The smoking gun, of the Earth’s age

[Robert Snow]

A person that denies the literal creation account denies that God is God. Is that not as bad as denying that Jesus is the Son of God?

If you can't see the difference between your interpretation of the Genesis account of creation and denying the Virgin birth, you are sorely lacking in any spiritual discernment.

I know, I disagree with you and that means I'm bound for Hell! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Mexdeaf]

A person that denies the literal creation account denies that God is God. Is that not as bad as denying that Jesus is the Son of God?

Let me rephrase that to read what it REALLY means:

A person that denies my interpretation of the literal creation account denies that God is God. Is that not as bad as denying that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[stilllearning]

I was gone for the day and returned to find a lot of very interesting discussion.

What especially interested me, was the question of whether or not, a person can be saved and not believe the things written in Genesis.
--------------------------------------------------
Now what mucks this up(makes it sticky), is when people say they believe it, but they just don’t accept the words in the text.
e.g. (A day, is a day)

Lets come back to this later.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, as I pointed out in another thread, Jesus said........
John 5:46-47
V.46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
V.47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus said, that if a person does not believe the things written in Genesis, than they will not be able to believe the Gospel.

Jesus determines who will get saved and he will not allow anyone to trust Him as their savior, who rejects the things written in Genesis.

So the question is; Is refusing to accept the words of the text in Genesis(regardless of how unbelievable it may be), not “believing” it?
--------------------------------------------------
It is true, that when it comes to eschatology, many things can’t be nailed down.
But the accounts in Genesis, are another thing.

 

[quantumfaith]

13.782 billion years.

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't believe that a certain knowledge saves a person. Jesus Christ saves a person.

Well you've pretty well trashed anyone's salvation who disagrees with you over this doctrinal area.

But would you think that a person that thinks that God did not create the world, that the world is here by sheer chance, and that evolution is completely true (that we evolved from a single celled organism) is saved?

Honestly I don't have a problem sharing a table with theistic evolutionists, or progressive creationists, or day-age theory proponents. As I have stated above I don't believe we can know with unshakable epistemological certainty the exact nature of the creation event. All of these people I have listed here all affirm that God was the initiator of the creation.

For instance I disagree with a leading geneticist like Dr. Francis Collins about the nature of the creation account. But I am very thankful for his voice and ministry on behalf of Christ in a part of the world that many Christians have no voice. Though he advocates theistic evolution, he still believes that God was the prime actor.

I know you don't care about other views of theology or the significant persons in Christian history who held them but I think that if you consider a major theologian like Augustine and that he never came down on a position on this matter then this might have a other views out there.

What you're saying is that someone must fit into all the parameters of your narrow umbrella of salvation to be saved. Frankly most Christians can't do that and Heaven, in the theological parameters you ascribe, will be a quiet place. This issue is (in the idea of doctrinal triage) a doctrinal one at best. There have been many astute and austere believers who have disagreed about the age of creation. We should not shirk their testimony over an issue we simply have no epistemic access to knowing with certainty.

Is a person that believes only in Jesus and his resurrection saved or is there more to the belief than that? I believe there is more to the belief and I'm sure you do as well.

There is more to belief. I will say that most Christians I know that adopt other views than the literal six day young earth view are usually robustly informed about many other areas of doctrine and hold profound positions in many of these areas. I know young earthers who have deep theological views that I disagree with too. (Outside of the different about the age of the earth)

 

[Mexdeaf]

I was gone for the day and returned to find a lot of very interesting discussion.

What especially interested me, was the question of whether or not, a person can be saved and not believe the things written in Genesis.
--------------------------------------------------
Now what mucks this up(makes it sticky), is when people say they believe it, but they just don’t accept the words in the text.
e.g. (A day, is a day)

Lets come back to this later.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, as I pointed out in another thread, Jesus said........
John 5:46-47
V.46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
V.47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus said, that if a person does not believe the things written in Genesis, than they will not be able to believe the Gospel.

Jesus determines who will get saved and he will not allow anyone to trust Him as their savior, who rejects the things written in Genesis.

So the question is; Is refusing to accept the words of the text in Genesis(regardless of how unbelievable it may be), not “believing” it?
--------------------------------------------------
It is true, that when it comes to eschatology, many things can’t be nailed down.
But the accounts in Genesis, are another thing.

Read the words you quoted in John 5 VERY CAREFULLY and you will see that they say nothing of what Moses wrote about creation, but of what he wrote about CHRIST. Don't twist Scripture.

And a belief in a 144 hour creation has NEVER been a 'fundamental requirement' of the Christian faith- at least to my knowledge. If there is evidence to the contrary I am willing to be corrected.

 

[quantumfaith]

Well you've pretty well trashed anyone's salvation who disagrees with you over this doctrinal area.



Honestly I don't have a problem sharing a table with theistic evolutionists, or progressive creationists, or day-age theory proponents. As I have stated above I don't believe we can know with unshakable epistemological certainty the exact nature of the creation event. All of these people I have listed here all affirm that God was the initiator of the creation.

For instance I disagree with a leading geneticist like Dr. Francis Collins about the nature of the creation account. But I am very thankful for his voice and ministry on behalf of Christ in a part of the world that many Christians have no voice. Though he advocates theistic evolution, he still believes that God was the prime actor.

I know you don't care about other views of theology or the significant persons in Christian history who held them but I think that if you consider a major theologian like Augustine and that he never came down on a position on this matter then this might have a other views out there.

What you're saying is that someone must fit into all the parameters of your narrow umbrella of salvation to be saved. Frankly most Christians can't do that and Heaven, in the theological parameters you ascribe, will be a quiet place. This issue is (in the idea of doctrinal triage) a doctrinal one at best. There have been many astute and austere believers who have disagreed about the age of creation. We should not shirk their testimony over an issue we simply have no epistemic access to knowing with certainty.



There is more to belief. I will say that most Christians I know that adopt other views than the literal six day young earth view are usually robustly informed about many other areas of doctrine and hold profound positions in many of these areas. I know young earthers who have deep theological views that I disagree with too. (Outside of the different about the age of the earth)

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

Well you've pretty well trashed anyone's salvation who disagrees with you over this doctrinal area.



Honestly I don't have a problem sharing a table with theistic evolutionists, or progressive creationists, or day-age theory proponents. As I have stated above I don't believe we can know with unshakable epistemological certainty the exact nature of the creation event. All of these people I have listed here all affirm that God was the initiator of the creation.

For instance I disagree with a leading geneticist like Dr. Francis Collins about the nature of the creation account. But I am very thankful for his voice and ministry on behalf of Christ in a part of the world that many Christians have no voice. Though he advocates theistic evolution, he still believes that God was the prime actor.

I know you don't care about other views of theology or the significant persons in Christian history who held them but I think that if you consider a major theologian like Augustine and that he never came down on a position on this matter then this might have a other views out there.

What you're saying is that someone must fit into all the parameters of your narrow umbrella of salvation to be saved. Frankly most Christians can't do that and Heaven, in the theological parameters you ascribe, will be a quiet place. This issue is (in the idea of doctrinal triage) a doctrinal one at best. There have been many astute and austere believers who have disagreed about the age of creation. We should not shirk their testimony over an issue we simply have no epistemic access to knowing with certainty.



There is more to belief. I will say that most Christians I know that adopt other views than the literal six day young earth view are usually robustly informed about many other areas of doctrine and hold profound positions in many of these areas. I know young earthers who have deep theological views that I disagree with too. (Outside of the different about the age of the earth)

Often times in the debate of the "methodology" of creation, people of both theistic and non-theistic sides easliy become indignant at the "intellectual folly" or "spiritual folly" of the other side.

For many believers, those who are not YEC are simply anathema. Sometimes this stems from not even making an attempt to understand another's perspective. Unfortunately, in our increasingly educated society I believe we "drop" the ball as Christians when we respond to intellectual ideas with immediate and complete disdain and distrust.

I don't know the answer but for me the principles are clear.

1. YHWH created ex nihlio
2. Theistic Evolution is most certainly a possible model
3. The Scriptural Record was never intended to be a science manual or to contain ALL truth, simply the most important truth.
4. The search of man to unlock mysteries is a positive thing overall
5. The stance of a believer with regard to the creation event is a "non-essential" for me theologically, unless they simply deny that God created

 

[quantumfaith]

You can state that you believe it as a fact; however, that doesn't make it so.

So true Ken, a fact is often times a fact, only in the eye of the beholder.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning Mexdeaf

You said......

“Read the words you quoted in John 5 VERY CAREFULLY and you will see that they say nothing of what Moses wrote about creation, but of what he wrote about CHRIST. Don't twist Scripture.”

I much appreciate a warning, not to twist Scripture. Thank you.

So I went back and studied these words again, and went one step further.
Here is what John Gill says a about V.46b......
“for he wrote of me”; in the books written by him, Christ is spoken of, as the seed of the woman, that should bruise the serpent’s head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations of the earth should be blessed; as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be; and as that prophet, who should be like unto himself, to whom the people of Israel should hearken; and he wrote many things typically of Christ; and indeed, the whole Mosaic economy was typical of Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews shows: and therefore disbelieving Christ, was disbelieving Moses; who therefore would be an accuser of them, and a witness against them.

This reminded me of just how much Genesis-Deut. is filled with references to Christ:
(Including the world wide flood), and how very important it is for every Christian to accept them, without reservation.

Thank you for the Challenge.

Therefore these words mean what they say and say what they mean.....
John 5:46-47
V.46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
V.47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again Mexdeaf

You also said......

“And a belief in a 144 hour creation has NEVER been a 'fundamental requirement' of the Christian faith- at least to my knowledge. If there is evidence to the contrary I am willing to be corrected.”

Here, you bring up a good point. What is “a fundamental requirement”?
How can a Christian, ever be “required”, to accept anything, here on Earth.

Throughout all Church history, you have had people who call themselves Christians, who deny the Deity of Christ, etc.
So how were they required to capitulate. They weren’t.

People have always been allowed to believe what they want.

Therefore when you say “fundamental requirement”, you must mean something else.
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe you mean for something to be a “fundamental requirement”, means that it what believed by the fundamentalists of the past.

And I have learned that “the 24 hour days of creation”, were accepted as FACT, by the Church a little over 100 years ago.

Here is what John Gill said about Genesis 5:.....
“and the evening and the morning were the first day”: the evening, the first part of the night, or darkness, put for the whole night, which might be about the space of twelve hours; and the morning, which was the first part of the day, or light, put also for the whole, which made the same space, and both together one natural day, consisting of twenty four hours;
--------------------------------------------------
He goes on to talk about some “speculation”, that “a few” had about it;
But that is nothing new.

But the literal translation of this passage, was fully accepted by the Church in the past.
And should be today!

 

[Jerome]

And I have learned that “the 24 hour days of creation”, were accepted as FACT, by the Church a little over 100 years ago.

Please elaborate.

 

[stilllearning]

Please elaborate.

OK,

As we go back in Church history, we find that back then, Christians really believed the Bible.
All these accounts in Genesis, that are all being “questioned” today, by professing Christians; Were mostly, only questioned by self confessed unbelievers, back then.
--------------------------------------------------
The way that I came up with the statement....“a little over 100 years ago”, is because John Gill, was a pastor of a Church, in the late 1800's, and he accepted these things as FACT.

 

[Salty]

OK,

As we go back in Church history, we find that back then, Christians really believed the Bible.
All these accounts in Genesis, that are all being “questioned” today, by professing Christians; Were mostly, only questioned by self confessed unbelievers, back then. ...

For example in Ecc 1:5, The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down,...

Silly me - And all this time I thought the earth rotated around the Sun,

 

[BobinKy]

It has always amazed me how some Christians base their salvation--and the salvation of all Christians--upon a few chapters in Genesis.

Personally, I have been in most corners of this issue. And I do not think that it matters all that much.

Today, I look around my study and I see Bibles and biblical study books. I also see books on English romantic poetry, Greek classical literature, seafaring novels, bird watching, geology, biology, astronomy, nature field guides, and local history. I also have a microscope, two telescopes, geology hammer, field bags, insect boxes, and several binoculars in my study. I consider all of these to be compatible.

My salvation does not depend upon what I see in a telescope, microscope, or a few chapters in the book of Genesis. Nor does my salvation depend upon Calvinist, dispensational, or fundamental theologies. My salvation is based on John 3:16 and other passages.

I have heard and read all of the major arguments from all corners of this issue. This is what I believe.

...Bob

 

[Jerome]

John Calvin, Sermons sur l'Epitre aux Corinthiens:

Nous en verrons d'aucuns si frenetiques, non pas seulement en la religion, mais pour monstrer par tout qu'ils ont une nature monstrueuse, qu'ils diront que le soliel ne se bouge, et que c'est la terre qui se remue et qu'elle tourne. Quand nous voyons de tels esprits, il faut bien dire que le diable les ait possedez, et que Dieu nous les propose comme des miroirs, pour nous faire demeurer en sa crainte.

Those who say that the earth moves round, rather than the sun, are demon-possessed?

Really?

 

[Jerome]

FWIW, John Gill was born in the late 1600s.

But anyway, here is what some Bible believers/Fundamentalists were preaching about a century ago:

Scofield Reference Bible (1909):

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was *without form, and void...

*But three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter: (1) the heavens and the earth, v. 1; (2) animal life, v. 21; and (3) human life, vs. 36, 37. The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages.

From The Fundamentals, James Orr, "The Early Narratives of Genesis":

You say there is the "six days" and the question whether those days are meant to be measured by the twenty-four hours of the sun's revolution around the earth — I speak of these things popularly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day. Do not think that this larger reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves the matter an open question.

William Bell Riley, founder of the World Christian Fundamentals Association (1920s):

the days of Genesis are aeons, ages, geological days, days of God and not days of men

 

[Mexdeaf]

OK,

As we go back in Church history, we find that back then, Christians really believed the Bible.
All these accounts in Genesis, that are all being “questioned” today, by professing Christians; Were mostly, only questioned by self confessed unbelievers, back then.
--------------------------------------------------
The way that I came up with the statement....“a little over 100 years ago”, is because John Gill, was a pastor of a Church, in the late 1800's, and he accepted these things as FACT.

Assume much?

If you do some proper study instead of just going off the top of your head, you will find that those who believed the Bible in centuries past held just as varying beliefs concerning the Creation as we do today. (EDIT: I see Jerome has taken care of the evidence for me- LOL.)

To paraphrase BobinKy- "It don't mean a hill of beans."

 

[Mexdeaf]

Good morning Mexdeaf

You said......


I much appreciate a warning, not to twist Scripture. Thank you.

So I went back and studied these words again, and went one step further.
Here is what John Gill says a about V.46b......
“for he wrote of me”; in the books written by him, Christ is spoken of, as the seed of the woman, that should bruise the serpent’s head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations of the earth should be blessed; as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be; and as that prophet, who should be like unto himself, to whom the people of Israel should hearken; and he wrote many things typically of Christ; and indeed, the whole Mosaic economy was typical of Christ, as the epistle to the Hebrews shows: and therefore disbelieving Christ, was disbelieving Moses; who therefore would be an accuser of them, and a witness against them.

This reminded me of just how much Genesis-Deut. is filled with references to Christ:
(Including the world wide flood), and how very important it is for every Christian to accept them, without reservation.

Thank you for the Challenge.

Therefore these words mean what they say and say what they mean.....
John 5:46-47
V.46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
V.47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

All I can say to that is "WOOSH!".

 

[InTheLight]

There is no additional context to the Genesis account that would tell us that it is anything but a literal 7 day period. The only way to come to the conclusion that it is not a literal 7 day period is by disregarding what it plainly says.

It says the sun was created on Day 4. Therefore before Day 4 there could be no 24 hour 'day'.
Unless you bring an infinite and timeless God down to man's level of existence and insist that days 1 through 3 were 24 hour days.

Gen 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;
and
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

19And 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.

20And 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.


You also have to believe that the trees and plants in the garden of Eden grew to full maturity in less than 24 hours.

You also have to believe that Adam named all the animals on earth in less than 24 hours.

Let's take a look at Day Six:

God created beasts, cattle, and wild animals.
God created Adam.
God planted a garden in Eden and caused it to sprout and grow.
God put Adam in the garden in order to cultivate it.
God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to the garden for Adam to name.
God caused Adam to fall asleep and created Eve from one of his ribs.

So with all this going on how could it be 24 hours?