Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

I have no problem embracing a literal six day 24hr days. It stands to reason that when God created everything it would appear older anyway. Did Adam appear to be a man of say thirty, or just days old? I would assume if one would have been there to cut down a tree it would have been created complete and had rings in them even if they were only days old. I would assume everything would have appeared perfectly as the age God intended them to appear. God didn't just only make seeds and let everything grow in it's own time he created them with an appropriate age, just like Adam.

That said I have always left one door open that the earth could be older. Not man, nor animal mind you but the earth, and this is the verse that gives me that pause.

Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

It is clear that on the fourth day God gave us the signs in order to keep our calendars, days and years. So it is crystal clear that there have been 24hr days from that point on. However it is not as clear before that. We know that time to God is not the same as time to us, so how do we really know how long those first few days were in our time when God hadn't yet created our way of keeping them?

 

Who, here, was there when God said, "Let there be Light"? I wasn't. You weren't and neither was anyone else that has posted here nor were the scientist that advocate an ancient cosmos.

Well, that being the case I'll just stand with the eyewitness of it all, my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. (John 1:1-10) I'll just stick with His witness, thank you very much!!! :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

God Said it and
BANG - there is was!

This happened prior to last Thursday.

 

Now there's an answer even I can agree with !!! Thanks for giving me a laugh Preacher !:laugh:

 

If you believe it to be a fairy tale, I'm not sure why you started the thread. Unless it was just to point out all us fairy tale believers.

 

Are you sure it wasn't "friday"??? :laugh:

The "pattern of days" described for the world's beginning is also the "pattern" it describes for it's end,

Another six days of work, and another "day of rest", or the Mill reign.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

http://i32.tinypic.com/30a6dd1.jpg

"Time" is not recorded in scripture until sin entered, God told Adam, "In the day you sin, you die".

Sin placed a "time limit" on man and the planet, a limit that didn't exist prior to sin, not will exit "after sin",

Adam died "instantly" "in the day" he sin but he also died (with)"in the day" because a day with God is a thousand years, no one has lived a thousand years since sin entered,

But "without sin", we'll live a thousand years with Jesus and not die.

Heaven is one long day, no night, no markers of time passing, while in Hell they are tormented "day and night", markers of time passing.

We Judge a day by the sun rise/set, but until the "fourth day", there was no natural light from the sun, so the evening/morning of the first three day wasn't judged by the sun.

And since there's no record of a time limit, other than God calling it a day, the creation days could be any length of time.

Personally, I think the pattern and prophecy in the creation days is the real message God wanted us to understand, how long it's going to take him to destroy it, rather than how long it took him to create it. :laugh:

 

THEOLDMAN's got style; quick and succinct

I too believe the earth and heavens are ancient

The idea that the bible says the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old is 100% speculative and can't be proven :tongue3:

Rob

 

This thread, as with many others like it on this Board, does not deal with the nature of the Genesis accounts appropriately. Most of us are assuming that the Genesis accounts have to be read as we might read a science textbook or a historian's work. They are not. They are, to use a word that will likely draw some ire, myth. Myth does not mean "tall tales told by an idiot". Myth means a story told to interpret the meaning of humanity's status and behavior.

So the myth of creation tells me that God is the author of all things, the creator of life, and the one who has given a special status to humanity. It is a spiritual truth, whose scientific or historical aspects are incidental to that spiritual reality.

Some of us, I am afraid, are guilty of a priori logic ... that is, we start with the assumption that Genesis is literal history or science and then have to go hunting data to prove that. For me, that search is futile and unnecessary. Just learn from the scientists about the mechanics of creation ("big bang") and evolution, but know from Scripture that behind it all is the eternal God whose purposes are being worked out.

 

Just a side note. I've read Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh and can see correlation between Atrahisis and the Bible's creation account especially with that of Noah. Interesting to note that emphasis is done the same way the bible does: by repetition. Interesting correlations.

 

Considering the conservation of momentum compare your statement to Genesis 1:7.

 

And your point is?

 

Gen 1:7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.


Sounds to me that it happened very quickly.

 

I believe everything has a "purpose", including Einstein's equation.

"Science" when properly interpreted/applied, actually proves the existence of God, rather than disprove.

An example is "Evolutionist",

They believe "MOTHER EARTH" can conceive/bring forth life without a "FATHER" involved in the process.

but the evidence of their flawed science is manifested by "MOTHER NATURE' herself.

I think the problem lies in man's interpretation/application of science, not the science it's self,

which, when properly interpreted/applied, actually serves as proof of God.

 

When you deal with scripture in this rather mystical way it belittles scripture and leaves open anyone's interpretation as equal since the standard is God did it. Well , anyone can attach God to what they believe.

There is no part of scripture that is taken in this cavalier manner.

 

Genesis has the language and structure of a narrative, therefore we are to take it literally. It does not read like a myth at all. You want myth? I can show you the mythlike stories of creations from Native American tales, from Hindu tales, from Buddhist tales, etc.

If it is a myth, then what do the NT portions mean when they refer to a literal Adam in the geneology of Jesus or elsewhere?


the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Lk 3:38

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Rom 5:14

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1 Tim 2:13, 14

...................

Adam is mentioned with Moses, who was historical, and that line, "from Adam until Moses" means we take Adam as a literal, historical person. He was even a type of "Him who was to come."

These passages would all be deceptive if the literal narrative of Genesis is denied.

 

I don't know if you've read summerian literature but all myths are written in narrative in that culture. So that's not really a good point. You're good point is how the NT writers reflect the story. However, someone could say that in the same veing as Christ is representative for our justification so Adam was representative of man's sin. Also As far as desception you would have to prove God didn't create the universe. Because we can all say you don't understand its text within the culture of which is was written.

 

But Christ is historical and real; therefore, Adam is, too. Plus, Adam is talked about as an individual on both the OT and NT.

We do know the culture in which the OT was written, and it was one in which hearing that God created the world in 6 days, they would have taken it literally. This is one of the major differences between the creation story in the Bible and other non-Christian stories - lack of overdramatic tales, lack of mythical elements, straightforward narrative style, and the pre-gospel in Gen 3, most importantly.

There is no indication in the language, style, or culture that indicates this is not literal. On top of that, as I've said before, God creating the world in 6 days is referred to in Exodus 20 when God is giving the 10 Commandments. I don't see a lot of arguments that Exodus is mythical. So it does not make sense that God would say this in Exodus if it is not literally true.

Additionally, God could have given the time period of creation as "many, many years" or "much time" or "more time than man can count," or something like that if it had actually taken millions of years.

 

I couldn't have said this better myself. Thanks.

Tim Reynolds

 

By this reasoning, answer this queation:

Would this passage be taken as literal, and is there indication in language, style, or culture that it does not apply to, and only to, Abraham's physical descendants?...

I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you (Genesis 17:7).

Now, consider this one (of several) NT passages which redefine the meaning:

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:29).

Are (non-Israelite) Christians the descendants of Abaraham or not? Can OT history meant to be taken literally-- physically-- actually mean something other than the sense in which it was unquestionably understood in former times?