New China find. What say young earthers?

If you do hold to an old earth belief, how do you justify it with the genealogies in the Bible. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Seth was 105 when Enosh was born. Enosh was 90 when Kenan was born. Kenan was 70 when Mahalael was born. And the list goes on (you can read it for yourself in Genesis 5 and 11). By the time Jacob (called Israel) died, that’s only about 2,200 years after Adam’s creation. Matthew and Luke list the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob clearly for us.

If they have found pottery (man-made) dating back to 17,000 years ago, then God had to create someone long before He created Adam... unless you’re willing to throw out the Book of Genesis (which I fear many have already done).

 

From Genesis 5 (NKJV):
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.
7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

And it goes on. And I’m not supposed to take these verses literally? They sound specific enough to me! If you wand to discount them, go right ahead – I won’t!

BTW – I thought Ann did just fine on the 4 corners thing. No need for me to comment.

 

Before I reply - are you saying you agree with the genealogies in the Bible? Specifically those in Genesis 5 and 11?

 

Let me see if I have this straight. "The earth lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." You're not serious, are you?

As for the "four corners" thing - I think there is a certain amount of interpretation that needs to take place. But my approach is this: if it can possibly be taken as literal, then that's how I take it. There are some analogies and symbols in the Bible. But to throw out the age of the first man Adam because it really means earth is far beyond what I believe to be true. Again, if you want to believe it, go right ahead.

 

If we are to take the 6 days of creation as an outline, and the years of Adam's life as an exaggeration, then why take the sacrificial death of Christ as any more that just a analogy of some mystic experience? Why believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is the only way to the Father? Could that be an exaggeration too?

I don't buy it. There have been many over the years who have discounted the Bible, and although I'm not familiar with the authors you cited, I would not be surprised if they discounted it too. I'll stick with the Bible, rather than man's attempt to tell me that it's not true.

You believe whatever you want.

Edited to add. This is what the beginning of your previous posts sounds like - It's just literature, it's not intended to be the literal truth. I believe that it is dangerous when we approach Scripture believing that some of it is not true. Why believe any of it??

 

There is a clear literary difference between them.Keep up the study though one day you will get there.

 

What is the 'clear' difference?

 

Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...

What does that teach? Does that teach a flat earth?

Job 26:7 says that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing."

A long, long time later science discovered that the earth hangs on something we cannot see called gravity.

Psalm 103:12 - As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

On a flat earth, the east and west are a definable distance apart. On a sphere, east and west are infinitely far apart. One could stand on the equator and head west and never reach west.

Ecc. 1:6,7 - The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Job 36:26, 27 - For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.

What do these two sections of scripture teach but the water cycle?

It amazes me that people question the scientific accuracy of the bible. It is scientifically and historically accurate, as has been proven again and again. Secular science has always lagged behind the bible, and they still do. I guess what amazes me more is people are more willing to follow the teachings of fools (Psalms 14:1) than the teachings of Almighty God. I'll trust God rather than people that deny God.

 

Genesis 1:8 - And the evening and the morning were the second day.

These weren't some figurative days, these were literal days. The Lord literally created all things in a literal 6 days resting the second from those labors. Not only that but we have geneologies also. And then there's the kicker - Paul says that sin entered into the world by the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. That means the gap theory is wrong, darwinian evolution if wrong, theistic evolution is wrong, and the long days crowd are wrong too. The only position the bible puts forth, and it is one that is clearly set forth in plain language, is that the earth and everything therein was literally created by God in 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago. Whereas we may differ on certain texts, God did not leave any doubt whatsoever about this in His word, and every Christian should agree here. Anyone who doesn't is going clearly against a large amount of clear scripture. Either you believe the bible on creation or you don't, and if you don't then you really shouldn't trust it on any subject.

 

Well stated!! When you start picking & choosing what to take literal, then you open Pandora's box - literally!! (Pun intended:smilewinkgrin: )

 

That's what I've been trying to say. I think I'll just go with what God says.

 

"I had to laugh at this one. if you steatch out a flat surface infinately distance is no longer definable. If you have a sphere it comes right back to you."

Again, if you stand at the equator and head due West you will never stop heading due West. You will keep going. East and West are infinitely far apart. However, if you stand at the equator and head due North, you will eventually reach the North Pole. Once you pass it you will begin heading due South. North and South, then, on a globe with a North/South oriented axis, are a definable distance apart. East and West aren't.

On the circle of the earth thing, are you serious? "It doesn't say sphere." Was there even a Hebrew word for sphere? Obviously, sitting on the circle of the earth indicates that the earth is not flat.

Of course, I see you didn't address my points about the water cycle and gravity.

To address your points:

First, the sun moving comment. How many times have you heard statements and questions like these: "The sun is peaking over the horizon." "What is the position of the sun in the sky?" "The sun is directly overheard." "The sun is at 3:00." "Then out came the sun and dried up all the rain." "The sun is really bright today." "How much longer until the sun goes down." Now, all of these statements are, in an absolute sense, incorrect. However, we, as people who understand that the solar system is sun-centered, still make them frequently. Why? Because we are speaking in a relative sense. Relative to our perspective (though we know the earth revolves around the sun) the sun moves through our sky. It rises in the east and sets in the west. Thus, as we observe the movement of the earth around the sun (absolute sense) we see the sun move through our sky (relative sense). If a person wrote a book today describing the sun as moving through our sky, would that prove the author was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? Obviously not since we are educated of that fact.

Now, to the quote from 1 Chronicles, the text says, "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." It's not talking about not moving in any way, shape, or form but rather to the stability of the earth. I could say, the earth shall not move out of it's current rotation around the sun.

Now, to your ends of the earth point I will quote another usage in scripture. Isaiah 41:5 - "The isles saw it, and feared; the ends of the earth were afraid, drew near, and came." Is this text referring to the literal, physical dimensions of the earth, or to faraway nations. The phrase "ends of the earth" are used quite frequently in scripture, and again it is also used by modern man who is well aware of the fact that the earth is not flat.

The text from Genesis seems to support the idea of a vapor canopy that surrounded the earth before the flood, which many creation scientists believe existed.

It's disheartening to see people run to extremes. A literal view of the scriptures doesn't mean that every single word is taken as we literally today in our society understand it. A literal view of the bible means this: 1) we believe the bible to be true and 2) we take the bible literally where we can, understanding that it also has figurative language as well. For example, "he shall grow up before him as a tender plant." Obviously Jesus Christ wasn't a literal plant, but is compared to a tender plant. God is plain and literal in creation, and we should beleive Him literally here. Also, Paul believed and preached literal creation and based doctrine on this (original sin in Romans 5), so if Paul misinterpreted the bible in terms of creation, what else did he misinterpret?