The smoking gun, of the Earth’s age

[RAdam]

Well, I'm just asking one simple question right now. I believe what God says, too, but find that He speaks in different ways. For example, Jesus plainly said we need to eat His flesh to have eternal life (John 6:54), and those around Him seemed to take that literally. Yet we don't. Why choose to not take that literally, and then do choose to take Genesis 1 literally? I'm honestly wondering what reasons people have for making that choice.

First of all, taking Jesus in John 6 to mean his natural flesh and blood is not taking Him literally, it is taking Him to be speaking of natural things. One can take Jesus literally there and believe He is speaking of spiritual things. Literal does not equal natural, it means taking the bible in context at its word. Jesus taught things that we are intended to take literally, but they are things that are meant spiritually and not naturally.

Why should we take Genesis literally? Well, because Jesus did so. Jesus believed the first man and woman God created were Adam and Eve. Jesus believed God created the institution of marriage. In other words, Jesus believed in Genesis chapter 2 exactly as it is written. Jesus believed in the flood in the days of Noah. He believed that all the wicked men of the earth were destroyed by water. In other words, He believed in Genesis 6-9 just as it is written. Jesus believed that God overthrew Sodom in the days of Lot. Jesus believed there was a man named Lot, that he lived in Sodom, and that God saved from that city before destroying it. In other words, Jesus believed in Genesis 12, 13, 18, and 19 just as it is written. Jesus took the bible at its word, and so should we. If the bible gives us a chronology from Adam to Abraham that is exact, we should believe it. If the bible says God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, we should believe it. If the bible says God created the world out of nothing, we should believe it.

 

[stilllearning]

First of all, taking Jesus in John 6 to mean his natural flesh and blood is not taking Him literally, it is taking Him to be speaking of natural things. One can take Jesus literally there and believe He is speaking of spiritual things. Literal does not equal natural, it means taking the bible in context at its word. Jesus taught things that we are intended to take literally, but they are things that are meant spiritually and not naturally.

Why should we take Genesis literally? Well, because Jesus did so. Jesus believed the first man and woman God created were Adam and Eve. Jesus believed God created the institution of marriage. In other words, Jesus believed in Genesis chapter 2 exactly as it is written. Jesus believed in the flood in the days of Noah. He believed that all the wicked men of the earth were destroyed by water. In other words, He believed in Genesis 6-9 just as it is written. Jesus believed that God overthrew Sodom in the days of Lot. Jesus believed there was a man named Lot, that he lived in Sodom, and that God saved from that city before destroying it. In other words, Jesus believed in Genesis 12, 13, 18, and 19 just as it is written. Jesus took the bible at its word, and so should we. If the bible gives us a chronology from Adam to Abraham that is exact, we should believe it. If the bible says God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, we should believe it. If the bible says God created the world out of nothing, we should believe it.

Well said, thank you.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm still trying to figure out who isn't taking the Creation account an authentic communication in the Bible?

 

[Jerome]

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

The Creation Study Committee of the Presbyterian Church in America reported that:

the four most prominent views of the creation days in the PCA are (in no particular order) the 24-hour view, the Day-Age view, the Framework view and the Analogical Day view.

The 2001 PCA General Assembly adopted the committee's recommendation that:

since historically in Reformed theology there has been a diversity of views of the creation days among highly resected theologicans, and, since the PCA has from its inception allowed a diversity, that the Assembly affirm that such diversity as covered in this report is acceptable as long as the full historicity of the creation account is accepted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wrong. Paul says they were God-breathed. What is written in the bible came from God.

"God-breathed" is not synomynous with dictate. "God-breathed" in this sense using the Pneuma term gives the idea of giving life to the words. The idea is inspired not dictate. As with all other things there is a cooperation between God inspiring men and men writing down God's words.
Let me give you an example in the song of song a woman's hair is compared to goats running down the mountain side. This may have looked beautiful to men living in that area 3,000 years ago. However, try to compliment a modern woman today by comparing her to a flock of goats. Then duck before you get slapped!!!! God is God outside of our time space continuum. As a matter of fact our time space reality is maintained constantly by God so its easy to assume God could come up with a term that is as complimentary then as it is today and will be tomorrow. Yet God doesn't do that he inspires the man to write and the writer views this compliment in this way. It doesn't make the passage less true or irrelevant for today and it does reveal truths about the kind of relationship God wants to have with man. It is in this way man obeying God cooperates with God and God provides to us whis word. If a man were today to be inspired by God to write scriptures he would use terms and phrases and technology that he is aquainted with today. Ie a blackberry might be mentioned and certainly the internet. However, the scriptures were writen thousands of years ago and mention the thing that were relevant then. Which is why it is important to take scripture into context.

 

[RAdam]

"God-breathed" is not synomynous with dictate. "God-breathed" in this sense using the Pneuma term gives the idea of giving life to the words. The idea is inspired not dictate. As with all other things there is a cooperation between God inspiring men and men writing down God's words.
Let me give you an example in the song of song a woman's hair is compared to goats running down the mountain side. This may have looked beautiful to men living in that area 3,000 years ago. However, try to compliment a modern woman today by comparing her to a flock of goats. Then duck before you get slapped!!!! God is God outside of our time space continuum. As a matter of fact our time space reality is maintained constantly by God so its easy to assume God could come up with a term that is as complimentary then as it is today and will be tomorrow. Yet God doesn't do that he inspires the man to write and the writer views this compliment in this way. It doesn't make the passage less true or irrelevant for today and it does reveal truths about the kind of relationship God wants to have with man. It is in this way man obeying God cooperates with God and God provides to us whis word. If a man were today to be inspired by God to write scriptures he would use terms and phrases and technology that he is aquainted with today. Ie a blackberry might be mentioned and certainly the internet. However, the scriptures were writen thousands of years ago and mention the thing that were relevant then. Which is why it is important to take scripture into context.

Again, Jesus said man shall live by "every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God." My question to you if your belief is correct: which words proceeded from God and which from man?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again, Jesus said man shall live by "every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God." My question to you if your belief is correct: which words proceeded from God and which from man?

You aren't going to like the answer. But its true non the less. The passage that you refer to is recorded in Matthew 4

3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

it is clear from this passage that Jesus is quoting the Torah Deuteronomy (2nd giving of the law) 8:3

He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

this is the part you won't like. What is being referred to here is specifically mentioned in the passage preceeding this one Particularily verse 1

Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the LORD promised on oath to your ancestors.

What was every command? The Law. Torah. Period. Jesus was telling the devil that the law as spoken by God to man was to be lived. Note what I said in my second post on this thread.

The bible was not dictated saved for aspects of the law or Torah. Apart from that we gather inspiration.

And as you see I did say the law was dictated but not all of the scriptures were dictated. Prophetic sayings or what the prophets anounced as God instructed them were also closer to dictation. But gain not all of the scripture is dictated. Because not all of it is law or specified prophets. But it doesn't mean that the parts that aren't dictated aren't inspired. Inspiration or "God - Breathed" means life is given to this written word. But man cooperated with God in writing how he was inspired. you can see it each document has its on stylistic writing and format which is different from every other book in the scriptures. Unless you claim God has MPD it shows man's involvment in the production of scripture. Note the Christians don't claim like the muslims or the mormons that scriptures were already written by the hand of God handed to them on golden tablets. No God used the men and they wrote as they were inspired. Also in this perspective if God inspired a man an a man writes as he can with the talent that he has and phrases things as he alone does; does not mean its any less God's word.

 

[RAdam]

So God dictated to Moses what to write, but He didn't do that with Paul, or David, or anyone else? Huh? That's just plain ridiculous.

Paul said all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Paul didn't say the law was given one way, other scriptures another way.

Jesus said that David wrote Psalm 110 by the Spirit. Peter said holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The bible tells us of times when men prophesied by the Spirit when they didn't intend to.

In short, your assertion is ridiculous. The bible doesn't say one part came from God and another came from man. The bible doesn't say one came one way and another some other way. The bible says everything contained therein came the same way, from God Himself.

 

[RAdam]

By the way, your assertion that men wrote what they knew is ridiculous. Men prophesied things they didn't even undestand. Peter plainly tells us that. No, the bible is not the product of man writing what he thinks and understands. The bible is the product of God speaking to man. God does bring things down to a level we can somewhat understand, but it contains things that did not come from a human mind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

By the way, your assertion that men wrote what they knew is ridiculous. Men prophesied things they didn't even undestand. Peter plainly tells us that. No, the bible is not the product of man writing what he thinks and understands. The bible is the product of God speaking to man. God does bring things down to a level we can somewhat understand, but it contains things that did not come from a human mind.

Uh... So God says the winds are held in by gates? Or that there are four corners of the earth? Or that a woman's hair is like a flock of goats running down the mountainside? No, those aspects of scripture bare the fingerprint of the writer of the text. Note I did not say that God had nothing to do with scripture or denied that there was some dictation as I mentioned the law and certain prophetic messages. And of course these things are predictive of things the original writers did not know. However, remember what I said about "God-Breathed" giving life to the words. When David wrote Psalm 22 do you think God dictated it? I don't. I believe David was inspired to write about his experience running from Saul and how he felt and what he was up against. I don't believe he had any idea he was describing the crucifixion. But rather his own experiences poetically written. Yet God made his words alive and Psalm 22 is a perfect discription for the Crucifixion. David wrote what he knew God inspired him to do so yet God orchestrated David's life so that David predicted the suffering of the Messiah in his own poetic complaining to God. How awesome is that? To me this is more indicative of the Power of God than by sheer dictation.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

For all the old earth bashers--I remember several years ago when I first got interested in this debate—I read Wayne Grudem’s chapter in his Systematic Theology about the age of the earth--& although he’s a young earth supporter—his evidence for the old earth view made realize the biblical possibility of the earth being much older than the proposed 6,000-10,000 years that most young earth supports believe. This being said I support the young earth flood geology view—but I’m certainly not dogmatic about it & would recommend (to anyone interested in this topic) Grudem’s chapter on the issue b/c he does a fair job for both sides.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So God dictated to Moses what to write, but He didn't do that with Paul, or David, or anyone else? Huh? That's just plain ridiculous.

Paul said all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Paul didn't say the law was given one way, other scriptures another way.

Jesus said that David wrote Psalm 110 by the Spirit. Peter said holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The bible tells us of times when men prophesied by the Spirit when they didn't intend to.

In short, your assertion is ridiculous. The bible doesn't say one part came from God and another came from man. The bible doesn't say one came one way and another some other way. The bible says everything contained therein came the same way, from God Himself.

what is ridiculous is your clear lack of understanding of inspiration. Several things. I said the scriptures were inspired you are attempting to say I did not say that and that is a false witness to what I said. I said not all of scripture was dictated. And I pointed out which parts I believer were. Note Paul did say all scripture is given by inspiration. I didn't say any different Inspritation does not equal dictation. Note btw Paul doesn mention which scriptures or what "all" means when he says scripture. I think that is significant. Also note inspiration is not a "just one way" thing. Inspiration can be dictated, it can be felt, it can be observed, it can be many things. Note that the term as used in the greek is close to meaning "bringing to life". I did not say all scripture does not come from God. I said God inspired man to write and man cooperated by writing in the limits of his knowledge and ability. For things beyond that God use special revelation or orchestration to insert the consepts into his word. But its falicious to believe God dictated all of scripture. And its not one part this and one part that is a union like the body of believers. We are many parts but one body we are all in Christ. So it is with the scriptures. many different writers with many different styles, techniques, phraseology, etc... but a singular revelation of salvation the word of God to man. You don't see the dynamic of God and man together which is a shame because God works in community with man often times. He sends you to preach so that another is saved. Its really beautiful when you think about it. But to suggest its all dictation takes away the power, beauty, and total soveriegnty of God over all aspects of each of our ifentestimal lives.

 

[stilllearning]

"God-breathed" is not synomynous with dictate. "God-breathed" in this sense using the Pneuma term gives the idea of giving life to the words. The idea is inspired not dictate. As with all other things there is a cooperation between God inspiring men and men writing down God's words.
Let me give you an example in the song of song a woman's hair is compared to goats running down the mountain side. This may have looked beautiful to men living in that area 3,000 years ago. However, try to compliment a modern woman today by comparing her to a flock of goats. Then duck before you get slapped!!!! God is God outside of our time space continuum. As a matter of fact our time space reality is maintained constantly by God so its easy to assume God could come up with a term that is as complimentary then as it is today and will be tomorrow. Yet God doesn't do that he inspires the man to write and the writer views this compliment in this way. It doesn't make the passage less true or irrelevant for today and it does reveal truths about the kind of relationship God wants to have with man. It is in this way man obeying God cooperates with God and God provides to us whis word. If a man were today to be inspired by God to write scriptures he would use terms and phrases and technology that he is aquainted with today. Ie a blackberry might be mentioned and certainly the internet. However, the scriptures were writen thousands of years ago and mention the thing that were relevant then. Which is why it is important to take scripture into context.

Romans 3:3-4
V.3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
V.4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Romans 3:3-4
V.3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
V.4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This is the most irrelevant comment to my statement. You can quote scripture and apply to a situation of of context and have everyone scratching their heads. I believe God. And I believe that the Scriptures are Gods word nothing I've said disagrees with this. I believe God created the universe. I believe he did it just how he said it. The disagreement is on how we understand what he said is all.

I love how people quote scripture out of context.

To you I have to say Matthew 26:75 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

 

[RAdam]

The bible says all scripture came the same way. You say it didn't. I'll take the bible over you any day of the week.

Here's a big problem which you have refused to address: you said: "man cooperated by writing in the limits of his knowledge and ability." Wrong. Peter said the prophets didn't understand the things they were writing. Daniel asked for interpretation from the messengers of God because he didn't understand the visions he saw. Job wrote about things man had no knowledge on (God hung the world on nothing). They were writing things that were not withing the "limits of their knowledge."

Let me ask you this: how did Paul write? What kind of "inspiration" did he have? Better yet, why don't you tell me how each bible writer wrote and be sure to give me scripture which backs up your assertions.

 

[jimc06]

First of all, taking Jesus in John 6 to mean his natural flesh and blood is not taking Him literally, it is taking Him to be speaking of natural things. One can take Jesus literally there and believe He is speaking of spiritual things. Literal does not equal natural, it means taking the bible in context at its word. Jesus taught things that we are intended to take literally, but they are things that are meant spiritually and not naturally.

Ok, so Jesus was speaking of spiritual things using natural terms. Then let me rephrase my question: Why take the Genesis creation account to be speaking of natural things, rather than take it as speaking of spiritual things?

Or why take it as speaking of natural things in literal terms, instead of natural things in figurative terms? (Just as we can describe some prophecy as speaking of natural things using figurative terms.)

Either possibility is valid, and both are common in Scripture.

In either case, I'm trying to understand a reason for choosing a particular interpretation when Scripture is so full of variety. Especially since it was an account that had to have been given as revelation from God (there were no humans present), and if we consider the rest of Scripture and the nature of revelations (ie, Numbers 12:6 and the many examples of that).

Scripture passages always speak truth (whether spiritual or natural), but use both literal and figurative terms. Prophetic passages include both spiritual and natural truths, but tend to use figurative terms.

(In my earlier post, I was speaking of the creation account, not the rest of Genesis.)

 

[Luke2427]

Hi Jerome

Sorry, I misspoke.

I meant to say.......

It really does not make sense for the creation days to be 24 hours since there were not hours nor anything to measure them by until the sun was "created" on the 4th day.

 

[stilllearning]

It really does not make sense for the creation days to be 24 hours since there were not hours nor anything to measure them by until the sun was "created" on the 4th day.

A day, in the Bible is always “a day”; Unless the context indicates something else.

And the context of Genesis 1:, is made clear by the words......
“And the evening and the morning were.....”

 

[TC]

It's quite simple. If you can't believe God created everything as it is literally spelled out in the Bible, you believe in the wrong God. You will have an eternity in Hell to agonize over it.

Since no one else has, I have to challenge you on this. Belief that God created the Earth in six days 6000 years ago is not a requirement of salvation. The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. It appears to me that you are questioning another posters salvation - which is against the rules of the Baptistboard.

 

[Luke2427]

A day, in the Bible is always “a day”; Unless the context indicates something else.

And the context of Genesis 1:, is made clear by the words......
“And the evening and the morning were.....”

This is not true. A day in the Bible is OFTEN not a 24 hour period.

To think that it was in creation seems silly to me.