wasn't the historical position of the Church was Literal 6 days/Young earth?

[Yeshua1]

As calvin/luther and almost all others of the past held to that, right?

So ONLY became distrusted when "evolution" was assumed to be scientific fact, and that world wide flood dismessed away?

LOVE what Luther was reuted to write, that he assumed and held to aliteral 6 days of creation, and if one disagreed with that view, premit thte Holy spirit who inspired that to be smarter than you are!

 

[preachinjesus]

You can't compare a pre-scientific age with positions of the scientific age.

It's like asking if the historical church had problems with global warming. It doesn't work like that.

 

[nodak]

Most of those leaders thought bloodletting would cure the flu.

It doesn't matter how many people we can get to sign on to any particular belief. If the belief is wrong, it will still be wrong if all agree with it. And if it is right, it will still be right if all deny it.

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't compare a pre-scientific age with positions of the scientific age.

It's like asking if the historical church had problems with global warming. It doesn't work like that.

Difference though is that the Bible IS inspired revealtion from the holy Spirit, so regardless of how much more advanced in science and technology we are now, if it meant 6 literal days then, means the same now!

 

[Yeshua1]

Most of those leaders thought bloodletting would cure the flu.

It doesn't matter how many people we can get to sign on to any particular belief. If the belief is wrong, it will still be wrong if all agree with it. And if it is right, it will still be right if all deny it.

they based their belief inthis upon a exegesis of the bible, by definition of the hebrew terms and context, so does it really matter whatour science says regarding this?

 

[Revmitchell]

they based their belief inthis upon a exegesis of the bible, by definition of the hebrew terms and context, so does it really matter whatour science says regarding this?

It does if you are going to interpret scripture through the lens of science.

 

[Yeshua1]

It does if you are going to interpret scripture through the lens of science.

That is why Luther was so right, as he stated that if the Church fathers held to other then 6 literal days of creation, he would err on side of the bible, and if we hesitated to uphold that view based upon science or anything else, give the Holy Spirit leeway to be smarter then you!

 

[Zaac]

Difference though is that the Bible IS inspired revealtion from the holy Spirit, so regardless of how much more advanced in science and technology we are now, if it meant 6 literal days then, means the same now!

Absolutely. And as with all things, confusion only arises when man purports something different from what Scripture says.

 

[agedman]

One of the greatest deceptions of Satanic forces has been the use of distractions and half truths.

Holding that the world was "created" in six literal 24 hour days, may be "Young Earth" but it is not exclusive to the "young earth."

One can hold that the creation of the world as it now appears is a reforming of what became void and formless and not negate that done in six literal days. That "the heavens and earth" are beyond what our own few millennia of from the garden history that is given does in fact NOT encompass all that God has done pre - "let their be light."

Where I have witnessed Satan and satanic emphasis is desiring "disputes" arise to divide the brethren.

If believers get so caught up in the issue of how old or young the earth is, and begin to separate over such issues - it is truly sad.

Ultimately - it doesn't matter.

What matters is the command of Christ - Love God - Love neighbors.

The world is filled with the evil - why waste time in debate with it?

 

[Yeshua1]

One of the greatest deceptions of Satanic forces has been the use of distractions and half truths.

Holding that the world was "created" in six literal 24 hour days, may be "Young Earth" but it is not exclusive to the "young earth."

One can hold that the creation of the world as it now appears is a reforming of what became void and formless and not negate that done in six literal days. That "the heavens and earth" are beyond what our own few millennia of from the garden history that is given does in fact NOT encompass all that God has done pre - "let their be light."

Where I have witnessed Satan and satanic emphasis is desiring "disputes" arise to divide the brethren.

If believers get so caught up in the issue of how old or young the earth is, and begin to separate over such issues - it is truly sad.

Ultimately - it doesn't matter.

What matters is the command of Christ - Love God - Love neighbors.

The world is filled with the evil - why waste time in debate with it?

because to have the bible forced to accomodate to 'scientific facts: that are just assumptions, not proven, is to lead to a doubting and denial in some way of the bible!

 

[agedman]

because to have the bible forced to accomodate to 'scientific facts: that are just assumptions, not proven, is to lead to a doubting and denial in some way of the bible!

The Scriptures state "...he who comes to God must believe that He is..."

I don't see how "forcing" one way or another is going to be the determining factor.

What I do see, is the distractions of such issues being discussed/debated with the unredeemed as being unprofitable.

Among students of theology, then the open discussion of creation and the fine points given in the original language of the Scriptures is most certainly profitable, and good. Doesn't mean that separation has to take place, but understanding of various theological aspects and emphasis is healthy.


"Accommodating scientific facts" do not lessen the Scriptures, nor the authority of the Scriptures. God's power is not weakened and the arm of the Lord shortened when science and Biblical principle conflict. There are still four "corners" of the earth no matter where geographically one places the mark on this round ball - even if it is dead center on the north or south pole.

I suppose that I am concerned that the enemy of the believer desires to discredit love. Too often in the teaching of Creation, the wonder and purpose of creation is lost because someone wants to refute some scientific view, when God should be presented as so loving that He gave - the world, the stars, the sustenance, and even His own Son.

Here is a point to remember in all such discussions.

The Scriptures do not state when God created the ground nor the water that covered the ground. The genesis account doesn't place them in the time line other than they were already present and that God caused the water to have a limit so land could emerge.

There is plenty of room for "young earth" thinking as well as others without division and without separation of believers that the enemy so desires; the desire that the believers become so inflamed so distracted from the Glory and authority of God in all matters that love is marred.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Excellent thought

Difference though is that the Bible IS inspired revealtion from the holy Spirit, so regardless of how much more advanced in science and technology we are now, if it meant 6 literal days then, means the same now!

That is correct. And it means that if the Universe was NOT created, developed and 'finished' in six days then, it still wasn't.

Just like if the Bible meant the Sun orbited the Earth (or didn't) in the past, the same is true now.

I don't think the Bible said either as a point of doctrinal truth, or even historic fact. The Bible isn't wrong at all; people's ideas about it are not infallible.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is correct. And it means that if the Universe was NOT created, developed and 'finished' in six days then, it still wasn't.

Just like if the Bible meant the Sun orbited the Earth (or didn't) in the past, the same is true now.

I don't think the Bible said either as a point of doctrinal truth, or even historic fact. The Bible isn't wrong at all; people's ideas about it are not infallible.

did God create it in 6 days or not?

 

[agedman]

did God create it in 6 days or not?

The earth and sea? no - they were in existance before God said - "let there be light."

However, the question when asked in this way would be, yes.

Did God create this present form of this earth in five literal days? (Remember, humankind was created on the sixth).

Consider (not to derail the topic) that it only took five 24 hour periods to establish this world.

How much more glorious is that place going to be that has taken Christ millennia?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Elapsed time...

did God create it in 6 days or not?

No. All of Creation took place in one unit of planck time. Finishing it up took a little longer.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. All of Creation took place in one unit of planck time. Finishing it up took a little longer.

Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?

 

[quantumfaith]

Just in case Yeshua1 is interested the following explains and defines Planck time.

http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/

 

[agedman]

Just in case Yeshua1 is interested the following explains and defines Planck time.

http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/

Leave it up to big thinkers to make confusing what every child knows.

Not enough time is given to play.

Not enough time is given to make it to the bathroom.

Not enough time is spent with me in comparison to....

Too much time exists between now and Christmas.

No matter how long time is, it is too short before parent(s) find out I ....

 

[quantumfaith]

Leave it up to big thinkers to make confusing what every child knows.

Not enough time is given to play.

Not enough time is given to make it to the bathroom.

Not enough time is spent with me in comparison to....

Too much time exists between now and Christmas.

No matter how long time is, it is too short before parent(s) find out I ....

Oh, Agedman, Planck Time, as a concept is also difficult for me. The mathematics, not too bad. But the concept......yes.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

What is the problem here?

Oh, Agedman, Planck Time, as a concept is also difficult for me. The mathematics, not too bad. But the concept......yes.

I was hoping people would look it up and find out. Silly me. As to the concept, it is a very little, teeny-tiny bit of time. It is the smallest meaningful amount of time calculable and - as far as science can tell - the smallest 'bit' of time possible.

Agedman, I have to agree with you about public debates on cosmology. Normally the Creationist cites the Bible and very little science (and is embarrassingly ignorant of the science involved) while the scientist speaks about science and very little about the Bible (usually not really understanding the Biblical passage). Which ends up with both sides 'talking past' each other - sort of like arguing whether wall paper should be purple or heat insulative.

Pointless except to drum up attention and possible contributions. (Maybe that's why they do?)

And I still agree with Yesh's comment: The Bible means now what it always has meant. Which does not mean humanity has always understood everything correctly.

If anyone during the Earthly life of Jesus should have known who He was, it was the Pharisees. As a group, they studied the scriptures and prophesies more than any others. They memorized long passages, devoted hours to discussion and simply were the most educated Jewish scholars of the time. AND they believed in the 'afterlife'. They were expecting the Messiah, they looked for the Messiah.

And they missed it totally. (At least as a group.) Which is a cautionary tale about many things; all related to 'what the Bible says' as determined by Mom, Dad, Pastor So-and-So or the Reverend Doctor What'sisname. Tradition is what caused the Pharisees to not recognize the Messiah.