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

I personally don't believe in the concept of time because of Zeno's paradoxes.

If you think about it, matter & energy can neither be created nor destroyed so the world really isn't any "age" per se. All the stuff its comprised of has always been and always will be.

 

This is off-topic. I'm not getting into this debate, which is another topic entirely!

 

You're saying the world is eternal?

First of all, that denies Gen 1 that says God created it.

Secondly, it's impossible. If the world was eternal, there could not be a yesterday or tomorrow.

 

The concluding question is definitely not off-topic=>
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?

 

If it's history, it's literal. I am not denying there is poetry, metaphors, etc. in the OT. I am speaking specifically here of Genesis 1-11, and mainly Gen. 1.

 

The rotational time for each cycle will have changed when the weight distribution changed. When the radius distance of the water from the center of the earth changed then most likely the time of each rotation would have changed.

 

Young earth. :thumbsup:

 

Well, I have enjoyed reading the responses to my posting on the nature of Genesis 1-11 and the questions raised about the "young earth" idea. I knew it would bring forth a defense of a literal reading, because I've engaged in that debate on other threads. I have no desire to prolong the argument just for the sake of argument, but would ask us all to consider a few points:

[1] The sciences of geology, archaeology, paleontology, and the like, all point to a time frame of immense length for the universe, the earth, living things, and homo sapies, though of course homo sapiens appears much later than these other formative events. Why would we try to force these data to fit our reading of the Bible?

[2] So if the data and the reading of the Bible do not fit, and the data, while certainly not incontrovertible, do overwhelmingly point to an ancient universe, formed over a vast period of time, doesn't that suggest that there may be another way to read the Bible than the one we have become accustomed to? The study of ancient literature and, indeed, the very nature of the text, suggests a mythological framework -- and, again, I am not using "myth" to mean "untrue" or "fiction". Myth is a type of spiritual story designed to make sense of the world from the perspective of prescientific people AND -- this is most important -- to interpret our relationship with the divine. As another post has suggested, there are many parallels between the stories in Genesis 1-11 and other ancient mythologies. But there are also vast differences, in that our Biblical accounts do not dabble in multiple deities cavorting across the landscape! They point to a single Creator God, working with purpose, and to a broken, fallen humanity, in need of restoration to fellowship with God. So these stories, far from being "untrue", are PROFOUNDLY true. They are true for all of us. I am Adam, you are Eve, we all sin.

[3] That the names of Adam and Eve appear in the New Testament should not surprise us, nor does that bother us when we read the Genesis accounts mythologically. First, they are there because the writers of the New Testament had no other framework than a historical reading of Genesis. They had no science that would have led them to read those accounts in any different way. To put it another way, if Paul thought of Adam as a literal single human being, it only means that Paul was a man of his time, just as limited in his knowledge of facts as anyone else would have been then (and, of course, we are still very limited in our knowledge of these things). His first Adam-second Adam concept in I Corinthians may indeed, at one level, depend on seeing Adam as an individual who broke fellowship with God; but at another level, one can read this lyrical passage as a picture of our very personal relationship with the Gospel story -- I sinned and Christ came for me. It's not Adam's fault, it's mine. I chose to sin and cannot get away with blaming it on a distant ancestor.

I do not have a need to win this debate. But I am always trying to frame the Christian faith and a Biblical understanding in a way that is credible for the modern mind. I spent 23 years in campus ministry, working with students who came to the university and encountered science and history with only a naive theology to support them, and some ended up ridiculing Christianity. Subsequent to that, I spent 18 years as the pastor of a church with plenty of people in the medical and other scientific fields, and they found this perspective helpful in their conversations with their secular colleagues. Right now I am interim pastor of a church where it seems nearly everybody is a scientist connected with NIST or NIH or some such, and they are eager to grasp this sort of concept, because they know that a woodenly literal reading of Genesis will not make sense in their world.

My job has been, therefore, and still is, not only to help them reconcile the apparent conflicts, but also, and more importantly, to own the universality of human sin and our personal responsibility for our wrong choices. It's not just, "Ho hum, so I'm human." No, it is that being human means we "want to be as gods". Adam's story is my story, and I need a savior for that reason.

 

Marcia,

I wasn't saying Adam wasn't real in the contending argument just that he was representative. God could have chosen one man which was representative of others. (maybe the first homo sapien mutation :tongue3: )

As far as the rest I disagree with your analysis. Its writen in the same style of writing and there are similarities and both or all three are narrative.

Genesis account:

Enuma Elish Account:

Genisis Account:

Enuma Elish:

Genisis account

Enuma Elish:

Atra Hasis

Genesis account:

Atra Hasis

 

Judging from what I find in the Bible/prophecy,

we should be more concerned with the "end days" than the "Creation days",

We're very close to stepping "out of time", into "no time",...."Eternity". :thumbs:

 

While this is very true the entire word of God gives us all insight to every aspect of every subject.
MB

 

Not one reply hmm, either...
Everyone agrees with me
Nobody agrees with me
Nobody read my post
Everyone read my post, but didn't care :laugh:

 

No one cared about my response to Marcia either. Comparing comprable literature to the bible. So we're in the same boat.

 

This would contradict the way Adam is presented in scripture as a specific individual. I posted some scriptures to show this. So you don't believe that the story of Adam and Eve happened in a literal sense?

Thanks for posting these mythical accounts from pagan religions. I've read them before. I think they make my point. They are written quite differently and have mythical characters contrary to the biblical narrative. Of course, these are short samples and it may be harder to see the differences but I still see them.

Also, btw, I believe that all men had the truth of creation in some way and it's reflected in the pagan myths. But the actual factual account is Genesis.

 

They make the point that creation myths are written in the same style. narrative. And I see the similarities with the Genesis accounts like man being made from the earth. God breathed life into man and the other myths hold that man has divine blood in them and take after in a fashion deity. That the stars were placed to show seasons. That there was a flood and man and animals were saved by a boat. I could go on. But essentially the literary style is the same. Its the details that are different. Though I will admit your last statment that its possible that they all these myths are reflective of a truth and it could be that Genesis is accurate and these are pagan attempts to pass them on. However, so that you're not too smug in your confidence I could also say that the same cultures wrote the same way because they were the same peoples and the bible is a product of that same people group trying to explain their God as opposed to the summerian gods. In which case Genesis would then be valuable in what the writer is trying to say about God rather than participate in emperical data transfer of the creation event.

 

You sound more sure of science's interpretation of how things came to be and are reading the bible through that filter. I would prefer to read creation through the filter of the Bible and not man's interpretation. Scientists are always changing their tune. Many things I was taught in science in high school are no longer valid, for example.

Even agnostic scientists disagree on Darwin and evolution.

I know some very smart educated people that hold to the literal 6 day creation, including my seminary prof who teaches Hebrew, Greek, OT, and Hermeneutics, and has written a book on Hermeneutics.

If we dismiss Gen 1-11 as literal, what else can we dismiss in the Bible that is presented as narrative?

Maybe Jesus did not really turn water into wine? Maybe that's a metaphor?

 

maybe Jesus put nile allgi in the water to make it look like wine and people so use to bad wine thought it was the good stuff? Sorry, had to be mischeivious here. Its a referrence to scientific explanation of how the nile turned to blood during the exodus.

 

Oh, yeah, I know about the higher critics and their scientific explanations for the Bible's miracles! Where is the gag icon when you need one?

Except that God says it was blood:

Now the next verses tell us that the magicians did the same with their magic arts. Did they do a trick or did Satan help them? That is an in-house dispute.

 

I believe in a relatively short life of the universe.
I believe in a literal Adam and Eve created by God on the 6th day.
I believe in a literal temptation of Eve by a literal Satan and a deliberate disobedience of Adam.
I believe that Adam and Eve tried to cover, make an atonement for their sin, themselves with leaves.
I believe that because of their sin Adam and Eve tried to hide from God.
I believe that God sought out Adam and Eve and made the initial blood atonement, the slaying of an innocent animal, for their sin.
I believe that in Genesis 3:15 God promised the coming of the Redeemer Jesus Christ.