Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

[Marcia]

I agree with these statements by you, and I do agree that it is a moot point since we live in our world no matter what. I was just pointing out that your argument about there being no sin or death in an "old earth" isnt backed by proof either.

I am interested in this topic, and wish to hear valid arguments on both sides, but "I dont think" is not valid.

Personally, I believe that the Earth is only as old as Gen says it is, and that Adam and Eve were the first people here, but, I wanted to hear the reasoning behind the arguments, not just "I think"

I think a lot of things but what I think doesnt change the truth.

AJ

The Bible does not give us the info on how old the earth is (other than creation was in 6 days). However, science cannot give evidence for their beliefs about millions/billions of years.

There are no valid arguments for millions of years because man is not able to date things that far back.

 

[annsni]

Where does that leave a mule?

Donkeys and horses are both equines. They are of the same "kind" just as tigers and lions are so you breed them together, you get ligers. Oh - but a mule 99.9% of the time cannot reproduce - did you know that? It's beyond rare for one to be able to reproduce (I know of 1 case and that's it).

 

[annsni]

Scripture uses the "natural things" of this world as "Symbols" representing "Spiritual things",

and it the "Spiritual" that is preserved, not the natural.

"Sun" =Jesus, Spiritual light of the world

"Moon"= any assemble of God's people. Israel/church

"Stars"= Children of God.

"Water"= doctrine, words of God.

Are you saying that every time God speaks of the sun that it means Jesus? That every time stars are mentioned, it means children of God? Or just in this particular passage?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Scripture uses the "natural things" of this world as "Symbols" representing "Spiritual things",

and it the "Spiritual" that is preserved, not the natural.

"Sun" =Jesus, Spiritual light of the world

"Moon"= any assemble of God's people. Israel/church

"Stars"= Children of God.

"Water"= doctrine, words of God.

Utter nonsense.

 

[OldRegular]

Having helped launch the discussion on literal reading of Genesis, but not having wanted to fuel any more fires (besides which I have plenty of ministry things to do rather than sit at the computer and argue), I have stayed out of this thread for some days. But comments -- and this is not the first one -- that suggest that those of us who do not read all of the Bible literally, but see Genesis 1-11 as parable or image or myth or whatever (NOT allegory, as one poster said of my stance), have made me come back in to say that no one other than anti-Christian skeptics thinks that the Bible is deceptive. The Bible is a vehicle which has recorded the actions of a creating, redeeming God. About that I have no question.

But we do live in a world in which scientific habits of thought are prevalent, and which have to be taken into consideration. I am well aware that science is a philosophy as well as a methodology. But I cannot dismiss its conclusions, even if they are sometimes tentative conclusions. I have to take seriously what has been learned, and honesty compels me not to write them off or to twist them to fit my a priori hopes or wants. I have to read truth with BOTH the Biblical and the scientific lenses, and must apply critical faculties to both.

So, critical study leads me (and of course, not me alone, but many scholars, of whom I am hardly one) to read Genesis 1-11 as poetry (maybe that suits us more than parable, myth, image?!). My Philosophy of Religion professor used to put it like this: "We recite a little ditty, 'My love is like a red, red, rose". But we do not mean that the object of our affections has petals and thorns! It's poetry, it's simile or metaphor."

By the way, though it is common to speak about "believing" Genesis 1-11 literally or metaphorically, it seems to me that "thinking" is more appropriate. Belief is about faith and personal trust. What I think about the Bible and its message is prolegomena to belief, but is not its substitute. Therefore I do not subscribe to, among other things, the "house of cards" theory that argues that if one passage of the Bible is shown to be untrue, then it all topples. No, it does not. Truth is truth whatever the surroundings might be. And I never speak of a passage of the Bible as untrue ... only as prescientific and intended to take us to a deeper meaning than how many years we have been around or where the Garden was located, etc.

Rant finished. Back to sermon preparation.

You would have done well to stick to sermon preparation. There is nothing in the first 11 chapters of Genesis to suggest that it uses either simile or metaphors. It is true that Genesis 2 and 3 are written with a different purpose than Genesis 1 but all of Genesis 1-11 must be considered as historical truth, brief though it may be.

One thing we have learned over the years is that science is a work in progress, The Bible is a completed work and its veracity is proven by history and fulfilled prophecy. Furthermore, certain teachings of Genesis 1-11 were verified by our Savour, Jesus Christ.

Certainly you cannot argue that the account of the fall was poetry or the following promise of a Redeemer. I have posted the following before but it seems to be appropriate here.

For those “devout” Christians who compromise the Biblical teaching of creation with the claims of evolution, evolutionist A. J. Mattell writes:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[Thinkingstuff]

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

Bad assertion. First of all what do you mean by "liberal" Christian? I'm conservative in my political views. What does liberal in your context mean?

Next the assertion that myths or allegories undermine the rest of scripture isn't necissarily true. Many believe the genesis account to be myth but hold that the is a true spiritual principle. Also As Jesus is representative of all mankind so an "Adam" type is also representative. So they believe in a fall which leads to hell which leads to a need for Jesus, which leads to the crusifiction and resurection.

Now lets say scientist discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth has existed for millions of years and that man is only a more recent inhabitant of the planet. Don't you think that people will dismiss the bible in its entirety? Saying well Genesis isn't right so the rest is bunk. And have you done those people service by a literal view of genesis? So, I've argued the other way that you could possibly be "destroying the christian faith".

 

[Revmitchell]

Bad assertion. First of all what do you mean by "liberal" Christian? I'm conservative in my political views. What does liberal in your context mean?

Liberal applies to theology as well. And a non-literal view of scripture qualifies as liberal.

Next the assertion that myths or allegories undermine the rest of scripture isn't necissarily true.

When they are used in places of literal history that addresses key doctrine it is necessarily true.

Many believe the genesis account to be myth but hold that the is a true spiritual principle.

The fall of man is more that just a principle. Liberal views that distort that undermine scripture and a primary part of the gospel.

Also As Jesus is representative of all mankind so an "Adam" type is also representative.

Jesus does not represent all of man kind. Man was created, Jesus was not, man is mortal, Jesus is not, man needs redemption, Jesus does not.

Adam does not represent man kind, Adam brought corruption into all the world. You set Adam up as an allegory that represents all of man kind and Jesus a literal man that represents man kind in the same way an allegory does. It begs the question do you understand Jesus as being literal.

So they believe in a fall which leads to hell which leads to a need for Jesus, which leads to the crusifiction and resurection.

So where and when was this fall? Why set up an allegory if the fall is also reality?

Now lets say scientist discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth has existed for millions of years and that man is only a more recent inhabitant of the planet. Don't you think that people will dismiss the bible in its entirety? Saying well Genesis isn't right so the rest is bunk. And have you done those people service by a literal view of genesis? So, I've argued the other way that you could possibly be "destroying the christian faith".

Pure hypothetical that has no merit. Its a "lets play it safe" mentality and it is unnecessary and a poor argument.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rev,
I think you misunderstood the whole post.

Representative man (Adam) in the sence that he represented all of mankind. Like a fuedal lord type of thing.

I did not say these people who view the creation account as a myth disregard the incarnation. They don't. They believe in the trinity.

I'm not saying that they are saying to play it safe but arguing the senario to show the same could be said of the other position.

As far as liberal

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

You first have to define Orthodox. Are there aspects of the bible you don't take literally. The argument that if it says its a story then its a story. Where does that but you with Jesus comment of Lazerus and the Rich man? Do you believe Zion's streets are literally paved with Gold. Do you Believe a dragon will rise out of the sea with horns on its head?

I'm personally more interested in truth. What was the writing of the day? Did you read my comment about Moses and Summerian ancient literature?

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev,
I think you misunderstood the whole post.

Representative man (Adam) in the sence that he represented all of mankind. Like a fuedal lord type of thing.

I did not say these people who view the creation account as a myth disregard the incarnation. They don't. They believe in the trinity.

I'm not saying that they are saying to play it safe but arguing the senario to show the same could be said of the other position.

As far as liberal



You first have to define Orthodox. Are there aspects of the bible you don't take literally. The argument that if it says its a story then its a story. Where does that but you with Jesus comment of Lazerus and the Rich man? Do you believe Zion's streets are literally paved with Gold. Do you Believe a dragon will rise out of the sea with horns on its head?

I'm personally more interested in truth. What was the writing of the day? Did you read my comment about Moses and Summerian ancient literature?

You need to rereadmy post.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You need to rereadmy post.

I did.

Liberal applies to theology as well. And a non-literal view of scripture qualifies as liberal.

To which I was asking:

Are there aspects of the bible you don't take literally. The argument that if it says its a story then its a story. Where does that but you with Jesus comment of Lazerus and the Rich man? Do you believe Zion's streets are literally paved with Gold. Do you Believe a dragon will rise out of the sea with horns on its head?

So where do you fall into this area?

you said:

When they are used in places of literal history that addresses key doctrine it is necessarily true.

I would reply or someone with the opposing view would say Which areas do you hold literally and not. Is key doctrine always established by literal interpretations of something? Trinity is a key doctrine and is not literally noted anywhere in scriptures. It is reasoned by how you interpret what the bible is saying.

You said:

The fall of man is more that just a principle. Liberal views that distort that undermine scripture and a primary part of the gospel

Did you know the name Adam comes from Adamah which means earth? So you see where someone may come in with a differing view than yours with regard to the creation story.

You said

Jesus does not represent all of man kind. Man was created, Jesus was not, man is mortal, Jesus is not, man needs redemption, Jesus does not.

Adam does not represent man kind, Adam brought corruption into all the world. You set Adam up as an allegory that represents all of man kind and Jesus a literal man that represents man kind in the same way an allegory does. It begs the question do you understand Jesus as being literal.

There is no contention with the incarnation. But Jesus does redeem man by his act as it states here:

21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

do you believe the believer is incerted into the place that Jesus holds as a man and is Justified that way? Because that seems to be what you're arguing for. So through Adam we are fallen and through Christ we are redeemed.

you Said:

So where and when was this fall? Why set up an allegory if the fall is also reality?

to explain something in a way we understand but the fall is not an allegory. Its reality

you said:

Pure hypothetical that has no merit. Its a "lets play it safe" mentality and it is unnecessary and a poor argument.

Not hypothetical at all there are people who believe the bible is false because scientifically the creation account doesn't hold up.

 

[Revmitchell]

I did.



To which I was asking:



So where do you fall into this area?

you said:

I would reply or someone with the opposing view would say Which areas do you hold literally and not. Is key doctrine always established by literal interpretations of something? Trinity is a key doctrine and is not literally noted anywhere in scriptures. It is reasoned by how you interpret what the bible is saying.

You said: Did you know the name Adam comes from Adamah which means earth? So you see where someone may come in with a differing view than yours with regard to the creation story.

You said
There is no contention with the incarnation. But Jesus does redeem man by his act as it states here:


do you believe the believer is incerted into the place that Jesus holds as a man and is Justified that way? Because that seems to be what you're arguing for. So through Adam we are fallen and through Christ we are redeemed.

you Said:

to explain something in a way we understand but the fall is not an allegory. Its reality

you said:
Not hypothetical at all there are people who believe the bible is false because scientifically the creation account doesn't hold up.

I had forgotten you play devils advocate. I will say this however, Science is unreliable, anyone who takes it over scripture is a fool. It is poor reasoning skills that interprets scripture by mans science. Todays science will be yesterdays flat earth in a years time. If science does not line up with a literal understanding of God's word then it is bad science. Such errors come out of the hyper-intellectual base of reasoning.

 

[Me4Him]

Are you saying that every time God speaks of the sun that it means Jesus? That every time stars are mentioned, it means children of God? Or just in this particular passage?

It depends on the "Context", but in this context it's the "Spiritual application", the "natural" is not going to be "preserved "forever" , but melt with fervent heat.

The world is full of "Symbols" representing spiritual things.

 

[Me4Him]

Utter nonsense.

Ge 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

There's no much of scripture you will understand if you don't recognize what the symbols represent.

 

[OldRegular]

Original Post by OldRegular
“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

Response by thinking stuff?
Bad assertion. First of all what do you mean by "liberal" Christian? I'm conservative in my political views. What does liberal in your context mean?

You really need to read each post twice before you respond. I was quoting an evolutionist by the name of A. J. Mattell so you really should talk to him. However, since I quoted him I will respond to your remark. His assertion is completely valid in everything he states. No man named Adam, no fall, no need for redemption; therefore, "Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

I really don't care what your political views are when discussing Scripture. On the Politics or News Forums it would be a different story. The use of liberal or neo orthodox are terms used by Mr. Mattell. Generally when I speak of anyone's approach to Scripture I use the terms believer or unbeliever. From what you have said so far I would have to put you in the latter class.

Response by thinking stuff?
Next the assertion that myths or allegories undermine the rest of scripture isn't necissarily[sp] true. Many believe the genesis account to be myth but hold that the is a true spiritual principle. Also As Jesus is representative of all mankind so an "Adam" type is also representative. So they believe in a fall which leads to hell which leads to a need for Jesus, which leads to the crusifiction[sp] and resurection[sp].

I said nothing about either myth or allegory undermining the rest of Scripture. Allegory is occasionally used in Scripture. Paul uses allegory in his letter to the Galatians. Many may believe the Genesis account to be a myth but they are sadly mistaken. If you will check Scripture thoroughly you will see that Jesus Christ quoted from Genesis, Chapter 2. If you assert that Genesis is mythical you question the veracity of Jesus Christ. If you assert there are mythical stories in Scripture you are foolish. Furthermore, if those who believe Genesis is mythical yet is a true spiritual principle perhaps they should associate with the New Agers.

Again if you check Scripture you will also see that the Apostle Paul recognized Adam as an individual. Paul asserts that Adam, the federal head of mankind, brought sin and death into the world and all are affected by his fall.

You are sadly mistaken if you believe that Jesus is representative of all mankind. All mankind are sinners by nature. Jesus Christ is unique, without sin, fully human and fully divine.

Response by thinking stuff?
Now lets say scientist discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth has existed for millions of years and that man is only a more recent inhabitant of the planet. Don't you think that people will dismiss the bible in its entirety? Saying well Genesis isn't right so the rest is bunk. And have you done those people service by a literal view of genesis? So, I've argued the other way that you could possibly be "destroying the christian faith".

You have asked a mythical question and I normally don't respond to mythical questions. However, some people already believe that scientists have discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth has existed for billions of years and that man has inhabited the earth for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. I suppose these people do and will think just as you do.
___

 

[Marcia]

Next the assertion that myths or allegories undermine the rest of scripture isn't necissarily true. Many believe the genesis account to be myth but hold that the is a true spiritual principle. Also As Jesus is representative of all mankind so an "Adam" type is also representative. So they believe in a fall which leads to hell which leads to a need for Jesus, which leads to the crusifiction and resurection.

Saying genesis is a myth but there is a spiritual principle there is no help, because if it's a myth, one can interpret it almost any way wants to. It also defies the narrative style. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate we should take it as myth, especially when the 6 days of creation are referred to in Exodus 20 (in a passage that is clearly anything but mythical), and when Adam is referred to and written about as a real person, in the OT and NT.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ge 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

There's no much of scripture you will understand if you don't recognize what the symbols represent.

That was a dream man. Sometimes, the symbols mean something, and other times they don't. What you said was utter nonsense with no biblical backing whatsoever.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I had forgotten you play devils advocate. I will say this however, Science is unreliable, anyone who takes it over scripture is a fool. It is poor reasoning skills that interprets scripture by mans science. Todays science will be yesterdays flat earth in a years time. If science does not line up with a literal understanding of God's word then it is bad science. Such errors come out of the hyper-intellectual base of reasoning.

You're right. I like playing devils advocate when it comes to the whole creation thing. Primarily because I think Christians don't give fair play to those who believe in what the current science thoughts are some of which is valid. Also on athiest boards I am the Christian who gets lambasted. Because they also misrepresent what christians say. I think a better approach is to attack what is actually being said than sophestry. That way ideas are more accurately reached. For instance I personally believe in a 6 day creation but that's only after becoming a christian. Before that I was a fan of Carl Sagan. Often times as I questioned my faith and I proposed ideas such as "God used evolution to create the world" the only responce I would get from those I knew in fellowship was "well your mother may have been an ape but mine wasn't" which did nothing to spur my faith. Fortunately, I'm an advid reader and there are great books on the subject. Also most "liberal" bible colleges have the different sources of the bible view such as J E P D D1. That also is an interesting debate because they are often just dismissed without looking at their view. And the simple answer to this view is internal quoting. Which using something itself to determine its authentisity is not an academic or scientific way of looking at it so we go round and round. This is not worthy debate its sophestry (spelling off I know).
I have no fear of science. I believe God will be proved out. So nothing is wrong with understanding it. How many times has a critical look at scripture change a perspective or using academic methods have made the scriptural deposit more revealing? I've often used my limited knowledge of an issue to witness to people and when people feel that they are being heard and their thoughts are actually being looked at are more likely to hear what you have to say. This works often more for me than preaching to someone. Its like coming up along side as a friend and saying why do you think that? I know several people who will have nothing to do with christianity just because they were "preached at and told they were going to hell" but they gave it a second look when I discussed their ideas with them and also by being cheritable. But I can't do that unless I know what they are talking about. I've gone off track. Sorry, but that's why I often take up the Devils Advocate on this site because my thought is that the majority here on this board are, if not all, are saved and secure in their faith.
Just as an aside once someone said "where creationist hit paydirt is with Astrophysics" And personally I think Inflation Theory is a "God" foot print on the universe. I would be interested in the Hadron Collider discoveries once its online again. See if we can find traces of the Higgs Boson particles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Saying genesis is a myth but there is a spiritual principle there is no help, because if it's a myth, one can interpret it almost any way wants to. It also defies the narrative style. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate we should take it as myth, especially when the 6 days of creation are referred to in Exodus 20 (in a passage that is clearly anything but mythical), and when Adam is referred to and written about as a real person, in the OT and NT.

There is nothing in the Enuma Elish in itself to indicate that we should take that as myth either.

 

[Revmitchell]

You're right. I like playing devils advocate when it comes to the whole creation thing. Primarily because I think Christians don't give fair play to those who believe in what the current science thoughts are some of which is valid. Also on athiest boards I am the Christian who gets lambasted. Because they also misrepresent what christians say. I think a better approach is to attack what is actually being said than sophestry. That way ideas are more accurately reached. For instance I personally believe in a 6 day creation but that's only after becoming a christian. Before that I was a fan of Carl Sagan. Often times as I questioned my faith and I proposed ideas such as "God used evolution to create the world" the only responce I would get from those I knew in fellowship was "well your mother may have been an ape but mine wasn't" which did nothing to spur my faith. Fortunately, I'm an advid reader and there are great books on the subject. Also most "liberal" bible colleges have the different sources of the bible view such as J E P D D1. That also is an interesting debate because they are often just dismissed without looking at their view. And the simple answer to this view is internal quoting. Which using something itself to determine its authentisity is not an academic or scientific way of looking at it so we go round and round. This is not worthy debate its sophestry (spelling off I know).
I have no fear of science. I believe God will be proved out. So nothing is wrong with understanding it. How many times has a critical look at scripture change a perspective or using academic methods have made the scriptural deposit more revealing? I've often used my limited knowledge of an issue to witness to people and when people feel that they are being heard and their thoughts are actually being looked at are more likely to hear what you have to say. This works often more for me than preaching to someone. Its like coming up along side as a friend and saying why do you think that? I know several people who will have nothing to do with christianity just because they were "preached at and told they were going to hell" but they gave it a second look when I discussed their ideas with them and also by being cheritable. But I can't do that unless I know what they are talking about. I've gone off track. Sorry, but that's why I often take up the Devils Advocate on this site because my thought is that the majority here on this board are, if not all, are saved and secure in their faith.
Just as an aside once someone said "where creationist hit paydirt is with Astrophysics" And personally I think Inflation Theory is a "God" foot print on the universe. I would be interested in the Hadron Collider discoveries once its online again. See if we can find traces of the Higgs Boson particles.

I have never seen anyone misrepresent what atheists say about evolution and it isn't relevant to this thread if it were even true. Continue on with your games.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have never seen anyone misrepresent what atheists say about evolution and it isn't relevant to this thread if it were even true. Continue on with your games.

Tell me then what do athiest say? With regard to creation? My contention is that they say the bible is a myth like the Enuma Elish. That there is no God. That everything is because of how the universe progressed over million and millions of years. Some like Arther C. Clark believe that their may even be an intelligent alien that ordered the Universe to suit its own end. Ultimately, most I've come accross anyway believe we are here by chance. Millions and Millions of years later.