Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by billwald, Sep 28, 2011.
that Adam and Eve didn't live in the Garden for 12 billion years?
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
OK. Have to think about it.
What is there to think about? Scripture gives you the exact lifespan.
An interesting question. Since God created Adam as a man and not a baby, the 930 years could have been only counting the 930 years after the fall. I don't think Adam could have died before the fall, so he could have lived 930 years after he became mortal.
If not, then Adam lived 930 years only as an adult.
Hmmm. Something to think about. Could be.
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years"
It really is that simple, but wait and watch how convoluted it's going to get.
Yeah, no kidding. :thumbsup:
I don't understand what difference it makes as to how old the earth is. It has nothing to do with whether or not we're saved. What age the earth is is nothing more than speculation and opinion since age-determining processes are all man-made and more than likely inaccurate.
It makes a huge difference. What age you believe the earth is shows whether you believe what the Bible says or if you that you believe God is a liar. It shows whether you believe the Bible is actually God breathed or if you believe it was just written by some guys.
False dichotomy fallacy. Other options exist besides to two presented here.
Thanks for making my case for me.
You obviously don't understand a word of what I wrote.
I am a young earther, but I am also read theology. There have been many respected men from the past who were old earthers but no one doubts their commitment to Biblical innerancy. B.B. Warfield is the most famous, and he wrote the book that transformed the scholarship on Biblical Innerancy. While most people make a case in Genesis 1 that is based upon liberal theology, there are some throughout history for thousands of years who made a case based upon innerancy.
Thus, your litmus test is really a 20th and 21st Century invention. Granted, most arguments I hear are liberal and in route of denying the Bible, there are are cases that do not.
Scribal or translation errors
Misunderstanding by the reader
Besides, the Bible does not give the age of the earth, despite Usher's math.
These are not real options. There is no evidence for scribal or translation errors in regard to Genesis 1-3. There is no evidence for metphoric langauge as the phrase "evening and morning" is never used metaphorically by any Biblical writer and there is no evidence in the immediate context that is the case. Creation is often referred to by other writers but always as a literal historical fact. Jesus is the Son of God and he never expressed anything but a literal and historical understanding of the creation of man, marriage, and he places the creation of both "from the beginning" not billions of years after the beginning.
There is nothing to misunderstand by the reader as it is presented as a literal historical narrative.
Disbelief is the only other real option.
You don't have to be a lost person to be deceived and led into serious errors. The denial of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is an attack upon every major doctrine in the Bible as they all have their roots in a LITERAL understanding of Genesis 1-3. It is an attack upon the deity of Jesus Christ as Christ used specific langauge that denied any kind of process over billion of years.
Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
He treats Genesis 1:26-27 as a literal historical account by Moses of "creation" of man and the institution of marriage (Mt. 19). In both cases he uses the same phrase "from the beginning" when dating Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2. He claims to be the Creator and if both man and marriage and the fall occurred billions of years after creation then he is either deceived or promoting a lie.
That a person in 2011 can close their eyes to facts and embrace bronze age parables as literally true never ceases to amaze me. The human mind must have had an evolutionary advantage in being able to delude itself.
Let me note something important before I continue this line of thought. I am not debating or discussing chapter 2 or 3. This is not the issue. The issue is chapter 1. The problem with Chapter one is significant in that it is poetic language thus the use of non-literal elements can be accepted without denying Biblical Innerancy (this is commonly accepted by theologians for centuries for poetic and prophetic literature). Thus, for someone to make a hard and fast rule in Genesis 1 is somewhat inconsistent unless you are going to take all poetic language as literal. I hold to a literal view, but I understand that conservatives can disagree.
Secondly, let me note that there is a distinction between those who wish to deny the Scripture and their arguments and those who have a strong view of Scriptures and their arguments. Most of the arguments made today against a 6 day creation come from those who wish to attack the Bible. This, however, is not who I am defending and I will not defend such people on this list. I will, however, defend those people that I think are Biblical innerantists who have a case to be made.
Now onto some examples:
First Tertelliun was not certain God created our current world ex nihilo, out of nothing. While Origen is no hero of the faith, he proposed that the Genesis account was poetic and thus not necessarily literal. While Origen's view was rejected by the church (and rightfully so) he did make some good points.
Augustine was the major theologian who introduced the idea that Genesis 1 may not be a literal 6 day creation period but were devices that showed the progression of creation. His view occurred because he needed a dating of when the creation and then subsequent fall of angels took place. He does not seem to believe they were created before creation and it was too soon for an entire rebellion to occur and the casting down of the angels. His view on "day one" is that the Hebrew can actually be translated "one day." The other numbered days are really the same days repeated to show different aspects of creation and to emphasize the six and seven of days created. The Hebrew can be interpreted in such a way thus this was a compelling case.
Hodge, an adamant foe of Darwinism, opposed the theory because "it is that Darwin rejects all teleology or the doctrine of final causes. He denies design in any of the organisms in the vegetable or animal world.... It is this feature of this system which brings it into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental principles of natural religion." Hodge recognized as one of Darwin's chief opponents that it was not science or even natural selection that contradicted Christianity, it was the elimination of God from the thought process.
William G. T. Shedd was another scholar who affirmed creation ex nihilo but held that they were not literal 24 hour days. He believed that Genesis 1's grammar actually demanded a significantly old age for the earth.
I have already mentioned B.B. Warfield but could also go into Howard Van Til and others.
What each have done that have helped is that they used the text and established exegetically agreed upon methods to deliberate what the text actually is conveying. Thus, when the issue of the poetry is discussed, this is discussed within the framework on that significance from an exegetical viewpoint. When the issue of the numbering of days, this is discussed from already established ideas of an exegetical framework.
When those who make this an issue who do not discuss the exegetical considerations but merely like to label people, they area actually degrading exegetical deliberations and downgrading exegetical sciences, not advancing them.
Obviously you must deny the inspiration of the Scriptures as God's revelation to man, not merely to "bronze age" man but to mankind in general.
Secondly, when the Bible uses parables and allegories the context makes it clear. For example, when Jesus spoke in parables he said "hear a parable." Context always provides the key.
There is no indication of any kind of parabolic language, metaphorical or allegorical language in Genesis 1-3.
[personal attack removed]