – both in time and space. How much greater is our infinite God!

And proclaiming this God is our job - through the evidence of our life testimony.

M
MrBillPro

I guess there is nothing wrong with treading a "little" into the past. I always wanted to know were God come from, but then again it really don't matter to me anymore, I am just thankful he showed up.
I guess on threads like this I think of Philippians 3:13
"Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before"

T
TrueWitness

I had never heard of Arthur Custance till you suggested him, so I did some investigation. One of the books by Custance is entitled "Without Form and Void." As it turns out, Custance is a Gap Theory proponent like I am. Here is an introduction of the book found on his publishers website. The entire book can be downloaded (as an offline webpage) by clicking the link just below the Table of Contents.
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Book Intro:
Should Genesis 1:2 be rendered (as in the King James Version) "And the earth was without form and void" OR "But the earth had become without form and void"? The question is whether to translate the Hebrew conjunction waw as 'and' or 'but' and whether to translate the verb hayah simply as 'was' or by the pluperfect 'had become'.
If the translation of 'and' and 'was' is correct, then verse 2 appears to be merely a continuation of verse 1, signifying that its formless condition was proper to the initial stages of God's creative activity. In this translation we must either take 'days' to mean not literal days but geological ages, or treat the whole chapter as poetry or allegory. These 'solutions' are not supported by the rules of linguistics.
If the translation of 'but' and 'had become' is correct, the implication is far different. For then verse 2 is a picture of the earth, not as it came from the hand of God in creation, but after some intervening event had reduced it to a state of ruin. This alternative translation allows between verse 1 and 2 a hiatus of unknown duration (a view held in earliest times) which can accommodate geological ages. Opponents object to this 'Gap Theory' as simply an attempt to 'rescue' modern Geology.
End of Intro

Custance goes to show that it probably should be translated "had become without form and void." Thus there is definitely an unspecified time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

R
roadsign

Some Biblical scholars suggest that the Biblical creation story was crafted in such as way as to confront and contrast an ancient mythological creation account - which also used the series of days.

The difference would have been noticeable: In the Genesis creation humanity was NOT an arbitrary product of the deities' vengeance (as in the myth). Humanity was NOT created as a mass of slaves to serve the deities’ lusts. No! God created two people individually: Adam and Eve, to fellowship with him in perfect blissful RELATIONSHIP. Creation was a work of LOVE.

And for that reason you and I can trust God and his precious love for us. You and I are each important to God.

Diane

M
MrBillPro

Most of us don't need to know more, we just need to do more.:)

T
twayneb

Most of us don't need to know more, we just need to do more.:)

MrBillPro

There is a degree to which I agree with you totally here. Our Christian walk does not consist of the amount of knowledge we can amass, but rather the ONE that we know and walk close to. However we cannot totally disregard the fact that we are to study to rightly divide scripture.

I have heard many say that the creation issue is a side issue. I don't agree. Genesis is the foundation of scripture. In Genesis are found most all major doctrines of scripture. This book has the same validity as any other book as far as doctrine and importance to our walk as believers. It is important that we study and discuss it as well as we do any other book. I know when I taught Genesis at a church camp one year it had a very powerful and lasting impact on the kids that were there.

S
sermonindex

If creationism was simply a forum to pander to opposing views reminiscent of a Punch and Judy show then i for one would not bother posting,as you mentioned about the powerful and lasting impact on kids at a church camp takes the teaching into a new realm.
The facts are that you cannot teach old dogs new tricks and that applies to Christian doctrine.
None of us know the audience that reads these posts and testimonies,ample proof is available that unbelievers have been led to salvation through the Holy Spirit blessing the ministry of those that teach creation i post the following as an example.

A testimony: ‘Joel Galvin’
Faith shipwrecked by compromising ‘Christian’ colleges; restored by creation ministry

First published in:
Prayer News, 1999
(Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom)

Growing up in a Christian home, attending church regularly, and receiving Christian education my whole life served to make me an agnostic who was pretty knowledgeable of the Christian faith. Christianity seemed to be a hoax of some nature. I couldn’t understand the motive for dreaming it up, but it certainly didn’t appear to carry much truth with it. Seeing that atheism is a strong belief in the non-existence of any gods at all, I knew that atheism required more faith than I had. I didn’t want to accept atheism out of laziness, and so, agnosticism would do for me until I found more answers.

I moved away from home, to be a car salesman. I was living on my own, and stopped attending church. Church seemed to be where one would go after accepting Christianity as truth, it just wasn’t the place you would go to find truth.

After two years of selling cars, I realized I wished to further my education. My choice as to which school I would attend was made for me when I acted on wishful thinking, and followed my ex-girlfriend to the Christian college she was to attend.

A couple of months after being at this private school, I realized that if anyone can defend Christianity with any supporting evidences or philosophical truths, it would be the well-educated people heading the institution. Christianity was then worth another chance, as perhaps these people could provide the answers I needed to hear and just couldn’t find before. Whether I received good answers or bad answers, I realized asking the questions would either lead me to truth, or totally eliminate what still remained a possibility in my mind.

What were my questions? The Bible clearly indicates that the earth is young, and that death and decay have been imposed on a once perfect world through the sin of man. How then does Christianity deal with the ‘fact’ of evolution? If death existed long before man ever came about, and this is required in evolution, then man cannot really be held accountable for it, and any ‘redemption plan’ offered to counter-attack such horror, is merely a joke. Evolution being true makes Jesus’ life, and more importantly His death, absolutely meaningless. This was my problem with Christianity, and this is what I was to bring to the educational leaders at this Christian institution.

The conclusion to this testimony can be read at:

http://creation.com/a-testimony-joel-galvin

S
staff

Hi,
To those of us who are born of the Spirit creation isnt a salvation issue but to the lost it can be an impediment.

Faulty science by evolution leaning secular scientists is reason for the millions of years theory whether you are a person who believes in evolution or a christian who doesnt believe in evolution but do believe in millions of years.

Yours Staff

J
jochbaptist

Yes, but what about Exodus 20:11?

R
roadsign

To those of us who are born of the Spirit creation isnt a salvation issue but to the lost it can be an impediment.

Faulty science by evolution leaning secular scientists is reason for the millions of years theory.


I believe that a spiritual blindness, not merely calculations, is the reason evolution is so adamantly reinforced. I share a story:

A while ago a zealous evolution proponent took it open himself to “convert” me and rescue me from the oppressive confines of my religion. He sent me emails of articles, youtube clips, books, and also videos promoting evolution. He was quite the “evangelist” for evolution! I did check out the information and made some interesting observations – seen through THEIR eyes:

------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin is the saviour of the world.
He was persecuted.
He was a very humble and nice man.
He was reluctant to disclose his discoveries at first, knowing they would be rejected.
He rescued us from the dark ages of oppressive religion so we could move forward.
Evolution is essential to the discovery of new pharmaceuticals, etc.
Evolution makes it possible for our civilization to advance.
Apart from evolution, we’d still be in the dark ages.
Mythological assumptions and superstitions have hindered science, so we must reject all religion.
Religions have been the great enemy of science and progress.
Since Christianity is a religion, it’s our enemy too. (Notice the UN-scientific logic here!)

------------------------------------------------------------
MY OBSERVATIONS:
In defending evolution, they submit to the common patterns of faulty logic.

To prove their position they claim that their theory is Fact, rather than an interpretation of their data.

To disprove the counter-position (ie creation) they reason like this: We see many religions supporting superstitions and since Christianity is a religion it is necessarily superstitious too. There is no reality outside of the natural world or what can be scientifically measured. God and science are not mutually compatible.


Evolutionists ignore the Christian beliefs of those scientists who made outstanding contributions - even the ones who studied at the same university as Darwin did (Cambridge).

Science, being the hegemony, takes it upon itself to explain and correct the effects of sin with science. Of course, it’s like catching the wind. Sin’s effects don’t go away – most notably death.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

MY RESPONSE:
Since Science insists on limiting itself to a finite box, I felt I needed to prod my atheist acquaintance to think beyond the box. So I encouraged him to be open for possibilities of a reality which he has never dreamed of yet. He said he was willing to do that. That opened the door for me to share Christ as the spiritual source of hope, meaning, and abundant life – in this world, and the next. I think that was more productive than arguing over evolution – either old or young earth.

Even our science/evolution-minded society, if it can get its nose out of the test tubes, telescopes, and theories and LOOK at our world, it can see the evidence of spiritual need - and admit that man’s efforts – religion, science or otherwise have not provided a successful remedy. Surely, PRESENT reality is one of the best door openers for the Christian faith.

Diane

S
staff

Hi Roadsign,
If you take away faulty evolutionary science you are taking away the lie.If you take away the lie all is left is scripture.
Like it or not christians who believe in millions believe it because of secular science.It has nothing to do with scriptural intrepretation.

…. In other words: but not my UNDERSTANDING of scripture.

Could you comment on these issues:
The fact that God took a rest on day 7 shows that the very start of Genesis where the earth was void was part of the 7days

Gen 5.5 all the days of adam were 930 years.
Adam was born on day 6 which is part of the 930years.
This means so is day 7
If day 6 and day 7 are not part of the millions why is 1 to 5 apart.
Yours Staff

P
PrimaDogma

Since the universe celebrated its 6016th birthday a month ago, there has been a renewed effort by Satan to destroy the Kingdom of God with his Gap Theory heresy. Open your eyes, brethren! Stars that are visible from billions of light years away are optical illusions created by Satan. It was also Satan who put geological strata and fossils in the ground to trick us into believing Gap Theory. Do not be deceived by sensory perception. We must regard Moses as the sole authority on etiological science because God will throw us in hell if we don't. For more edifying discourse along these lines, please visit http://creation.com

L
Lysa

by PrimaDogma

Open your eyes, brethren! Stars that are visible from billions of light years away are optical illusions created by Satan.


Bahahahhhahahaha This cracked me up!! As did the whole post!

L
Lordoitagain

THANKS, JOCHBAPTIST ... Did anybody catch what he repeated twice:

Yes, but what about Exodus 20:11?

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

That one verse ends this whole discussion ... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... Verses 1, 2, 3 ... etc. of Gen. chapter 1 ALL happened in 6 days according to Exodus 20:11.

D
dvndsn

There is no way I am reading 6 pages of this stuff. It's plain and simple I think: Keep your head down like they did in the old days, and just admire the beautiful scene at night. Who cares how old the earth is. We are on a need to know basis with God. He reveals to us through His Word and Spirit what He wants us to know, no more and no less. My mom tried to tell me about stuff like this last week. It made me upset, too. She kept arguing that she was right...got on my nerves.

S
staff

Hi PrimaDogma,
So do you believe in evolution then or are you just being dogmatic about not being dogmatic?
Yours Staff

J
jimp

hi, i am old and the gap is it.

S
sermonindex

Seeing the reference to creation.com has been an item of ridicule causing amusement for some, i for one would ask that the link to these items of mirth be made public,so they can be substantiated,creation.com has over 7000 titles and a search failed to find the source of your ridicule,i will look forward to a reply.

T
TrueWitness

I would suggest that everyone watch the documentary video "Scientific proof of God" on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkhC1ZJFz2I&src_vid=7EJQzzDhgd0&annotation_id=annotation_645147
It is one hour long and shows thru the creation how it could not have happened just by chance. It is a "must watch" video.

P
PrimaDogma

churinga,

Distant stars, geological strata and fossils create the appearance of an ancient earth and cosmos. But the universe, as we know, is 6016 years old, therfore my explanation is the only feasible one. And if creation.com has failed to develop this self-evident truth in 7000 scientific treatises, then you are falling down on the job.

You ought to be thankful to have such a stalwart (not to mention prestigious) ally as PrimaDogma.

If you want to see how Combat Theology is done right, feel free to check out my organization at http://worldcouncilofcults.com

P
PrimaDogma

Staph,

Brother, addressing such a false-dichotomy gambit to My Supreme and Venerable Holiness, Prima Dogma, Pope of Michigan, is like throwing a hanging curveball to Babe Ruth!

M
MrBillPro

The earths rocks and all else that is supposed to be billions of years old, probably are. This is because they had been floating out yonder in the universe, until God used them to create the earth, pretty simple.

A
ArtB

Once again the lunatic SECULAR HUMANIST/ATHEIST fringe that controls our COURTS, PUBLIC MEDIA, POLITICS, and EDUCATION SYSTEMS TODAY. were put in place by FDR when He put Atheist and Secular Humanist John Dewey in charge of our Public School System, and stocked the Supreme Court and lower Courts with Secular Humanist Activist Judges, whom changed the Public Schools curriculum from Christian based into Secular Humanism based, to be run by secular humanists alone, with provisions to use their power of censorship to control what students, and the Public, may and may not Hear, See, or believe.

1984 has come and past, yet George Orwells' "1984" HAS BEEN alive and well in the hands of the atheistic pro-evolutionary thought Police who enforce their Secular Humanism and Evolutionary belief system on an unwary public despite their theory's failings as science.

In our educational systems a few evolutionary agents of the thought Police moved always among members of Academia and of the Mass Media, spreading false rumors and marking down and eliminating the few individuals still in the HALLS OF ACADEMIA AND IN THE MEDIA who were judged capable of becoming dangerous.

And in the general hardening of outlook that has set in, practices which had been long abandoned: Censorship, Ad Hominem Attacks, Ridicule, Browbeating, Insults, and Public Humiliation, of those scientists and other critics, who oppose the Theory of evolution and the Tenants of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism and an atheistic based Curriculum established by Authority rather than by Evidence and Reason - not only became common, but is tolerated and even defended by people who consider themselves to be enlightened and progressive. Defenders of THE TRUTH, they seek to eradicate, in their words, "purveyors of Thoughtcrime".

"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they are bound to get you. Creationary scientists simply disappeared, always during the night, in the darkness. Their names were removed from the registers, every record of everything they had ever discovered and taught was wiped out, Their one-time existence was denied. and then forgotten, and Their life's work in science that demonstrated the validity of Creation by God and His plan of salvation to all peoples, were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Evolutionary Oligarchy imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the materialists slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

Day by day and almost minute by minute the past has been brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by evolutionism and Secular Humanism could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, Science Papers, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the evolutionism and Secular Humanism of the moment, was ever allowed to remain on record. All evolutionary science was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly as often as was necessary.

Humanists had gained a chokehold on most institutions of higher learning. By 1938, the New York Herald Tribune reported a speech by Dr. Goodwin Watson, professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he "begged the teachers of the Nation to use their profession to indoctrinate children to overthrow 'conservative reactionaries' directing American government and industry."6

In his 1951 famous book, God and Man at Yale , William F. Buckley, Jr. commented that:

"The teachings of John Dewey and his predecessors have borne fruit. And there is surely not a department at Yale that is uncontaminated with the absolute that there are no absolutes, on intrinsic rights, no ultimate truths. The acceptance of these notions, which emerge in courses in history and economics, in sociology and political science, in psychology and literature, make impossible an intelligible conception of an omnipotent, purposeful, and benign Supreme Being, who has laid down immutable laws, endowed his creatures with inalienable rights, and posited unchangeable rules of human conduct .7"

George Orwell's Book '1984' captured the future perfectly. But it did not onLy come directly from politics, it came from the materialists of Academia whom gives us only scientists and educators that they approve of, Official materialists' textbooks, journalists, newscasters, teachers, etc., whom in turn influenced a public, who in turn influenced elections of politicians to office, that allowed the Bible and prayer to be censored in public schools; But allowed relative values, abortion, a drug culture, foul language, disrespect, self centered-ness, and sexual promiscuity to thrive. Drugs, Gadgets, and Sex have become the Opiate of the Peoples.

_________________
Jesus tells us:

John 3:14 "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

John 11:25 "Everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

S
Sidewalk

The fire is in your bones, my brother!

I'm glad you are here!

Thank you for that, and remember we are not commanded to win, just to fight. And in due time we will see victory from the One of Whom it is written,"A bruised reed He will not break, a smoldering wick He will not extinguish."

We will not be discouraged because we see things they cannot.

A
ArtB

SIDEWALK WROTE:

Thank you for that, and remember we are not commanded to win, just to fight. And in due time we will see victory from the One of Whom it is written,"A bruised reed He will not break, a smoldering wick He will not extinguish."

We will not be discouraged because we see things they cannot.


RIGHT ON SIDEWALK!

P
PrimaDogma

Here is a brief vid exposing the humanist/atheist fringe's forcible suppression of Creation Science.

EDIT: new link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shrPq1eVSZg

J
jimp

hi,primadogma thinks he is the wisest and most learned teacher here. when he was a baby , i was tought the gap theory in bible col. and have argued it amongst the great opponets and scientist in the south.(to no avail)we then decided to drop the subject and worship Jesus.

S
staff

Hi MrBillPro,
Why are they probably billions of years old?You must have a reason to lean this way?
Could any one comment on these points:

1.God took a rest on the 7th day.Which is the first rest.
If God created the earth way before the first day why did he not rest after doing that?
2.Gen 5.5 clearly says that"All of the days of Adam were 930years" which includes day 6 the day Adam was created and Day 7 right up to to Adams death.
If these two days are literal so must days 1 to 5.

Yours Staff

L
Lysa

by PrimaDogma

Here is a brief vid exposing the humanist/atheist fringe's forcible suppression of Creation Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTJ63Rj4WE


Most on here will not get this link (no sense of humor, zip, nada, none) but it made me laugh.

God bless,
Lisa

M
MrBillPro

staff
Hi MrBillPro,
Why are they probably billions of years old?You must have a reason to lean this way?

My reason is that the "materials" God used to form the earth, may have been billions of years old. Just because he created the "earth" in 6 days, the Bible does not say the how long the Heavens had been there,it just says he created the Heavens, but no time line for the Heavens, kind of see were I am coming from?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

L
Lysa


I for one cast my vote for an old earth (young people) because I have never read in the Bible where Jesus said, 'You must be born again AND believe in a young earth" in order to be saved.

So from http://www.reasons.org/notable-christians-open-old-universe-old-earth-perspective, here is a list of notable Christian ... from "documented sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy..... Not one sees the question of age as a crucial doctrinal issue."

John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff ????? Really?? Wow!!
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield

Respectfully submitted to SI,
Lisa

M
MrBillPro

Your right Lysa, IMO something had to have imploded or exploded, to create the mass of objects floating around in the Heavens. I have no problem at all believing there was a big bang, I also believe God created the big bang. My personal point is, that you can buy all the old parts to a 55 Chevrolet and if your good enough, put it together in 6 days,and rest on the 7th. but you still have parts that are 57 years old. Why is this concept so hard to believe? Humanely thinking it makes the most sense and still does not take away anything from what the Bible says.

S
sermonindex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=jXf8COiHMuM

Well, it is similar to the conundrum of "What came first, the Chicken or the Egg?"

Obviously, the Chicken. The Lord Yahweh didn't command Adam to name the eggs, no, but the Animals.

Therefore the animals were created in full maturity, as was Adam and Eve....[ The real question is; "Were the animals eternal if there were no FALL?" ]

If this is fact, and it is, then the 7 days of Creation Word becomes much easier to grasp. We cannot conceive of "LIMITLESS"...but that does not make it non-existent. But, would God's 7 days be young or old? I really can't say...but certainly newer than the "Big Bang", I think.

Much of the fossil evidence that proves the great antiquity of Earth has been proven faulty. The evidence that disproves it has been buried by the scientists that know that if revealed their entire mental process, and the livelihood, would disintegrate, such as discoveries of Spear heads found in the Mastodon, and human foot prints next to dinosaur prints; all kinds of such anomalies.

Much of this is derived from FUNDAMENTAL AETHIEST SCIENTISTS who believe that nothing exploded into nothingness and then matter was formed from nothing and the Universe just began to form. This, as absurd as it sounds, is true.

I question if this tsunami of propaganda stemming from Darwinism, and it's atheistic roots may have shaped some of the conclusions of the big bang idea....because God really could not have just spoke them into existence instantly. Impossible!

Remember, first God existed on His Throne...and created angels. Then He created the heavens and the Earth. Do you think He grew them, as from an egg?; or, did he as Adam, and Eve, create them a living spirit, with bodies?

This is an excellent piece done [ 7-8 videos ] about Ben Stein's Expelled, confronting the Atheistic Establishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c

This is a discussion here on SI:...

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=21788&forum=48&9

I think they were created day by day. I bet it was a spectacle, and probably loud?

M
MrBillPro

You know the fun thing about this debate, no one really knows how old the earth is, were God come from, if there was a big bang,and if God did create the earth in 6...24hr days, and my last request,could you please give me a date when he started his creation?

M
MrBillPro

Faith is not a matter of logical proof. It is a leap beyond. It is a firm trust in that which I cannot see, in that which lies beyond that which can be proven. That doesn’t necessarily call for conflict with rational inquiry, that is a common misconception. It calls for the leap beyond.
Otherwise it would not be called faith, now would it?

R
roadsign


Here's another thought:

We all know that the sun doesn't actually set in the west literally, but we are speaking from our own perspective. Our expression is not scientific, but that does not mean we deny scientific fact regarding the earth's rotation.

It may be that in trying to squeeze the Bible into a scientific-shaped frame of reference, we may be merely complying with our cultural paradigm. And in doing so, we dishonor the biblical writers' intent, and their use of literary styles to shape their thoughts and ideas.

We can easily appreciate that the words "morning by morning" is a poetic expression of continuum, not a literal divine alarm clock at 6 am. Likewise, other expressions. what about in reference to evening and morning, might we be more adding more the writers themselves in their portrayal of creation?

When we read evening and morning, we interpret this naturally from a perspective of earth. Check out these amazing pictures to see where we are in the scheme of things. These pictures surely move each of us beyond the finite - to an infinite God who made all this, and more than we will ever discover - out of NOTHING!

May God open the eyes of our scientists!

http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/comparisons.html
Diane

S
staff

Hi MrBillPro,
Why do you think that the "materials" god used were billions of years old?Where did you get your info on these materials?
If God created the heavens before the 6days where is the example of rest?If you see what I mean.The example of the sabbath would not be their.
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi Again MrBillPro,

Gen 5.5 says "All the days of Adam were 930years"

How can you then question whether the 6 days are not literal days?
Adam existed from day 6 right through to 930years.
This scripture clearly indicates that day 6 and 7 are literal days?
Yours Staff


M
MrBillPro

No one, not you, not me, only God had the understanding about the Heavens.

Jeremiah 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

S
staff

Hi Lysa,
An old earth is not a salvation issue but it is an important issue.
No where does it say you must "be born again and believe in an old earth" either.
Why do we thrust in so much in dodgy secular science?We ignore born again scientists.It is only relatively recently that we began trying to age the earth.
If none of these questionable tests were not available would we not just take the 6 day creation literal including the forming of the earth.
Regarding your list is their any writings on creation age by the "church fathers"?
Also if their was a gap why is it not 100 years,why is it a million or a billion?
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi MrBillPro,
I can,you can and God can understand the age of Adam.The time from when he was created on day 6 til he died was 930 years.Was it not?
Yours Staff

M
MrBillPro

Hey Staff, enjoyed the debate, but this really don't personally enhance my relationship with God at all, so I am politely bowing out.
God Bless!
Mr. Bill

L
Lysa

staff wrote:
Why do we thrust in so much in dodgy secular science?We ignore born again scientists.

Brother staff,

Again, it really determines what dogma (religion, denomination, etc), a person holds to whether they believe in old earth.

And I don't understand what are you talking about, "dodgy secular science?" Dr. Hugh Ross is a brilliant Christian scientist (astronomer) and he holds to an old earth view. He has thousand's of articles worth reading on his website.

God bless,
Lisa

S
staff

Hi Lysa,
Thanks for your reply
I am only interested in born again christian views;what other religions do is up to them.

I gather Hugh Ross believes that the 6 days are not literal 24hr periods.
Could you comment on Gen 5.5; "All the days of Adam were 930years"
His existance started on day 6 and lived through day 7 and right up til he died.Not some,not most but "ALL"

Yours Staff
P.S Dodgy secular science includes belief in evolution,carbondating,fossils,man made global warming

S
sermonindex

You have introduced Dr Ross into the debate, as such it has become necessary to allow another side of Dr Ross to be be made known,the following is a long article but well worth the effort.

by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of Refuting Compromise: A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross

31 May 2004

This month, Dr Hugh Ross is releasing his latest book trying to add millions of years to the Bible. He has posted the introductory part on his website, so what follows is a detailed critique. [This article is intended as a substantive critique of the introductory chapter of Dr Ross’ new book, and in order to accomplish this it is necessary to quote large portions of the chapter. All quoted portions of the book are indented in color and all of Dr Sarfati’s responses are in black.]

As usual, Ross adopts the stance of ‘taking the moral high ground’ as a peacemaker and plays the role of the persecuted martyr. It’s a clever ploy, placing young-earth creationists (YECs) in a dilemma: if we say nothing, he wins by default; if we counterattack, he and his devotees will say, ‘see, he’s right’. So we intend simply to point out the facts in response to what we will demonstrate are misleading half-truths.

Note that even in this ‘peaceable’ document, he can’t resist firing shots against YECs. It seems most incongruous to call for peace while spraying bullets at ‘the enemy’.

As will be seen, a good many points are covered in my new book Refuting Compromise (RC), so I will often refer to the appropriate sections.

The conclusion to this critique can be read at:

http://creation.com/critique-of-intro-chapter-of-hugh-ross-new-book-a-matter-of-days

L
Lysa

staff wrote:
I am only interested in born again christian views;what other religions do is up to them.

When I wrote “dogma,” I did only mean Christian views and not other religions. There is an abundance of dogma within the Christian church.

You make a good point about Gen 5.5 and I have no argument for you because in the scheme of things... I don’t care. I do try realize that I am a mere human being with limited scope of understanding the things of God that took place at the beginning of time. You are free to disagree, but I believe that the earth is billions of years old.

This could be why young “earth” people don’t like old earth “astronomers” because of the stars and planets billions of years old. That’s plausible, isn’t it? We don’t know what took place while the earth was “void” in Gen 1.2 or how long it was void.

God bless,
Lisa

L
Lysa

churinga wrote:
You have introduced Dr Ross into the debate, as such it has become necessary to allow another side of Dr Ross to be be made known,the following is a long article but well worth the effort.

Yes I have unashamedly introduced him because his science (astronomy) is as valid as “creation.com’s” science.

Again, if you are a young earth “person,” you will definitely not agree with ‘ANY’ old earth view – no matter WHO presents it!

Waltern? Is that you? I’m beginning to think so! If you are waltern in disguise downunder, you are doing well to keep your rudeness intact, I commend you.

Lisa

S
staff

hi Lysa,
I dont believe you dont care....we all seek the truth on this website and I know you and the rest of the posters are among them.
At some stage we have to take a literal view of what the bible say.If the bible says Jesus died once and for all sins then we have no choice only to take it as such and for me gen 5.5 is the same "all" has to mean all.That only proves that the 7 days are literal it doesnt prove that the earth n heavens werent around for along time.
Why I think the creation of the earth and heavens is part of the literal first 7 days of creation is due to the sabbath.Genesis or origins brings in alot of foundational doctrine if God created the earth and heavens and didnt take a rest(which would have to be the case if the gap theory is correct) then this goes against the whole idea of the book.
Also if the gap theory is correct which I believe totally not why is the gap millions?or billions?Why not just 500 or l000 years.We get the millions n billions from science.Their remains no way of testing the age of the earth past 6000 years.I think we have to take a scripture first science second approach rather than the other way round.
Yours Staff

S
sermonindex

You seem to have some unsubstantiated idea that i am someone you know who has changed identity and demeanor.
Waltern whoever they may be is a person unknown to me,as such i find your assertion to say the least offensive.

Dr Ross may well be your idol,but why would you not take the time to read the post regarding his behavior and makean informed comment instead of being paranoid as to the chance i may not be who i claim to be.

L
Lysa

churinga wrote:
Dr Ross may well be your idol,but why would you not take the time to read the post regarding his behavior and makean informed comment instead of being paranoid as to the chance i may not be who i claim to be.

Believe you me, I’m not paranoid at all with waltern trying to sneak back in but my point is that it’s a response like this and the nastiness behind it... this, THIS is exactly what makes you sound ‘like’ waltern!! Ok, so you deny it but time will tell.

Onto other things, I did make an informed decision when I first posted his website and name so I don’t have to take the time to read someone’s rantings regarding Dr. Ross’s behavior... especially when they are only reading the book to find all the points of contention.

God bless you churinga,
Lisa

P
PrimaDogma

churinga,

While we are on the subject of false identities, I will let you in on a dirty little secret: Lysa's real name is Lisa.

But if you are not waltern, then you are his Australian doppleganger. He was a furious poster (in both senses of the term)and an indefatigable fighter. He would introduce controversial topic, and battle like a Viking all day. He would be filled with Righteous Indignation when someone said, "I'm 99 percent in agreement with you, but..." and would cut & paste interminable treatises about creation science, the demonic origin of non-KJV translations, the perils of the emergent church, whatever...

Oh yes, you're 'im, mate. You're 'im.

G'day.

S
sermonindex


I thought that Brother Walter attended Calvary Chapel with Chuch Smith in times past?
I liked the man. Had spunk. Miss him, and some others as well.

Anyhow, this stuff [haggling over non-[salvation]-essentials] will age anyone of us here. Watch your mirror.

Giggle's still trying to figure out who you are PD. lol.

Song time:

"When we ALL get to Heaven - what a day of rejoicing that will be - When we ALL SEE JESUS will sing and Shout the Victory [together forever]"


Love, Good Night and have a great weekend, all!
You too PD. :)

R
roadsign

I forgot to pick up on this thought earlier,

Gen 5.5 all the days of adam were 930 years.
Adam was born on day 6 which is part of the 930years.
This means so is day 7
If day 6 and day 7 are not part of the millions why is 1 to 5 apart.

Interestingly, skeptics use similar scalpel-precision rationality and methodologies to prove that the Bible is full of contradictions.

It is my belief that reading MORE into what Biblical writers intended is no wiser or safer than reading LESS into it.

I trust that thousands of years from now, long after all our own civilization and all our scientific knowledge is lost, when archeologists discovers my journal in which I have written, “Last night I watched the stars come out and begin to shine, and I praised God for his marvelous creation” they won’t use it to validate the dome model of the ancient Bible-time societies.

Ohhh … of course that scenario could never happen, because WE are in the last days literally, and that is proven literally from the Bible: The Lord will return and set his literal feet literally on the soil of this literal earth in OUR day. (not necessarily this literal 24-hr day, of course)


Okay, I admit, I am being less than gracious. But I do have a concern:

Why put a needless stumbling block in the way of those who desperately need to discover the reliability of Scripture, ie, the GOD of scripture. And what about our own children! To insist that a trust in scripture is synonymous with accepting 24-hour day creation, or 1000 year millennium, or 31/2 year tribulation, etc.. can be a huge stumbling block for our children going off to college and facing the ruthless skepticism of modern atheism. Too many naïve Christian students have abandoned the faith during college because they were not well-rooted in the foundational truths. And how often have you heard this: I can’t accept the Bible literally because I can’t accept the 24-hour day origin of the world (assuming the two must be held together)?

Diane

S
sermonindex

But if you are not waltern, then you are his Australian doppleganger. He was a furious poster (in both senses of the term)and an indefatigable fighter. He would introduce controversial topic, and battle like a Viking all day. He would be filled with Righteous Indignation when someone said, "I'm 99 percent in agreement with you, but..." and would cut & paste interminable treatises about creation science, the demonic origin of non-KJV translations, the perils of the emergent church, whatever...

Interesting. Speaking of Waltern and alter egos... The name LoinGirder or something along those lines is ringing a bell for some odd reason as well...

I thought that Brother Walter attended Calvary Chapel with Chuch Smith in times past?
I liked the man. Had spunk. Miss him, and some others as well.

Same here. I disagreed with some of the conclusions he came to on several issues, but I really respected the fact that he always used the Word of God as the standard for his assertions, if I remember correctly. And I was hard pressed to find one of his posts without Scriptural precedent (though I didn't always agree with his deductions).

T
TrueWitness

Quote:

Gen 5.5 all the days of adam were 930 years.
Adam was born on day 6 which is part of the 930years.
This means so is day 7
If day 6 and day 7 are not part of the millions why is 1 to 5 apart.
Yours Staff

End of quote

Adam was not "born." Remember, he had no belly-button.

Quote:

The timescale in and of itself is not the important issue. So why does CMI emphasize it? It’s important because the issue ultimately comes down to, “Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says?” It therefore goes to the heart of the trustworthiness of Scripture.

End of quote

It comes back to the question of whether we take the Bible literally. The Book is full of metaphors, symbolism, types, shadows, analogies, parables, etc. They are meant to point us to the truth but in themselves are not to be taken literally. Now the 7 days of creation may indeed be meant to be taken literally or maybe it is a figure of speech. The rule to invoke is that if a known FACT and your INTERPRETATION of the Bible contradict each other, YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is wrong. I will stop here and say that secular science has not proven evolution as a fact, it is still a theory and it is a wrong theory. But most all of the sciences of physics, chemistry and astronomy (careful here, astronomy also has lots of theories and conjectures) are proven facts. I say most all to be safe. To be honest I can't think of any facts in these branches of the hard sciences that are not proven facts. And none of these facts contradicts my interpretation of the Bible.

Reasons why the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest were longer than 24 hours long:

1. The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

2. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, the text specifically states that the land produced plants and trees. After they were produced, the text refers to seed bearing fruit being produced by these trees. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees require several years to mature before they produce fruit. Note the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a “day” could not have been only 24 hours long.

3. Is it really reasonable to believe that Adam named the animals, had time to get lonely and meet Eve all in one day? Being sinless does not make one superhuman. Even if Adam only named the animals in Eden, there still would have been quite a few. From Genesis 2:20 it seems apparent Adam was in need of a companion. With God and all those animals, would Adam really get lonely in only one day? In the overview of the creation of humans in Genesis 1:26-29, and the details in Genesis 2, God gave a lot of mandates to Adam and Eve. Also consider that Adam was not created in Eden (Genesis 2:7), so did time pass before he was placed in Eden (in Genesis 2:8)? In any case, it seems more reasonable for days, if not years, to have passed from these verses to the events recorded in Genesis 3.

4. We see that when God rested, he ceased creating and each “day” previous to that was closed out. The seventh day is not closed out like the others. As each of the previous days represent eras before man (and the sixth includes early man), the “seventh day” is mankind’s entire existence up to and including the present. The Bible speaks of the Sabbath not being closed out (as indicated in Hebrews 4) until the new creation when God starts creating again (Revelation 21).

5. The Bible makes clear statements on Earth’s antiquity in 2 Peter 3:5 and Habakkuk 3:6. Allusions to an ancient world can be found in Job 15:7, Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-32, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11 and Micah 6:2.

6. Exodus 20:11 is often held up as undeniable proof of 24-hour creation days. If that is true, what of Leviticus 25:1-4, which uses the creation week pattern in terms of years? Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference. A similar type of pattern is the eight day “Feast of the Tabernacles” in Leviticus 23:33-36. It celebrated God’s protection in the desert that lasted forty years - obviously eight days is not a one-to-one correlation with forty years. Also consider that Moses authored both of these passages.

7. Both 1 Chronicles 16:15 and Psalms 105:8 refer to God commanding his word to “a thousand generations.” This seems to confirm that the genealogical listings were incomplete. A “thousand generations” also seems to roughly confirm scientific dating on human origins.

P
PrimaDogma

I thought that Brother Walter attended Calvary Chapel with Chuch Smith in times past?
I liked the man. Had spunk. Miss him, and some others as well.

Walter left Calvary Chapel because they were "going emergent," and joined one of those Independent Fundamental KJV-only Buzzcut Baptist Churches.

Here is the "Calvary Chapel...EMERGENT?" thread that perfectly encapsulates Walternism:

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=28999&forum=48&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=1

EDIT: And here is LoinGirder's inaugural post to Brother W:

Well done brother. Watchmen like yourself are what is needed in these last days. It is not easy to exercise discernment in the chaos of this Laodicean Church Age.

For example, two Sundays ago, Brian Broderson preached on Rev. 17 and, with Pastor Chuck on the podium behind him, denounced the Emerging Church in general and Brian McLaren specifically for their ecumenicalism and disregard for the Word of God. Clearly a smoke screen to conceal Calvary Chapel's Emerging Agenda; not to mention Pastor Chuck's involvement in the Emerging Church/Mystery Babylon/Illuminati conspiracy to impurify our precious bodily fluids through the fluoridation of the water supply. Make no mistake, brother, fluoridation is the most monsterously conceived and dangerous Illuminati plot we've ever had to face.

Nor can we forget Calvary Chapel Area 51 and its recent consortium with Venusian reptile-men.

The watchword in these last days must be: trust no one! Believe no one! And drink only bottled water!

S
sermonindex

That link you gave also misquotes me in the last post on that page you've linked to, PD. Hmmm.
That's why I think the edit function should be limited or go back to the Preview option rather than the edit function.
Years back I've seen pages be changed up to 10 days after, on another forum. "Truth in the inward parts" is foreign to some.


PD, I couldn't find the quote you've given of Loingirder - not that I care who's who on here ... only care about the content of posts - the 'heart' that's behind them, and not their perfection. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, that we're all growing in Christ and don't come on here to make trouble and whenever possible to be peace-makers - whenever possible.

I like humor as well - but not the nasty kind and not the type that pits one against another.
We either love everyone on here, whether we agree on everything or not - or we shouldn't be here At All.

I'm not for anyone having two active accounts here, but if someone comes back after being banned or leaves, that doesn't bother me neither - if they can understand what got them banned and grow from it - but two accounts at the same time is over the top.

Humor is one thing, but intentional hurtful foolishness is another. And this thread we're on is about creationism, not the Emerging church - so I suppose I don't see your point at all, friend. You were accused of being loingirder, wayneman and someone else, I forgot who the third was, and now you're accusing this new Brother of being Walter ... what a total waste of webspace, I think.

Pardon my confusion if I just can't see the point of it all.

Maybe I'm just getting old fast. Huh?

P
PrimaDogma

The LG quote is from another thread of waltern's, "RICK WARREN: Man of God or Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?" or something intelligent like that.

Creationism, Emergence, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll - God doesn't care what exactly we are fighting about, as long as we are fighting. On Judgment Day we will not be judged according to our opinions, but according to what we have done. "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." The topic is incidental; what matters is that we are hurling thunder and lightning at one another in defense of the Doctrine. That is Internet Forum Christianity.

S
sermonindex

PD, so I'm to suppose that those who spend webspace accusing you and now this new Brother of being someone else is a form of making "PEACE" in This Body of Christ?

Sorry, ya lost me again, friend.


{eta} If we don't care enough to try to cover for each other now, [whether you're someone else or anyone here is someone else] in these LITTLE things and feel the need to 'expose' is more important than caring for each other - what will we do when there's a gun to our heads and we're asked to expose a Brother or Sister, to save our own life?

S
sermonindex

I have posted this article from a street preacher at the coalface, it may give some insight into the necessity to counter Atheism and Evolution.

by Russell Wallace

Published: 17 October 2008 (GMT+10)
I am a pastor and also part of a street preaching and evangelism team in Adelaide, South Australia and most Friday nights we meet on a busy street corner in the city to proclaim the Gospel. Everyone on the team is fully committed to the task.

However, whenever I raise the topic of old fashioned street preaching among fellow Christians I receive a mixed reaction. While some fully support the ‘bold’ approach of standing on a street corner and declaring the word of God, others are not so keen. They say that it is ‘old hat’ and ineffectual. They seem to think that unless people are being saved on the Friday night and/or coming to church every Sunday, this method of evangelism isn’t worth the effort. While there are many ways to be all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9:22), street preaching has some definite advantages, one of which is listening to, and engaging with, people in the crowd. To the surprise of some people in the church (who think that non-Christians don’t like talking about ‘religious matters’), many outsiders are in fact reasonably comfortable with being asked to share about their view of God, the Bible, religion and other topics.

The conclusion to this article can be read at:

http://creation.com/street-preacher-says-creation-is-the-issue

S
sermonindex


Hi Brother Vic. My Dad is 93 y.o. and has made Darwinism his religion, wholeheartedly. Whenever I try to share Christ with him, he has a sort of anxiety attack and all because he says that man is going to evolve and become better and gives all of the evolutionary reasons how man will evolve into a better species - so I appreciate your drive on this one topic so far.

I had problems with the link you just posted though. It comes up and then disappears.
Wondered if anyone else is having that problem.


Bless you and all of yours, Brother.

S
sermonindex

Hi i shall copy and paste into this reply,the link works fine at my end.

http://creation.com/street-preacher-says-creation-is-the-issue

The creation/evolution matter places the creationist on an uneven playing field,especially when the former Australian Rupert Murdoch controls so much media

Nonetheless getting the word out is being achieved by men and women from such sites as creation.com and others.The Atheists argue and try and refute the creation side of things by misrepresentation and downright lies,often using materail from sites that others would disown.

Reaching the lost is where i believe that our Sovereign Lord has led me and the creationist material can open doors and has been proved to do so for people from all walks of life regardles of age.The mention of Dr Ross recently was of interest,but i doubt if many of his advocates realise his stance on the flood,which he is on the record as stating it was local.

All of us are biased in our thinking along denominational affiliation and therin is one of the root causes of division among the brethern,withdrawing from denominationalism has allowed the Holy Spirit to teach me things that ran counter to my indoctrination from college and my local church,and the experience has been so enriching spiritually,the circumstances with your dad and Darwinism is not uncommon,thank you for your input Brother.

S
staff

Hi Diane,
So basically you cant answer my point which is ok just say so.
Does the bible mean all when it says all?.
It is a common sense practical question if adam lived on the 6 and 7th day doesnt according to genesis 5.5 mean it is literal.Off course if all doesnt mean all here we can apply that thinking to Jesus attonement etc
and every other important doctrine
Yours staff

S
staff


Hi Truewitnes,Dont shoot the messager.You will notice in all other posts I have used created not born which is correct.
However you have failed to address the point which is gen 5.5 correct.Does the bible mean all when it says all?Maybe god doesnt love all,maybe christ didnt die for all.If sometimes all means not all and sometimes it means all well I think you get my idea...
Yours Staff

T
TrueWitness

Yes, the word all always means all. But the word day usually means a 24 hour day but not always. Day of the Lord is not a 24 hour day.

L
Lordoitagain

True Witness, your points sound quite clever, and would be convincing for us to totally ignore Gen. 5:5 and Exodus 20:11, but your arguments "do not hold water".

You said: "2. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer."

When we look at the text, we see:

Gén 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gén 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


"yielding seed" is the description of "herb". It doesn't even insinuate that the process was played out in that day of creation. The same is true with "yielding fruit after his kind..." it describes the kind of tree that he created. It doesn't say, (as you twist it to mean) that the drama was played out at the same time of creation.

If the Omnipotent had chosen for that process to take place in a single day he very well could have as he caused a gourd plant to grow up in one night tall enough to shade a rebellious prophet (Jonah 4:6-10)

Again you resort to "reasoning" that lines up with evolutionary creation in this section:

"3. Is it really reasonable to believe that Adam named the animals, had time to get lonely and meet Eve all in one day? ..."


Again if we analyze the scripture, we see that such "reasoning" which would contradict Gen. 5:5 and Exo. 20:11 does not have a concrete foundation:

Gén 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gén 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gén 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Gén 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Gén 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gén 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gén 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gén 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gén 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gén 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gén 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


It says NOTHING about man getting lonely. It simply mentions God's all-knowing wise observation that it is not good for him to be alone.

Did he name them all in one day? Well we see in this passage:

Gén 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
Gén 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Gén 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Gén 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.


All such creatures entered the ark in one 24 hour day. The Omnipotent can pass them all before Adam and have them named by him in one day just as easily. Also the mentioning of the process doesn't mean the finishing of the process in that day.

When we read the Bible with the faith of a little child, we reject all attempts to line up our beliefs with the world's beliefs, but choose to take every verse as it is written ... including Gen. 5:5 and Exo. 20:11.

Your points were copied and pasted from other places that can be found on the internet by googling one of its phrases in quotation marks. It makes me wonder about the author and his motives.

S
sermonindex

But the word day usually means a 24 hour day but not always.

Actually it usually meant from sunup to sundown, measuring the time of the light. I've been told that the Jews in Israel still actually measure days in this way.

This is the reason of the "discrepancy" that some sight in the account between the Gospels of the time preceding the transfiguration. It wasn't actually a discrepancy at all, just the difference between the Jewish way of measuring a day, and the Greek way, which Luke was using.

S
sermonindex

@Lorddoitagain

Those are some good points.

I think another thing not to overlook, in regards just to what you stated about Adam, is the fact that he was the first man, and at that current time, absolutely perfect.

We make the assumption that physically and mentally he was somehow just like we are today. For all we know, he had the ability to look over all the animals, recognize them and name them all within 15 seconds flat. We simply have no idea of how long it would have taken him.

The Bible says nothing about how long it took him, except that he did it within the day. We make a mistake though when we view Adam's abilities as being the same as our corrupted and decayed ones that we have today.

By the rational that he was God's first complete man, I would assume that he was the most physically fit, most intelligent, and most capable man who's ever lived (when we're talking about all three categories combined).

When we try to view the account of how Adam did it through the prism of what current corrupted flesh is capable of, I think we've already started off on the wrong foot.

C
Christinyou

Amen, we try to put God in our little box. From seed to full growth, God could with a word or thought, bring forth fruit from a fully mature peach tree giving perfect peaches, all this in the twinkling of an eye or as it says there was day and night a `,1,2,3,4th day etc.

In Christ: Phillip

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 109 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate