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

[Marcia]

No. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


A bird evolving into a dinasaur is not reproducing after its kind.

Amy, you took the word right out of my mouth - rather out of the Bible! :wavey:

But I was thinking them!

 

[ajg1959]

I have excellent reasons for not thinking it's true: I believe the Genesis account of creation as it reads, 6 literal days. And it is affirmed in Exodus 20.

There is no proof for an old earth, so why do I need to prove that there isn't? The burden is on the people who believe in an old earth. That is a belief system.

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

 

[Jedi Knight]

I can only imagine a working "week"after the pattern of evolution. We ALL would be waiting 1000,000,000 years to say "Thank God it's Friday!"??:laugh:

 

[rjprince]

not gonna read all this one tonight, but to answer the question. NO. Less than 10,000.

BTW, I do believe in the Big Bang, but the one I believe in comes at the end! (2Pet 3:10)

 

[saturneptune]

Gen.7:20 covers the earth with water above the mountain tops which helps explain to me why it is fairly easy to find clam shells and such up around Mt. Rainier, I know that for a fact having found some both at the river park at the base of the mountain just inside the park and up atop of Eagles Peak a nearby mountain in the park. Now Gen.8:1 answers us as to what happened to the water in one sentence verses 2-14 are more descriptive.

We visited New Mexico last summer, and took the tram to Sandia Crest outside Albuquerque. It is 10,000 ft above sea level, and you can plainly see the fossils of shells imbedded in the rocks. Your explaination is the best one I have heard.

 

[annsni]

In prehistoric life, we are dealing with animal life and not human life as we know it. We do know that evolution is the process employed in animal development. Take the simple example of the wolf and the dog. This development is only wintessed in the wild, but it is there. We have no time line.

Jim - What you are speaking of is called microevolution - where small changes occur due to the environment and survival of the fittest sort of thing. However, this has never successfully changed one "kind" to another. Macroevolution is the larger evolution that is argued against by Christians.

Microevolution is observable. Just selective breeding has done many things to change creatures from what they were to what they are today. Macroevolution is not observable or supportable by the scientific evidence.

 

[Martin Luther]

No. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


A bird evolving into a dinasaur is not reproducing after its kind.

Good post, evolution has never been proven. Darwin admitted that there was no proof of evolution; it's not even a theory by scientific standards.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

You are a retired pastor?

I appreciate your years of service to the Lord, but the question remains,

If the first part of the Bible (Gen 1-11 according to you) is poetry and not true, then what else is just poetry?

As far as your argument of the Bible being a "house of cards" when it comes to believing it all or none....I stick to my original statement, when you decide that part of it is just "poetry" and not literal, what else can you discard as real?

AJ

I did not say and do not say that it is "just" poetry, as if to diminish it. Genesis 1-11 is all the more meaningful because it does speak of our human condition. It's not about "Adam's" problem; it's bout mine. It's not about "Eve's" disobedience, its' about mine. It's not about two brothers, one of whom kills the other; it's about our profound hostility toward one another, our fallenness.

So I have not discarded Genesis, nor do I discard anything else. The rabbis in their wisdom and the church in its processes recognized these writings as revelatory, and I do not dispute those decisions.

But neither do I surrender the critical faculties that God gave dedicated scholars, who both think through knotty issues and serve the Kingdom. The models and scholars I have looked to throughout my education and ministry (ordained in 1964) have been churchmen and prayerful people, but they arrived at their understandings not simply by jiggering the data to fit a preconception. They examined, questioned, and concluded -- which is called the scientific method. I, though a shadow of their capacities, follow in their train.

 

[Me4Him]

Gen.7:20 covers the earth with water above the mountain tops which helps explain to me why it is fairly easy to find clam shells and such up around Mt. Rainier, I know that for a fact having found some both at the river park at the base of the mountain just inside the park and up atop of Eagles Peak a nearby mountain in the park. Now Gen.8:1 answers us as to what happened to the water in one sentence verses 2-14 are more descriptive.

"Ancient old timers", told of a "Flat Earth" at one time.

"Mountains" in scripture "Symbolize" "kingdoms".

Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low:

Lu 3:5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low;

Re 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.

If every valley is "FILLED" and mountains not found, you would have a "flat earth",

Not the planet, but the terrian.

The only "mountain" (kingdom) left on the planet when Jesus reigns is the "Holy Mountain", the "Holy Mount" at "Jerusalem".

Eze 20:40 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them,

Joe 3:17 So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy,

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

The Scriptures, have been/will be manifested here in/by the physical world,

but man, science especially, laughs at spiritual interpretations, just as they did/do at "Flat Earthers",

But we'll see who has the "last laugh".

 

[Alcott]

I dont understand how this changes the meaning or message of Gen?

If that's really a question, as you punctuated it, I don't know if you do or not.
Who were Abraham's descendants in Genesis?
Who were Abrahams' descendants in the NT?
Are they absolutely the same?

 

[Alcott]

the dichotomy between poetry and truth is a false one. The Bible is full of poetry, all of which is true.

Psalm 148 is obviously poetry. It says He commanded them-- the angels, hosts, sun, moon, waters, et al-- and established them forever and ever-- v.6. If that is true, how are the words of Jesus also true that "heaven and earth shall pass away" (Matthew 24:35)? (and also John's vision in Revelation 21:1 that they have passed away?

 

[gb93433]

No. We know that everything reproduces after its own kind.

Where does that leave a mule?

 

[Me4Him]

Psalm 148 is obviously poetry. It says He commanded them-- the angels, hosts, sun, moon, waters, et al-- and established them forever and ever-- v.6. If that is true, how are the words of Jesus also true that "heaven and earth shall pass away" (Matthew 24:35)? (and also John's vision in Revelation 21:1 that they have passed away?

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.

 

[MB]

Psalm 148 is obviously poetry. It says He commanded them-- the angels, hosts, sun, moon, waters, et al-- and established them forever and ever-- v.6. If that is true, how are the words of Jesus also true that "heaven and earth shall pass away" (Matthew 24:35)? (and also John's vision in Revelation 21:1 that they have passed away?

The only thing that makes since to me is that the host the moon stars, and water are not the level of heaven he was speaking of. In fact none of these are heaven at all. Though they may be in a heaven of sorts.
MB

 

[Pastor Larry]

salm 148 is obviously poetry. It says He commanded them-- the angels, hosts, sun, moon, waters, et al-- and established them forever and ever-- v.6. If that is true, how are the words of Jesus also true that "heaven and earth shall pass away" (Matthew 24:35)? (and also John's vision in Revelation 21:1 that they have passed away?

Not sure what your question here here. There's no doubt that this universe will be brought to an end. The phrase "forever and ever" does not necessarily mean eternity has we think of it. Here is simply means that the celestial order is permanent.

 

[MB]

As near as I can read Paul says;
2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
MB

 

[Alcott]

Not sure what your question here here. There's no doubt that this universe will be brought to an end. The phrase "forever and ever" does not necessarily mean eternity has we think of it. Here is simply means that the celestial order is permanent.

Then "forever and ever" does not equal "eternity," which does not equal "permanent." Yes or No?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Then "forever and ever" does not equal "eternity," which does not equal "permanent." Yes or No?

Correct. It does not mean "eternity" in every case. Just do a word search on the Hebrew word 'olam and see all the ways in which it it used. It will quickly become obvious that it doesn't always mean "eternity." Like most words, it has a semantic domain.

 

[Alcott]

Okay, I took your advice, and I get:

"A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time."

Most OT uses of the term refer to the reign of the LORD. Apparently that phrase does not necessarily mean he will reign with no ending of time. It's also used with "his name shall be praised ___" and enemy "nations shall be blotted out ___" None of these are necessarily permanent.

The NT Greek use of the term "forver and ever"-- aionas ton aionon-- means "ages of the ages." The usage seem similar to the OT usage, but it is particularly present in Revelation, which has 12 of the 17 NT uses, which are all about eternal life, eternal kingdom, or eternal torment.

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from all this concerning the subject of this thread... I would say it is that scripture is not as definite, literal, or precise when abstract utterances of time are used as many of us wish to be the case.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If there is a conclusion to be drawn from all this concerning the subject of this thread... I would say it is that scripture is not as definite, literal, or precise when abstract utterances of time are used as many of us wish to be the case.

I agree. I think you have the nail on the head.

But how does that apply to Genesis 1? Sometimes Scripture is very definite as to time, and the grammar and syntax of Genesis 1 indicates that it is definite with respect to time.

When you search out the Hebrew construction used in Gen 1, you find that it only ever means a 24 hour day. It never means anything else. Virtually every Hebrew lexicon says this (BDB, HALOT, TWOT, etc.) I think that is very revealing about what the text itself says.