Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[Revmitchell]

You're entirely wrong I was discussing how scripture was inspired. No new rule here. You believe in dictation? or not. Looks like you do. Some things were direct revelation like John, or Ezekiel but the truth is the inspiration of scriptures occured in different ways. Like the historical books are still inspired are they not ?but you wouldn't say the scribes were inspired in the same manner as the prophets. Luke was inspired but he took a more systematic approach using research. I think a study of how scripture came to be would help you out greatly. Somethings like the Law were direct revelation others were not. All you have to do is read the text to know that. As far as the Torah how much did Moses get from direct revelation how much from oral tradition? Did Moses need direct revelation to write about Abraham or did he just need to ask some Hebrew scribes what happened to Abraham? See maybe you should look at how the bible was compiled. And though you may regret it You should look at how the text we have now became canon. Tell me this. When do you think 1 and 2 Chronicles were written and that will explain a lot about how you view the compilation of scriptures.

Well I thought you wanted and honest discussion. But instead you act dishonestly:

1. You clearly implied that since Psalm 22 was not a direct revelation that Genesis must be interpreted that way as well.

2. I made a clear case that there is a difference between how Psalm 22 was given and how other texts were given such as the prophets, Paul's writings, Johns writings etc. You then, in turn, falsely presented what I said as being one form of inspiration alone. There is no room for that presentation of what I said and is quite dishonest.

3. You based your whole opposition to a literal day age creation on scripture not being dictated (direct revelation) but admit to it in some cases in the above post.

Since I proved your theory and personal rule for interpretation to be in error you appear to have made a poor attempt to twist my words and present your position to be exactly what I presented.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well I thought you wanted and honest discussion. But instead you act dishonestly:

1. You clearly implied that since Psalm 22 was not a direct revelation that Genesis must be interpreted that way as well.

2. I made a clear case that there is a difference between how Psalm 22 was given and how other texts were given such as the prophets, Paul's writings, Johns writings etc. You then, in turn, falsely presented what I said as being one form of inspiration alone. There is no room for that presentation of what I said and is quite dishonest.

3. You based your whole opposition to a literal day age creation on scripture not being dictated (direct revelation) but admit to it in some cases in the above post.

Since I proved your theory and personal rule for interpretation to be in error you appear to have made a poor attempt to twist my words and present your position to be exactly what I presented.

Your point 1. I was comparing Psalm 22 to how God could have (and probably did) inspire the genesis account. I wasn't acting dishonestly but I clarified to you that I don't believe all scripture is dictated. I don't equate direct revelation to dictation. John saw a vision (direct revelation) and using his abilities and perspective he wrote down the revelation as he saw and experienced it. If you want to believe direct revelation is dictation that up to you. But as you know not all scriptures are inspired in this way. I used psalm 22 to prove my point.
Your point 2. You didn't differentiate anything. You showed verses that show direct revelation and I assumed you believe all inspired scripture to have been presented in this way. So I believe that since you seem to equate direct revelation (and by your answer above I seem to be supported in that thought) to dictation, that this is how you view scriptures entirely. Then you said I need to study how scripture was compiled and I responded by how I viewed you approached scritpure. If you don't approach it this way I miss understood.
your point 3. You start off correct but end on a false premise. I DO NOT BELIEVE ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED THE SAME WAY. I hope thats clear. Which is why in my post I compared Luke to John the historical books of the OT to the Prophetic books. All scirpture is inspired by the same source but not in the same manner. I assumed that you think it is by direct dictation rather than orchestrated by God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So I take it most people on this site do not believe the earth is around 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old based on your interpretation of Genesis? Or that the Universe is closer to 14 billion years old?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scientifically there are 3 approaches of determining the age of the earth

1. search and date the oldest rocks found on the surface of the planet
2. date extraterretrial objects
3. determine model lead ages of the earth and metorites.

They seem to indicate 4.5 or so billion year old earth.

 

[OldRegular]

It makes no difference to me, but to you and others that light served the same purpose in the first 3 days as the sun does thereafter. Did that original light change position after the sun was created.

The question is irrelevant since no one was present except God.

If you will read the Bible you will see that the first thing God spoke into existence was light. Although the creation of the heavens and earth is mentioned earlier it is possible that all matter that currently exists came from that light. I choose to believe in a literal 6 day creation period. Jesus Christ put His stamp of approval on the Book of Genesis, that is good enough for me.

You are entitled to believe what you choose, so have at it.

 

[OldRegular]

Oh so you would keep me in my ignorance like the Politburo of the old Soviet Union? Keep the masses uneducated and thereby control them? :smilewinkgrin:

Pretending ignorance is unbecoming of one who professes to be a Christian.

Also according to the Genesis account the earth was established before the stars but that doesn't jive with what we know about the universe.

Just what do we really know about the universe? As a Christian I believe what the Bible tells me!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Pretending ignorance is unbecoming of one who professes to be a Christian.




Just what do we really know about the universe?

I'm sorry I was just joking around. But maybe you're right. I'm not entirely uneducated. I don't have a doctorate but I do have a graduate degree. Though you really couldn't tell that by my spelling.

We know significantly more than people did at the time of Moses. We can see how our knowledge has help us make incredible advance with in the past 200 years and especially with in the last 80!!!. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

 

[canadyjd]

Scientifically there are 3 approaches of determining the age of the earth......

They seem to indicate 4.5 or so billion year old earth.

I had a biology professor in college make the same statements. He was a big atheist.

I finally got him to admit there is absolutely no evidence of human civilization beyond approx. 10,000 years.

If you can't know what was going on 10,000 years ago, how are you going to make statements with certainty about what happened 4.5 billion years ago?

peace to youraying:

 

[Revmitchell]

I had a biology professor in college make the same statements. He was a big atheist.

I finally got him to admit there is absolutely no evidence of human civilization beyond approx. 10,000 years.

If you can't know what was going on 10,000 years ago, how are you going to make statements with certainty about what happened 4.5 billion years ago?

peace to youraying:

That is what you get when science has more weight with you than scripture.

 

[canadyjd]

There is a poetic symetry to the Gen. 1 account.

Day 1-God creates heaven and earth, light and dark, and separates light and dark.
Day 2-God creates the "expanse/firmament"(air) and separates water above from water below.
Day 3- God creates dry ground by separating seas, and creates vegetation

Day 4- (mirrors day 1) God creates lights in the sky....sun,moon,stars and separates light and dark
Day 5- (mirrors day 2) God creates creatures to live in the water and fly in the sky (firmament)
Day 6- (mirrors day 3) God creates creatures to live on the earth, to eat the vegetation and He creates man in His image

The passage reads as a literal 6 day creation (evening and morning...a day). There is no good reason to believe it was a day lasting millions of years, or even 1,000 years.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I had a biology professor in college make the same statements. He was a big atheist.

I finally got him to admit there is absolutely no evidence of human civilization beyond approx. 10,000 years.

If you can't know what was going on 10,000 years ago, how are you going to make statements with certainty about what happened 4.5 billion years ago?

peace to youraying:

Of course there wasn't human civilization before 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Man wasn't in a civilized state at that time. I mentioned the three methods of determination of the age of the earth. And despite the Rev's comments there is a validity to science. You're right about the poetic symetry of the creation account which is why I said it looks more like an outline. Days 1 relates to 4 and so on.

All the major continents contain a core of very old rocks fringed by younger rocks. These cores, called Precambrian shields, are all that remain of the Earth’s oldest crust. The rocks in these shields are mostly metamorphic, meaning they have been changed from other rocks into their present form by great heat and pressure beneath the surface; most have been through more than one metamorphism and have had very complex histories. A metamorphic event may change the apparent radiometric age of a rock. Most commonly, the event causes partial or total loss of the radiogenic daughter isotope, resulting in a reduced age. Not all metamorphisms completely erase the radiometric record of a rock’s age, although many do. Thus, the radiometric ages obtained from these oldest rocks are not necessarily the age of the first event in the history of the rock. Moreover, many of the oldest dated rocks intrude still older but undatable rocks. In all cases, the measured ages provide only a minimum age for the Earth.
- by G. Brent Dalrymple

 

[Revmitchell]

And despite the Rev's comments there is a validity to science.

And yet another intentional misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And yet another intentional misrepresentation of what I said.

How else am I supposed to take this statement?

That is what you get when science has more weight with you than scripture

 

[Revmitchell]

How else am I supposed to take this statement?

You could actually read it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You could actually read it.

I did read it. Your suggesting that if science and the bible disagree the bible is right. The problem with your assertion is that you equate the rightness of the bible as it agree's with your intepretation of it. You choose the literal intepretation of creation. So if science determines it as not probable you assume that the science is wrong rather than question your interpretation of it. Mabye God doesn't want you to take it that way

Many other so-called "creation accounts" are likewise stories, written not necessarily to inform the reader of the means of physical creation, but to teach some moral principle via obvious folk-hero stories or to instruct a culture about some tradition (Hasel, 1974). In this regard they are quite distinct from the Biblical account which contains much of what Hasel (1974) calls "antimythical polemic."

 

[webdog]

I did read it. Your suggesting that if science and the bible disagree the bible is right.

The Bible is always right, and they disagree on everything that happens supernaturally. Science says man can't walk on water, yet Jesus did. Science says you can't be brought back to life, yet Jesus did. Science says the Red Sea can't be split in half naturally while walking through on dry ground, yet many did. Science says you can't be thrown in a fiery furnace and survive, yet three people did (and no smell of smoke or burn marks). Science says an animal can't speak in human language, yet a serpent and donkey did just that.

When it comes to the Bible and science, RevMitchell is correct.

 

[annsni]

The Bible is always right, and they disagree on everything that happens supernaturally. Science says man can't walk on water, yet Jesus did. Science says you can't be brought back to life, yet Jesus did. Science says the Red Sea can't be split in half naturally while walking through on dry ground, yet many did. Science says you can't be thrown in a fiery furnace and survive, yet three people did (and no smell of smoke or burn marks). Science says an animal can't speak in human language, yet a serpent and donkey did just that.

When it comes to the Bible and science, RevMitchell is correct.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible is always right, and they disagree on everything that happens supernaturally. Science says man can't walk on water, yet Jesus did. Science says you can't be brought back to life, yet Jesus did. Science says the Red Sea can't be split in half naturally while walking through on dry ground, yet many did. Science says you can't be thrown in a fiery furnace and survive, yet three people did (and no smell of smoke or burn marks). Science says an animal can't speak in human language, yet a serpent and donkey did just that.

When it comes to the Bible and science, RevMitchell is correct.

I'm sure the Rev is a good man. But we're talking about science and creation and how the genesis account is interpreted. And as far as miracles I don't deny them. And science wouldn't either because if Christ rose from the dead then there will be no body in a tomb right. Science can validate it. No body. There's evidence that a body may have once been there but no more! It can't deny the fact that the body is not there.
However, that's not what we are finding out with creation and science. There are discoveries all the time that bring the literal 6 day account into question. I question at this point the Rev's interpretation of the account. Not question the bible. Its true. But I'm not sure your interpreting it correctly which is why on the other thread I showed how a simple word can be misconstrued by how its interpreted from tassel to hem. This is why we have Calvinist and Armenianist a slew of other disagreements with how scritures are interpreted.

 

[4His_glory]

And as far as miracles I don't deny them.

No? You seem to deny a literal six day creation.

There are discoveries all the time that bring the literal 6 day account into question.

Really name them. And tell us who is making said discoveries. It would not be liberal scientist who wish to discredit anything the Scriptures say would it?
And if the literal 6 day account is brought into question then why not any other miracle in the Bible? Say the salvation of sinners maybe?

Not question the bible. Its true.

Then you believe in a Creation account as the Scriptures declare it to be?

 

[Revmitchell]

The Bible is always right, and they disagree on everything that happens supernaturally. Science says man can't walk on water, yet Jesus did. Science says you can't be brought back to life, yet Jesus did. Science says the Red Sea can't be split in half naturally while walking through on dry ground, yet many did. Science says you can't be thrown in a fiery furnace and survive, yet three people did (and no smell of smoke or burn marks). Science says an animal can't speak in human language, yet a serpent and donkey did just that.

Well said.:thumbs: