Does It Matter

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

There is nothing wrong with believing the scripture and the literal 6 day, and after the creation of the heaven and the earth there was a void and during that void I believe the rebellion began and a third of the angels rebelled against God. It was over our going to be created. This was when devil was cast down and why he was there to be the serpent. The devil hates us with a burning rage because he blames us. He thinks he and the angel was the best creation and man should never be created and that is why he rebelled against God. He is out to prove that God should never of created us. Then the creation was just the way God said He did each day. Most of what I said is my opinion, just like pink and I wouldn't force it on no one. To believe scriptural literal 6 day is important

 

[nodak]

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but there are two things I believe quite firmly:

We can trust the Genesis account. And God does not lie.

Based on those two thoughts, I find myself old earth creationist....leaning strongly to gap theory, but open to other forms of old earth creationism.

So yes, I believe God literally created the earth in 6 days. However, science shows me that what He could do in a nanoinstant then we may perceive as 24 hours today without in any way contradicting the Bible, which does not use the term "24 hour day".

Nor does it say the days were successive the way we perceive the calendar. The concept of a 24 hour day comes from science, not the Bible.

Since I do not believe God lies, I see no reason He would create the world in one way but make it APPEAR to our observation (which is all real science is anyway) to have been created another way.

So I believe it is important to trust and believe in God and the Bible, and that there is no need to fear real science of observation. When we understand both correctly there will be no place where we have to choose to believe the Bible or believe science.

I also believe quite strongly that this is an area where Satan is the author of confusion. We spend far too much time debating this, and declaring our brother or sister in Christ to be deluded, or a heretic, or some other unflattering term. That time could be put to much better use proclaiming Jesus Christ.

He is the Author and Finisher of my faith. He is the foundation stone, not 6 day creationism.

 

[Havensdad]

This will probably be debated until the end of time, but there are two things I believe quite firmly:

We can trust the Genesis account. And God does not lie.

Based on those two thoughts, I find myself old earth creationist....leaning strongly to gap theory, but open to other forms of old earth creationism.

Nothing in the Bible supports that. Be honest with yourself: you believe this, because you trust what certain "scientists" say is proven.

So yes, I believe God literally created the earth in 6 days.

No you don't.

However, science shows me that what He could do in a nanoinstant then we may perceive as 24 hours today

See? I told you.

without in any way contradicting the Bible,

The Bible says normal days.

which does not use the term "24 hour day".

Yes, it does. The phrase "evening and morning" is the Hebrew expression meaning 24 hours. A Jewish day started in the evening, and ended in the morning. Besides, the seventh day, God rested: this is used as a basis for us resting on the seventh day. Are we supposed to rest for millions of years?

Nor does it say the days were successive the way we perceive the calendar. The concept of a 24 hour day comes from science, not the Bible.

Not so. "Evening and Morning" means a normal day.

Since I do not believe God lies, I see no reason He would create the world in one way but make it APPEAR to our observation (which is all real science is anyway) to have been created another way.

There is nothing in observable science that states the Earth is millions of years old. By your logic, though the Bible says God made trees (not planted seeds), God was lying because he made them adult trees. But He TOLD us how He did it: it is not His fault that you don't trust Him, and you trust secular Scientists instead (I doubt you have done empirical scientific tests yourself to determine the age of the earth.)

So I believe it is important to trust and believe in God and the Bible, and that there is no need to fear real science of observation. When we understand both correctly there will be no place where we have to choose to believe the Bible or believe science.

Basing your interpretation of the Bible, on the OPINION of Atheists and pseudo atheists, is absurd in the highest degree. The Science supports a young earth.

It is not a battle between science and the Bible. You are a victim of PBS style brainwashing. It is a battle between the interpretation of scientific facts from a Christian perspective, vs. interpretation of scientific facts from a secular/atheist perspective.

I also believe quite strongly that this is an area where Satan is the author of confusion. We spend far too much time debating this, and declaring our brother or sister in Christ to be deluded, or a heretic, or some other unflattering term. That time could be put to much better use proclaiming Jesus Christ.

This is misguided. Christ is truth. You cannot say "I love Jesus" but then deny what God says, and expect everyone else t go along. The Bible, and science, support a normal, literal intepretation of Genesis. The Earth is young.

He is the Author and Finisher of my faith. He is the foundation stone, not 6 day creationism.

How do you know he is the author and finisher? Perhaps this was some euphemism meaning something else? Why take this literally, when you refuse to take the beginning literally?

Satan is indeed involved: by making Christians doubt Genesis, he places a wedge, to get them to doubt the rest of the book.

 

[nodak]

havensdad, your reply is insulting and demeaning.

You are a perfect example of what I said: your time would more profitably have been spent sharing Jesus with an unbeliever. You assume how and why I came my conclusions without even knowing me.

I am honest with myself. I believe neither the scientists nor those determined to force their interpretation of scripture.

I believe God, and the Bible. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

So stop judging how I come to my conclusions.

 

[just-want-peace]

Havensdad sez:

You are a victim of PBS style brainwashing. It is a battle between the interpretation of scientific facts from a Christian perspective, vs. interpretation of scientific facts from a secular/atheist perspective.

Bolded mine

BINGO!!!!!!!!

Same geologic facts available to both sides.

Neither side can PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY a particular view.

Difference is that YE creationists admit up front that its a belief in His word that determines their conclusion, whereas others insist that SCIENCE proves their view rather than their "FAITH" in the scientific process.

Reality is, it's faith in either case: just a difference in the focus of that faith.
​

 

[Winman]

You guys that believe the six days were long ages still have major problems, the Genesis account disagrees with modern science in several other ways.

#1 The scriptures say the earth was created before the sun (and stars).

#2 The scriptures say there was light before the sun was created.

# 3 The scriptures say God created the plants before the sun (how could these plants survive for a long age without sunlight?).

# 4 Science says the first life was one-celled, the first animal mentioned in the Genesis account are the "great whales", the largest animal ever to exist on earth (I love that one!).

# 5 The scriptures say birds (fowls) were created before insects (what did they eat for ages, and how did the plants survive?).

So, time is the least of your problems. There is no way you can reconcile Genesis with the teachings of modern science.

 

[TC]

This subject is not a big deal to me. The Bible says that in the beginning God created. It does not say when the beginning was. It was a man (an unbelieving Jewish rabbi - I say unbelieving because he did not believe that Jesus was/is the messiah) that said the Earth was created in 4004 BC. He came up with the idea of counting back the geneologies of the Bible from known timelines to get when God originally created. Now, his view has been adopted by YEC's (young Earth creationists) and if anyone does not believe this interpretation, then they are told that they do not believe the Bible. The real problem is that it it not the Bible vs. science or the Bible vs. nature, it is fallible mans interpretation of the Bible vs. fallible mans interpretation of science/nature (I don't remember the source of this statement, but I believe it to be true).

The most important point to me is that God created the Heavens and the Earth and God created man. Man sinned and now the gospel is the remedy for our sin.

 

[Winman]

This subject is not a big deal to me

It may not be a big deal to you, but our schools are teaching our children that the scriptures are a superstitious myth. Children are taught from a young age to doubt the scriptures and no doubt many will die in unbelief because of this.

 

[asterisktom]

This subject is not a big deal to me. The Bible says that in the beginning God created. It does not say when the beginning was. It was a man (an unbelieving Jewish rabbi - I say unbelieving because he did not believe that Jesus was/is the messiah) that said the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

This is news to me. I believe it was Archbishop Ussher, a devout Christian, who first gave us that date. I realize that this is not germane to the thread, but I thought that this was worth pointing out.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It was a man (an unbelieving Jewish rabbi - I say unbelieving because he did not believe that Jesus was/is the messiah) that said the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

Archbishop James Usher - the Primate of All Ireland in the Anglican Church and noted lecturer at Trinity College Dublin was an unbelieving Jewish rabbi? That is interesting. Do you have any evidence to support that contention?

Whether or not one precisely agrees with his findings is one thing. But to turn a noted Anglican, Bible scholar, opponent of Catholicism, and leader of the Church of Ireland 'an unbelieving Jewish rabbi is quite a leap.

 

[Havensdad]

havensdad, your reply is insulting and demeaning.

You are a perfect example of what I said: your time would more profitably have been spent sharing Jesus with an unbeliever. You assume how and why I came my conclusions without even knowing me.

I am honest with myself. I believe neither the scientists nor those determined to force their interpretation of scripture.

I believe God, and the Bible. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

So stop judging how I come to my conclusions.

Sorry, my friend. There is not a nice way to say "You're calling God a liar."

BTW; send me 100 dollars, and I will send you one million, in just six days...:tonofbricks:

 

[MB]

Hi Short Andy;
I believe in a longer creation because of how Genesis reads. It says;
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
God is all knowledgeable He knew which planet would be the earth before He created it. Yet He created it first with out form and void?. There simply was no dry land and days did not begin there cycle until He created the light.
I know this is called the gap theory. Since God is perfect and the things He creates are perfect why wasn't the earth perfect to start with? Why was it void and with out form? Why did He have to tweak it as it seems later on in verses 6 and 7 ? No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for this.

Then there is physical evidence suggesting the earth is much older than just 6000 years. Stalactites and stalagmites for instance take many thousands of years more to form than just 6000 years.

I do not believe in evolution. I believe everything created by God is created exactly perfectly, There is no tweaking needed. I suspect the earth was perfect until Satan and his angles were cast down to earth. They must have Contaminated it and God reformed the earth before He made man.
MB

 

[Amy.G]

I suspect the earth was perfect until Satan and his angles were cast down to earth. They must have Contaminated it and God reformed the earth before He made man.
MB

So what did God do with Satan when He "recreated" the earth? Was he not still here? Has he ever taken a break from his destruction?


I would have never in a million years thought of a Gap Theory from my reading of scripture. The only reason it ever crossed my mind was because I heard of it somewhere.

The earth being void is in my mind just the starting point of the scripture describing God's six day creation.

 

[Winman]

Then there is physical evidence suggesting the earth is much older than just 6000 years. Stalactites and stalagmites for instance take many thousands of years more to form than just 6000 years.

That is just plain false, stalactites and stalagmites have been documented to have formed in just a few years numerous times. Here is a report that reports a bat died and fell on a staglagmite which grew so fast it preserved the bat's body before it had time to decompose. This was documented by National Geographic a big supporter of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/stalactites.asp

Stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial grew over five feet long in just 45 years, I have seen this on TV myself.

 

[Havensdad]

Hi Short Andy;
I believe in a longer creation because of how Genesis reads. It says;
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
God is all knowledgeable He knew which planet would be the earth before He created it. Yet He created it first with out form and void?. There simply was no dry land and days did not begin there cycle until He created the light.
I know this is called the gap theory. Since God is perfect and the things He creates are perfect why wasn't the earth perfect to start with? Why was it void and with out form? Why did He have to tweak it as it seems later on in verses 6 and 7 ? No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for this.

Then there is physical evidence suggesting the earth is much older than just 6000 years.

No there is not.

Stalactites and stalagmites for instance take many thousands of years more to form than just 6000 years.

Some of the biggest stalactites and stalagmites in the world, are known to have been formed in just a few hundred years...

Also, I installed a water heater at my house a few years back. Unbeknown to me, where I could not see it, one of the pipes had a very slow leak. The house was up on blocks, so the water just went straight trough to the ground: I never noticed it, until three years after I had installed it, the darn thing went on the fritz: Know what I found? A Stalactite, about a foot and a half long, and about 3/8 of an inch at it's base. Now doing simple math, comparing that to the largest stalactites in the world (on the basis of mass, and length), it would be very possible to form the largest of them in less than 1,000 years; much less four or five thousand.

I do not believe in evolution. I believe everything created by God is created exactly perfectly, There is no tweaking needed. I suspect the earth was perfect until Satan and his angles were cast down to earth. They must have Contaminated it and God reformed the earth before He made man.
MB

The Bible does not say that. It says that God made the earth in six days. There is no gap mentioned anywhere. And science tells us that a global, catastrophic flood, as described in the Bible, could not have happened without upsetting the geological layers (along with your so-called millions of years old stalactites). Tell me, how do you explain the geologic layers surrounding the stalactites, if they took millions of years to form? Did they hang in mid air by themselves, while sediment layers deposited around them?:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Questions for those that hold to a young earth. Imagine yourself alive in Italy in the early 1600s. Considering these passages, would you have been geocentric or heliocentric? How would you have judged Galileo? Would you have sided with the Church?

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth. Ecc 1:5

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Josh 10:13


Who laid the foundations of the earth, That it should not be moved for ever. Ps 104:5

Tremble before him, all the earth: The world also is established that it cannot be moved. 1 Chron 16:30

Jehovah reigneth; he is clothed with majesty; Jehovah is clothed with strength; he hath girded himself therewith: The world also is established, that it cannot be moved. Ps 93:1

Say among the nations, Jehovah reigneth: The world also is established that it cannot be moved: He will judge the peoples with equity. Ps 96:10

Galileo had some real trouble with the church of his day:

“Galileo was ordered to Rome to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world,"..... “

“.....interpreting heliocentrism as physically real would be "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."....”

“...On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.".....”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

 

[Winman]

Truth is, there are problems with both the heliocentric (sun-centered) and geocentric (earth-centered) models. This from a recent article in Universe Today

The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all.

Although the heliocentric model presents much less problems than the geocentric model, it still has many problems. Scientists are still looking at different models.

The geocentric model has never been proven false, but it presents more problems than the heliocentric model.

 

[kyredneck]

.....The geocentric model has never been proven false......

.....amazing.....do you believe the earth is flat also?

 

[Winman]

What kind of smear tactic is that? Who said anything about the earth being flat?

You don't get it, that article I posted was from a modern Astronomy magazine. There are real astronomers, scientists and physicists who believe there is real scientific evidence that supports the geocentric model. I didn't make that up.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no070/panorama.html

In their study, Green and Schmidt expected 74 quasars to fall within their study range. Instead, they found only four. They effectively conclude that the local quasars have evolved out of view, and they claim compatibility of this with radio quasars. The four quasars are incompatible with the local hypothesis because it implies a nonuniform space distribution. The local hypothesis assumes a uniform distribution or else that quasars are associated with local galaxies which do exhibit an approximately uniform local distribution through space. “We conclude,” the authors state, “that any hypothesis of quasars, local or cosmological, has to be rejected unless it incorporates a space density increasing with distance.” In other words, the quasars are unavoidably geocentrically distributed.

Does this sound like the writings of uneducated and unsophisticated men?

 

[kyredneck]

What kind of smear tactic is that? Who said anything about the earth being flat?

My apologies Winman, I wasn't trying to smear you, just sarcastic humor on my part. I'm thinking the geocentrists of Galileos' day were also 'flat earthers'; maybe most weren't after Columbus. The geocentric model they had was the earth as the center of the universe. Their model WAS proven wrong in that it has been shown that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.

You don't get it, that article I posted was from a modern Astronomy magazine. There are real astronomers, scientists and physicists who believe there is real scientific evidence that supports the geocentric model. I didn't make that up.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no070/panorama.html

You're right, I didn't get it. I'm gonna check the article out (though, honestly astronomy is not my cup of tea) to see what what is meant by geocentric model 'these days'. I actually had thought geocentrism was a thing of the past.