Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This article presents a fools perspective. A "fool's perspective" because it takes the position that finite men can correct an infinite God in the person of Jesus Christ who believed the Genesis account as a literal historical account just as much as the inspired Apostle Paul believed Adam and Eve were historical persons and the beginning of the human race by direct creation.
Scientists of past days have made "scientific" assertions later disproved because they did not have sufficient criteria to assert their preconceived chosen philosphical bias.
Those who reject God's Word as the inspired word of God will not believe no matter what kind of evidence is presented or how many times atheistic scientists and liberal theologions are disproven. Again, it is a choice between what God in the flesh asserted as historical reality versus what finite and often wrong finite liberals and atheists assert as "scientific."
According to the Hubble... about 15.3 billion years old.
Perceived. We "do science" on the basis of observations of our physical world.
Perceived age, just like Adam perceived to be 30ish when he was one day old, a fully grown tree would have had years worth of rings, etc.
This article presents a fools perspective.
If God could have created a fully grown man in one day, then He could have certainly taken 15.3 billion years to create the universe. He is, after all, God!
There's just too much evidence againt a new Earth belief system - evidence that God Himself left behind.
God created a 12 billion year old stage set in 6 days. "The world is a stage and we are actors on it."
snip...
Your issue is with Jesus Christ and Paul who do not view the Genesis account as allegorical but literal, historical and actual.
Mt. 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mr 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
There is only a problem if you choose to see it. A good layman's read for you that addresses such "problems" is Lee Strobel's A Case For A Creator. It's not twisting Scripture to understand the creation account at face value...it's twisting Scripture to interpret it through the lens of science and darwinism.It is very obvious to me, that based on the 'inconsitencies' in Genesis 1, that Genensis was not written as a literal science manual but rather a spiritual truth.
I am not into twisting scriptures to fit my world view - and it right there in back and white we can read that God created LIGHT on DAY ONE. Then he created earth....and other things....and on DAY FOUR ----
Why isn't this chonologicaly accurate? I can go on...He created fruit trees before he created the living creatures that pollinate fruit trees. Oh yeah the gottcha, new earth appearance of old...sorry.
He created fruit trees before he created the living creatures that pollinate fruit trees.
There is only a problem if you choose to see it. A good layman's read for you that addresses such "problems" is Lee Strobel's A Case For A Creator. It's not twisting Scripture to understand the creation account at face value...it's twisting Scripture to interpret it through the lens of science and darwinism.
I think pollination could wait a day, don't you?
No, no, LOL. I don't need an entire book to explain to me that in Genesis, the author inspired of course, wrote in the text that God created LIGHT on day one. And then created the sun and moon on day four. This isn't a problem for me and hasn't been for others I hope. It's a problem only when we try to find a way to 'interpret' it so it fits into our box of understanding template of reference, so to speak.
But seriously, I do wish I had the book to take a look at what he says, but you have obviously read it - why is the beginning of Genesis well...chronologically challened on day one and four?
I guess you could tell me God created light in a vaccum, ie, just plain ol light without any sun - just light. But that's kinda thin to me...