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

[Marcia]

I would say your interpretation of the bible is wrong. :type: Why don't the same people here who take genesis literally not take the body and blood literally?

I don't think it's my interpretation since Gen 1 is pretty plain and straightforward - not much to interpret.

I have an answer re John 6 (the body and blood) -- see the John 6 thread in Other Christian Denominations.

A narrative that gives no indication of being other than narrative and is supported by other scripture should be taken the way it states.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't think it's my interpretation since Gen 1 is pretty plain and straightforward - not much to interpret.

I have an answer re John 6 (the body and blood) -- see the John 6 thread in Other Christian Denominations.

A narrative that gives no indication of being other than narrative and is supported by other scripture should be taken the way it states.

Hey you can't use my own thread against me. Thats not fair. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Marcia]

Hey you can't use my own thread against me. Thats not fair. :smilewinkgrin:

:tongue3: :tongue3:

 

[Jarthur001]

So what if I said the earth rotated once on the day of creation much more slowly than the earth currently rotates.

I would say your back to making things fit your logic. You have a higher power that you fit your logic around. It just is not the Bible.

The ancient world had no idea that the earth was round if they did they may have measured a day in 360 segments.

It is clear to all you don't know what you are talking about. Have you not heard of Seleucus of Seleucia? Seleucus of Seleucia lived around 200 bc or so.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000eaa..bookE3998.

How about Heraclides Ponticus? He lived about 300bc. Both of these men believed what you said they did not. And there are more.

How about Aristarch?

But they didn't.

humm.

Why because time is based on the earths relation to the sun.

Not really the full truth sir.

Time is a measurement of change based on

1) the earths movement around the sun, (((Year)))
2) and the earths spin, (((((Day)))))
3) and the moon rotation around the earth.((((month)))))

and....

The week.

Any ideas why the week is part of the measurement and where that idea came from?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Jarthur001: // Any ideas why the week is part of the measurement and where that idea came from? //

It would be so tempting to write an essay and call it:

The Evolution of the 'Week'
subtitle: a short history of the past 6,012 years.

 

[canadyjd]

Arguing with you is like trying to convince a Mormon that there is no evidence of Lehi or lost isreali tribes in North America. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence to support the book of mormon with relation to this. Because they have a burning in their bussom its true. That no matter what the facts are you choose not to accept them.

So, in your mind, a Christian who believes a literal interpretation of Gen. 1 is no different than a Mormon that believes in the book of Mormon.

The stuff you're thinking, thinkingstuff, isn't worth the effort to refute.

peace to youraying:

 

[Jarthur001]

Jarthur001: // Any ideas why the week is part of the measurement and where that idea came from? //

It would be so tempting to write an essay and call it:

The Evolution of the 'Week'
subtitle: a short history of the past 6,012 years.

Ed,

You maybe on to something.

 

[Jarthur001]

Where is something that others may find educational.

By about 300AD, the idea of a Flat Earth was revived:
Early Christian rejection of the "pagan absurdity" of a spherical earth.
This view was held sporadically until about 1300 AD.
By 1300, the works of Ptolemy and others arrived in Europe by way of Islamic Spain, and fully restored the Spherical Earth to respectability.
Contrary to popular myth, very few educated people after about 300 BC doubted that the Earth was a sphere. While a few early Christian thinkers did try to reject the idea, there is nothing in Christian beliefs that dictates a Flat Earth, in fact it says virtually nothing at all on the matter. "

Source...
OHIO STATE

The idea of a flat earth of Columbus' day may be rather exaggerated. Columbus' crew may have been uneasy due to being so far from land, not necessarily from a fear of falling off the earth. At least, the popular view of the story, the one in public culture, has only been stated in textbooks since the 1880s -- not before that time.

Source....
Creation and the flat earth

 

[Jim1999]

People in France in the 1700's and 1800's didn't know when April 1st was let alone know it was called April Fool's Day.

In the 1940's we were not so much aware of the world's countries and how far they were from us.

Where I grew up in England, East London, we never travelled for than a few blocks from home. We needed a week's holiday to go to the Eastern Shore, just a short drive away.

It took 6 days for a letter to get from Great Britain to Canada. The point is, we are much more aware of global events to-day than ever. A few elite people may have had some schooling back then, but not the majority. There were no computers, or even television sets. Radios were not common, and often shared by two adults at given times.

For people to not think beyond a flat earth is a possibility, but I doubt if those same people would give a second thought about it.

If you want to see revisionism, just get about 20 old history texts and compare the corrections!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

The bottom line is that when God inspired the words that the world was created in 6 days, God knew who the audience was then and who the audience would be in the future. People then and the people to whom Exodus was written and people now know what 6 days are.

Parts of this thread almost read like the famous line from Clinton, "I don't know what 'is' is," or something like that.

It is no mystery what 6 days "is."

 

[Ed Edwards]

Old Earth Scripture Passage: :applause:
Rom 10:9-10 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue in thine heart, that God raised him vp from the dead, thou shalt be saued:
10 For with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes, and with the mouth man confesseth to saluation.

Young Earth Scripture Passage: :tear:
Rom 10:9-10 (ERTB = Ed's Random Translation Bible)
For if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue in thine heart, that God raised him vp from the dead, thou shalt be saued:
10 thou shalt be saued from temporal disorientation (lost-ness) knowing fvll well that thy God's Day is alway 24 standard English Hours.

 

[OldRegular]

R.C. Sproul and Six-Day Creation

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:

“For most of my teaching career, I considered the ‘framework hypothesis’ to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

The ‘framework hypothesis’ was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a ‘framework’ into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:

“According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”

Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

“Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.”

The above is from Banner of Truth…

http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/07/10/rc-sproul-and-six-day-creation/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, in your mind, a Christian who believes a literal interpretation of Gen. 1 is no different than a Mormon that believes in the book of Mormon.

The stuff you're thinking, thinkingstuff, isn't worth the effort to refute.

peace to youraying:

No I'm referrencing how you argue the point. Like how Mormons argue their point. Similar. When it comes down to it you turn to making instead of more rationed support for your possition you turn to insults or dismissal. Like a mormon does when he can't show you archeological evidence for the BoM. I'm comparing how your reponse is not your belief.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I would say your back to making things fit your logic. You have a higher power that you fit your logic around. It just is not the Bible.


It is clear to all you don't know what you are talking about. Have you not heard of Seleucus of Seleucia? Seleucus of Seleucia lived around 200 bc or so.




How about Heraclides Ponticus? He lived about 300bc. Both of these men believed what you said they did not. And there are more.

How about Aristarch?


humm.



Not really the full truth sir.

Time is a measurement of change based on

1) the earths movement around the sun, (((Year)))
2) and the earths spin, (((((Day)))))
3) and the moon rotation around the earth.((((month)))))

and....

The week.

Any ideas why the week is part of the measurement and where that idea came from?

You also forgot Aristotle and how he came pretty close to calculating the diameter of the earth. Of course I know these people. However, at the time period which we are speaking of there is no evidence of this knowledge. And don't for get with the burning of the library at Alexandria a lot was lost. We see that the religious hacks of Galileo's day had a real problem with the earth not at the center of the universe. So discovered facts that go against the popular established religious view of science are often sneered at and later to be found true.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Any ideas why the week is part of the measurement and where that idea came from?

Probably from some religious myth :tongue3:

More likely it was breaking down the lunar cycle into quarters. But honestly, I don't know. I haven't really looked into it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

People in France in the 1700's and 1800's didn't know when April 1st was let alone know it was called April Fool's Day.

In the 1940's we were not so much aware of the world's countries and how far they were from us.

Where I grew up in England, East London, we never travelled for than a few blocks from home. We needed a week's holiday to go to the Eastern Shore, just a short drive away.

It took 6 days for a letter to get from Great Britain to Canada. The point is, we are much more aware of global events to-day than ever. A few elite people may have had some schooling back then, but not the majority. There were no computers, or even television sets. Radios were not common, and often shared by two adults at given times.

For people to not think beyond a flat earth is a possibility, but I doubt if those same people would give a second thought about it.

If you want to see revisionism, just get about 20 old history texts and compare the corrections!

Cheers,

Jim

You make a good point for the majority of the time europe held different Calanders and dating things differently dependent on their region. Unifying this was a recent affair.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The bottom line is that when God inspired the words that the world was created in 6 days, God knew who the audience was then and who the audience would be in the future. People then and the people to whom Exodus was written and people now know what 6 days are.

Parts of this thread almost read like the famous line from Clinton, "I don't know what 'is' is," or something like that.

It is no mystery what 6 days "is."

God did know but he also knew if he "broke it down to us" we would be confused so he got his point across in a way we would understand. Just like Jesus told parables to get his point across.

 

[annsni]

Probably from some religious myth :tongue3:

More likely it was breaking down the lunar cycle into quarters. But honestly, I don't know. I haven't really looked into it.

Ummm - read Genesis 1 and 2. It gives some good insight. :BangHead:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ummm - read Genesis 1 and 2. It gives some good insight. :BangHead:

As if I didn't know what He meant. Sheeesh.

However, I bet you if I did an investigative study I might find that its related to the movements of the moon rather than from the bible. All I have to do is show other cultures not influenced by the bible to have held a similar view of the week to show it wasn't the bible that the consept came from.

 

[annsni]

God did know but he also knew if he "broke it down to us" we would be confused so he got his point across in a way we would understand. Just like Jesus told parables to get his point across.

What's so confusing about "I spoke and it happened?"

Even if God used evolution, what's so confusing about "I made ooze that brought forth man"?

I can explain the most confusing thing to my 6 and 8 year old children - can God not do that? Why would He lie - because if Genesis 1 and 2, which are written as a narrative, are not true, then God would be lying.