Age of the earth

[quantumfaith]

You state you don't hold science over God's Word...but by this comment that clearly is not the case. To claim we evolved into humans is clearly anti-God! Your view is heresy, blasphemy, and has no place in the life of a believer. I pray you repent of this heinous error (and your intellectual pride you exhibit)

Well I do always appreciate when my brothers and sisters in Christ offer prayer for me, but not in the spirit and attitude of judgementalism that you seem to be offering. Nothing about the scientific concept of evolution is "anti-god", rather it simply does not fit your theological picture. To be sure, there are countless evolutionary biologists who count themselves agnostic or even atheists. But aslo, there are multitudes of great thinkers who find it to be a perfectly compatible model for God's method of the "making" of mankind. You may level any logical or reasoned criticism, but Ijrespectfully ask that you not resort to "name callilng" (heretic, blasphemer).

 

[quantumfaith]

You state you don't hold science over God's Word...but by this comment that clearly is not the case. To claim we evolved into humans is clearly anti-God! Your view is heresy, blasphemy, and has no place in the life of a believer. I pray you repent of this heinous error (and your intellectual pride you exhibit)

FYI: Here is what I cherish:

There is One God (Yahweh), He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the God of the prophets, the God of the Kings of Israel and God the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ).

Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, was the incarnanation of God, he lived, breathed, ate, drank and taught among His creation. He died on the cross to secure the defeat of sin, which came to be because of the voluntary (willfull) choice of man. He rose again on the third day, defeating and demonstrating His power over the grave. His spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, convicted and convinced me of my sin and natural state and I responded by acknowledging who He was and what He did for me by confession and repentance of my sin, (which I try to do daily, btw). I believe He (Jesus) ascended to the Father, where he now resides making intercession for those who acknowledge, repent and confess. I believe He will return at some point in the future. If not before my days are through, I trust in the promise "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". Now that is the essence of what I believe. If you still want to call me a (heretic, blasphemer), then so be it, and I will refrain from sharing any further commentary with you.

Mercy, peace and Love in abundance.

 

[webdog]

Well I do always appreciate when my brothers and sisters in Christ offer prayer for me, but not in the spirit and attitude of judgementalism that you seem to be offering. Nothing about the scientific concept of evolution is "anti-god", rather it simply does not fit your theological picture. To be sure, there are countless evolutionary biologists who count themselves agnostic or even atheists. But aslo, there are multitudes of great thinkers who find it to be a perfectly compatible model for God's method of the "making" of mankind. You may level any logical or reasoned criticism, but Ijrespectfully ask that you not resort to "name callilng" (heretic, blasphemer).

I call them as I see them. You believe man evolved as such, I will believe God's Word that says God created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him. Darwinism does not fit my theological picture because is is anti-God. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is.

 

[webdog]

FYI: Here is what I cherish:

There is One God (Yahweh), He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the God of the prophets, the God of the Kings of Israel and God the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ).

Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, was the incarnanation of God, he lived, breathed, ate, drank and taught among His creation. He died on the cross to secure the defeat of sin, which came to be because of the voluntary (willfull) choice of man. He rose again on the third day, defeating and demonstrating His power over the grave. His spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, convicted and convinced me of my sin and natural state and I responded by acknowledging who He was and what He did for me by confession and repentance of my sin, (which I try to do daily, btw). I believe He (Jesus) ascended to the Father, where he now resides making intercession for those who acknowledge, repent and confess. I believe He will return at some point in the future. If not before my days are through, I trust in the promise "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". Now that is the essence of what I believe. If you still want to call me a (heretic, blasphemer), then so be it, and I will refrain from sharing any further commentary with you.

Mercy, peace and Love in abundance.

That's all good...but it does not refute my charge that your view of evolution is heresy and you hold to a scientific "theory" over immutable truth.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Quantumfaith is attempting to demonstrate that the essence of Christian commitment and faith is embodied in an understanding of the God who acts in history and who has expressed Himself in the incarnate Christ, and in faith in that God ... with the understanding that faith is relational far more than it is propositional. What he has written is very close to the historic creeds of the church (Apostles', e.g.), which affirm God as creator but do not require us to sign on to a particular understanding of how God created. So no, a reading of Genesis that is not literal is not heretical; it is an alternative approach, and it may still lead us to classic Christianity.

I have never understood why Biblical literalists use the "house of cards" argument, that if you cannot "believe" all of the Bible you cannot believe any of it. First of all, reading the Bible calls us to use our powers of historical reason and literary criticism; we cannot just suspend our faculties. Second, "belief" is to be centered on God, trust in God, not trust in a book. And third, why set yourself up for a fall if and when someone discovers a "fact" that cannot be reconciled to other known facts? The Bible is authoritative in what it teaches about God and our relationship to Him; but that is quite other than details of history or science.

 

[Revmitchell]

First of all, reading the Bible calls us to use our powers of historical reason and literary criticism; we cannot just suspend our faculties. Second, "belief" is to be centered on God, trust in God, not trust in a book.

The essence of liberalism right there. And quite shameful


There is no reason to pit God against scripture and there can be no relationship outside of scripture. This is God's chosen form of revelation to us and it is to be the standard for all faith and living. It is not just a book. It is the living word of God. Anything other than that is complete heresy by the strongest sense of the word.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's all good...but it does not refute my charge that your view of evolution is heresy and you hold to a scientific "theory" over immutable truth.

You can "charge" me all you want, I simply thank "GOD" that the business of judgement is the job of the diety and not yours. The immutable truth is "God Created and formed", the positional quandary that you protest so loudly about is the fact that I dont "read" and understand the "methods" of creations "just like you". There are those us (myself) who see the methods of creation as simply "astonishishing", that God with simply his spoken Word, said "let it be" and thus came about the "big bang" followed by quark confinement. And then this infinite mass and energy obeyed His word and formed atoms, and simple elements and coalesced into stars, planets and galaxies. The birth and death of stars created the heavier elements and formed planets, one called earth, where God focused His special attention and created the planet to "bring forth life" at his command. I think God is so awesome and infinitely powerful.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantumfaith is attempting to demonstrate that the essence of Christian commitment and faith is embodied in an understanding of the God who acts in history and who has expressed Himself in the incarnate Christ, and in faith in that God ... with the understanding that faith is relational far more than it is propositional. What he has written is very close to the historic creeds of the church (Apostles', e.g.), which affirm God as creator but do not require us to sign on to a particular understanding of how God created. So no, a reading of Genesis that is not literal is not heretical; it is an alternative approach, and it may still lead us to classic Christianity.

I have never understood why Biblical literalists use the "house of cards" argument, that if you cannot "believe" all of the Bible you cannot believe any of it. First of all, reading the Bible calls us to use our powers of historical reason and literary criticism; we cannot just suspend our faculties. Second, "belief" is to be centered on God, trust in God, not trust in a book. And third, why set yourself up for a fall if and when someone discovers a "fact" that cannot be reconciled to other known facts? The Bible is authoritative in what it teaches about God and our relationship to Him; but that is quite other than details of history or science.

Thanks so much for a well written, conscise and articulate response, and your response is not "shameful" as some would childishly suggest.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks so much for a well written, conscise and articulate response, and your response is not "shameful" as some would childishly suggest.

Liberals always think its childish to hold to a correct and high view of scripture and when one opposes the diminishing of scripture as has been done here today. Quite frankly it is evidence of scripture:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[quantumfaith]

Liberals always think its childish to hold to a correct and high view of scripture and when one opposes the diminishing of scripture as has been done here today. Quite frankly it is evidence of scripture:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I hold Holy Scripture in very high regard, the highest. It is you and your opinions that I do not.

 

[webdog]

You can "charge" me all you want, I simply thank "GOD" that the business of judgement is the job of the diety and not yours. The immutable truth is "God Created and formed", the positional quandary that you protest so loudly about is the fact that I dont "read" and understand the "methods" of creations "just like you". There are those us (myself) who see the methods of creation as simply "astonishishing", that God with simply his spoken Word, said "let it be" and thus came about the "big bang" followed by quark confinement. And then this infinite mass and energy obeyed His word and formed atoms, and simple elements and coalesced into stars, planets and galaxies. The birth and death of stars created the heavier elements and formed planets, one called earth, where God focused His special attention and created the planet to "bring forth life" at his command. I think God is so awesome and infinitely powerful.

Scripture does not say simply God created and formed, and any "theory" is used to fill in the gaps. The immutable truth is...
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Darwinism does not support this account, and regardless of what you or Joseph might maintain, it violates Scripture and is not another truthful alternate approach to the creation of man, but heresy.

 

[webdog]

I hold Holy Scripture in very high regard, the highest. It is you and your opinions that I do not.

Impossible if you believe we came from monkeys who came from fish who came from....

 

[quantumfaith]

Scripture does not say simply God created and formed, and any "theory" is used to fill in the gaps. The immutable truth is...
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Darwinism does not support this account, and regardless of what you or Joseph might maintain, it violates Scripture and is not an alternate approach to the creation of man, but heresy.

Fine, you keep your personal perspective and I will keep mine. One day, when we meet our maker, we will both understand completely, and perhaps we will both be surprised and astonished.

 

[webdog]

Fine, you keep your personal perspective and I will keep mine. One day, when we meet our maker, we will both understand completely, and perhaps we will both be surprised and astonished.

You are half right.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are half right.

And, what am I "half right" or "half wrong" about?

 

[olegig]

the subject of the age of the earth has been brougth up so lets do a poll

Hello everyone, I am new here, and in fact this is my first post.
Don't know why I picked this thread, other than it caught my attention.

I had a little trouble answering the poll question because IMO the intitial question is a bit loaded. I say "loaded" because I feel I know what is being asked even though I disagree with the terminology.

But since this is my first post, I will be brief with my answer.......

I feel the age of the earth is yet unkown, or at least I have never found it in scriptures if in fact God did reveal it to us.
So I would say the age of the earth is whatever science says it is.

However I feel the age of this world is exactly as stated in scripture, around 6,000 yrs (give or take a few).

 

[Marcia]

Well, if you really want to know what I think, Death is the "enemy" of man. It saddens and separates man. The "death" spoken of in Genesis was very obviously not the immeadiate cessation of Adam, as he lived on for many years. The implication being, that even more sinister than physical death, was the "death" of communion with the creator. I see not contradictions regarding scripture, in that, live existed and developed for millions of years prior to the advent of Mankind. God created the nature, and yes it was good, very good. I do not, and will not attempt to put God in a box and define him narrowly, he is infinite, in all senses of the word and more.

So you think there was death before sin?

 

[quantumfaith]

Hello everyone, I am new here, and in fact this is my first post.
Don't know why I picked this thread, other than it caught my attention.

I had a little trouble answering the poll question because IMO the intitial question is a bit loaded. I say "loaded" because I feel I know what is being asked even though I disagree with the terminology.

But since this is my first post, I will be brief with my answer.......

I feel the age of the earth is yet unkown, or at least I have never found it in scriptures if in fact God did reveal it to us.
So I would say the age of the earth is whatever science says it is.

However I feel the age of this world is exactly as stated in scripture, around 6,000 yrs (give or take a few).

Just a word of caution Olegig, if you do not hold to precisely the same postions of many on this board you will labled as a "liberal with a fatal disease, heretic or blasphemer. Just giving you a heads up.

 

[quantumfaith]

So you think there was death before sin?

Sure, I do. I see no problem with it, but I am sure you do.

 

[Marcia]

Sure, I do. I see no problem with it, but I am sure you do.

It's not whether or not I see a problem with it. It's comparing what you say against the Bible. God tells us that sin brought death into the world. So how could there be death before sin?

Again, I say if there was death only of animals and plants before sin, then how could the creation be good since God says death is the enemy?

Also, I noted that you said you think maybe God could have made man by changing one of the apelike forebears (that is not the way you said it but it's what I understood you were saying). But this is not what God tells us when says that he formed Adam from the ground/dust. In fact, I think that is why God is so specific here - this totally contradicts an evolutionary belief that man came from some kind of animal.