Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[Bob Dudley]

Actually, StefanM, the death issue IS simple. Biblically, plants are not alive and do not die. Man and animals die. Plants (created on day 3) were meant for food and were never considered any more alive than the ground. Man and animals (created on day 6) died after the fall.

[SBCPreacher]

Originally Posted by preachinjesus

...The text gives us no indication about how long Adam was alone or how long he and Eve were together in the Garden. Being that the Garden of Eden (I do believe it a literal place at one time) was a state of perfection it is possible that they existed in the Garden in a perfected state for eons without aging a moment. My position is that during this time a created order existed outside of the Garden that could have lasted tens of thousands, if not millions, of years that held to natural (micro) evolutionary processes. Then add on the 1800 or so years between Eden and Noah and you've got a big ball rolling. I just can't believe, given much of what I've seen post-cosmology that the earth and creation are less than 10,000 years old.

But the Bible does say how old Adam was when Seth was born (130, see Gen 5:3), and how old Seth was when Enosh was born (105, see Gen 5:3) and so forth all the way up to Jacob (Israel). Believing that the Bible is true (which I do), it's not real hard to date it all out.

[Martin]

Literal, 6-day creation - young earth/universe is the closest to my position. However by young earth, I only mean that I don't believe the millions of years theories put forward. I don't know how old the earth is. Nobody does. Only God knows.

[dan e.]

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

This is absolutely not a secondary issue. If you can prove that there was no Adam and Eve that all humanity comes from, then you can prove there is no such thing as original sin and the punishment for sin.

Completely different subject. Nobody denied Adam and Eve.

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

And, the type of literature is literal history - not very hard to understand. Jersus took The first several chapters of Genesis as literal history, Paul took it as literal history, Peter took it as literal history, James took it as literal history. Scientists for thousands of years took it as literal history.

Does that necessarily mean that the way it is translated in English is the way it meant in Hebrew? Just asking.

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

I teach a class in Creation Science at Washington Bible College. Why not come down this fall and sit in on a class or two then see what you think about a literal interpretaion of this part of the Bible.

Congratulations. I'll pass...your humility is too overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

Or, perhaps, take a tour through the Creation Museum in Kentucky (right ouside Cincinnati, OH).

That, actually, sounds fun. I haven't had the opportunity...like I said in my first post. I lean towards a literal, 6 day creation....but not a hill worth dying on, as I don't see this detail as the point of Genesis.

[Deacon]

Originally Posted by Jon-Marc

I agree, but unfortunately some people want to say that since it says in 2 Peter 3:8 that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day", that those 6 days are not literal. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to believe that an omnipotent God can create everything in 6 days. I believe He didn't need that long but chose to do it in 6 days.

Peter said it?, don't you really mean Moses? (Psalm 90:4).

Rob

[preachinjesus]

Originally Posted by SBCPreacher

But the Bible does say how old Adam was when Seth was born (130, see Gen 5:3), and how old Seth was when Enosh was born (105, see Gen 5:3) and so forth all the way up to Jacob (Israel). Believing that the Bible is true (which I do), it's not real hard to date it all out.

Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall. If Eden was a state of perfection (which most evangelical agree on) than there is no aging thus no reason to keep track of ages.

Notice how children are a result of the Fall...lol, had to toss that out there...

[preachinjesus]

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

This is absolutely not a secondary issue. If you can prove that there was no Adam and Eve that all humanity comes from, then you can prove there is no such thing as original sin and the punishment for sin.

Maybe this is the wrong way to approach this, but why is it that so many believe that those who have legitimate questions about the fundamentalist view of creation are suddenly abdicating the authority of the Scriptures or absconding with the faith Jesus has given to them. I have a very good friend who is a theistic creationist who has no problem with the original sin notion.

I teach a class in Creation Science at Washington Bible College. Why not come down this fall and sit in on a class or two then see what you think about a literal interpretaion of this part of the Bible.

I think dan e. already addressed the back end of that statement. For what it's worth I've sat through a number of these classes (several for degree credit too) and am not convinced in the least. I'm sure you are an apt teacher in this area but in my humble opinion it is all highly dubious reasoning, particularly from the philosophy of science perspective.

editted to add: One other thing. I'm not certain how fluent you are with your biblical Hebrew but in the classes like this which I have attended there is very little mind paid the flow and structure of the unique Hebrew forms in the complimentary accounts of the creation narrative. In fact when asked about specific Hebriac issues the instructors have failed to provide adequate answers to satisfy the honest questions. It would seem to me that creationist teachers would desire to be far more aquainted with the language that the "science" (whatever that means) associated with the epic. Of course maybe this is a case of the Cartesian Modernist tail wagging the evangelical dog...so to speak

[Bob Dudley]

Originally poasted By dan e.
your humility is too overwhelming

Unfortunately, no one has ever accused me of being overly humble. Maybe you could pray for me.

Originally poasted By dan e.
Does that necessarily mean that the way it is translated in English is the way it meant in Hebrew? Just asking.

yes

Originally poasted By dan e.
That, actually, sounds fun. I haven't had the opportunity...like I said in my first post. I lean towards a literal, 6 day creation....but not a hill worth dying on, as I don't see this detail as the point of Genesis.

Check out the Answers in Genesis web site (they built the museum). Maybe they will show you the significance of the 6 literal days.

Originally Posted By preachinjesus
Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall.

There is no direct evidence showing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. However, some think that they fell sometime in the late afternoon of the 6th day of creation. The evidence (admittedly weak) comes from the fact that Adam never named his wife until after the fall (Gen 3:20). The thought is that he would have named her right away, not thousands of years later. Therefore, they must have sinned on their first day on earth.

[dan e.]

Originally Posted by Bob Dudley

Check out the Answers in Genesis web site (they built the museum). Maybe they will show you the significance of the 6 literal days.

Good website. I agree, but it still doesnt' show that the amount of time that God created is the point of Genesis 1-3.

It isn't. I don't think we should treat Genesis as if the point is how long it took God.

[SBCPreacher]

Originally Posted by preachinjesus

Yeah, but that's in post-Fall language. There is no significant language related to dating prior to the Fall. If Eden was a state of perfection (which most evangelical agree on) than there is no aging thus no reason to keep track of ages.

Notice how children are a result of the Fall...lol, had to toss that out there...

Would you please give me chapter and verse that tells us that Adam's age didn't begin until after the fall? I'd be interested in reading that. Best I can figure, Adam's age (130 at Seth's birth) means 130 years after he was created by God, not after the fall. I would like to see your evidence though - chapter and verse.