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!
And neither should we. I rarely, if ever, pick up a physics book when reading a history book. Why should I? Most of the Bible is narrative, historical. Genesis falls into that category. One doesn't need physics to read history.
There isn't one. It is a matter of faith.
The so-called 'evidence' of an old earth is all based on unprovable assumptions. As DHK has already pointed out, the scientific method does not apply to these things because it is impossible to directly observe them.
And neither should we. I rarely, if ever, pick up a physics book when reading a history book. Why should I? Most of the Bible is narrative, historical. Genesis falls into that category. One doesn't need physics to read history.
that other men existed at the time of Cain. So I do believe in a real adam and eve. And a real fall. Now was Adam the human representative of humanity like a King and a special preist to God and his actions therefore is passed on representatively? Or was he just the first to be made self aware and later others were made that way? I don't honestly know and the bible doesn't tell us. Also note we can tell from lice that the modern man as he is now exisisted for at least 100,000 years. Much longer than supposition of 7,000 - 10,000 years ago. Plus we have human structures dating back to 12,000 years ago.
One does not discount the other. It is both. Though God reveals himself to man in such a way as man can understand him in his main points don't forget God also inspired men to write or orally transmit the accounts in genesis to others. The account is equally the work of God as it is the narrative of several men from their perspectives. Which is why the account focuses on the middle east and does not mention people in North America, China, Japan, and else where in the world.
Which means his establishment of the institution of Marriage is consistent with the narritive.
In as far as we can understand it at the time of the narrative. He doesn't mention Matter, the composition of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc... So the Historical account is lacking when we want to get into the actualy specifics of creation. God is speaking on the General Level relaying the important information as I've listed above and will let his creation reveal itself as we become more knowledgeable and he reveals more of it over time. Just like Trinitarian doctrine. God alludes to it in the OT, but it becomes clearer in the NT and Finally reaches greater clarification centuries later. Not that its a new revelation but it certainly becomes clearer much later as we understand more about God and his nature.
You obviously forget my previous view already submitted on this topic. I believe God created the world Just as he said in Genesis but in generality not specifity. The first 3 days are the actual creation - Something from nothing - Darkness to light, Water Earth, vegitation - animals - and man. Organized pretty much as we discovered from observation. Days 4-6 more specific but still overal generalities where day four relates to day 1 and 5 to 2 and 6 to 3 and 7 crowing with the theology of the sabbath. its all we need to know generally speaking. But its not a specific account.
Evening and Morning is a literary composition for memorization like a chorus in a song. That is how its used in the account. You see the same method used in the Unuma Elish typical of that region's literary development and accounts. it establishes a pattern which ends in a theology of the Sabbath in a memorable way. Also when you tell a child a story you might begin "Once upon a time" whether it was yesterday, 10 years ago, One thousand years ago is irrelevant. Just as easily you can say "On one day" which day is irrelevant. How about "it was a dark and stormy night" this gives the illusion of specifity however what it wednesday, thursday, saturday, sunday? Again irrelevant. What is relevant is that on that particular day it was rainy and dark. Such is the Genesis account. You can look a such stories and say within the continuity of the story the word rainy means rain but the question of which day and when is not really answered. You attempt to say well since it was rainy it means spring rains in 1984. However, that wasn't the point of the text. The narrative is the point not physics.
I haven't done that at all. I said God establishes the sabbath, takes credit for creating the Cosmos, creating man, creates the establishment of marriage and provides for the understanding of man's condition in relation to God because that is what God reveals to us in those passages. He does not tell us the age of the universe. He does not inform us of how the physics of it work, he does not inform us of geological surveys because that is not his intent his intent is to narrate the begining of Salvation history with a simple and general account of creation establishment of institutions and shows man's relation to God.
Newton was also an alchemist believing he could turn lead into gold. He was also and a occultist. Doesn't down play the fact that he was also a genius. But in many ways we was like those people who believe in "the bible code" Turning the Hebrew Bible into a numerical code. Nonsense. However, like I said I believe God made the world in the order he said just not literally 6 days.
Yes this is true just like in many ways "early scientist" who took the bible literally believed in a flat earth, the sun and planets revolved around the earth, and that slavery was condoned by God. We know so much more now that it is ridiculous to even hold such views but certainly early scientist believed it. And Christianity Held many discoveries back because people insisted on the literal view of Genesis. Look at what happened to Cappernicus and Galileo. And today you can go to Kentucky and see statues of children walking with dinosaurs when the geological record clearly indicates this did not occur. However, you might as well as believe in the Lord of the Rings as hold to that view.
Jesus Never, Ever, Ever said The Cosmos existed for only 6,000 years. What Jesus does is hold to the Theology and the consitent narrative of salvation history. Because that is what is important to him. Making Man right with God to save us. Not to become some celestial teacher of how the cosmos works. No. Jesus holds it together by his will. What is important is that he brings men to the Father.
First of all because it is true but not in the way you propose. And second because Jesus is conserned with salvation. Not science. For him science is an act of his will a result of his activity. He creates and maintains the Universe. His goal is man thus man is what he discusses in the consistent narrative of salvation. He's not a science teacher. To him Everything about creation apart from salvation is overlooked in scriptures. Which is why its not important whether King David had 7,000 horses or 700 horses in two differing accounts of the same episode in the OT. That is an irrelevant detail to the story so no one cleans it up. Its an irrelevant detail to the story that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Or that the earth revolves around the sun. Or that there are not four corners of the earth, or that the winds aren't held back by gates, etc..
Prove it. Everyone I heard espouse what I've proposed believe in the inspiration of the bible. The people I know who deny the inspiration of the bible suggest that its all false. That Genesis was written during the babylonian captivity. That Jesus May or May have not existed but certainly not the way the bible portrays it. That Jesus' body was thrown in a pit eaten by dogs. I have not suggested any of these things. Nor have the people I know who hold the view I propse. These are the ideas which people who don't believe in the inspiration of the bible hold. The view I propose is held by people who hold to the legitamacy of the inspiration of The Holy Scriptures.
You still have to prove the point. And second saying that Jesus was conserned with Salvation rather than science DOES NOT "reduce him from God in the Flesh to deceived and errant common man" but in fact it DOES show that God speaks to us truthfully on a level by which we can understand him.
Now, Now a man of your intelligence does not need to insult others because they disagree with you. I have not and others who hold my view have not said there is no God. That is a device of your own imaging.
No you stoop to make God fit into your theological box which is of your construct. God simply could not mean something other than what you want him to mean. To me that is arrogance. For instance I think you would deny that men participated in writing the bible. That it was men who put pen to parchement. They were inspired certainly. Yet in their inspiration they spoke as they observed things. For instance
Ezekiel may not understand what he saw but he certainly reported what it was he viewed from his perspective otherwise he would have a narrative of explination the spiritual and physics of what he saw. But no he didn't fully understand the revelation so he described it as he saw it.
I am glad that you believe in the inspiration of the Bible. I believe your statement here, because quite frankly, you are the only one I have ever heard that has ever espoused such a theory. Thus "everyone I heard espouse what I've proposed," probably just includes you. It is your opinion that you are posting, not the theological position of any others.