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

We both believe what is written. And I agree it really isn't worth worring about.

 

I believe that the earth was created old. For the same reason Adam was not created as a baby.

 

Regardless of the time line, sin comes before death. "For the wages of sin is death." If there is no sin, there is no death. Time has nothing to do with that.

 

Do you believe God put all the dinosaur bones in the ground when He created the earth old?

 

Time does have something to do with it because if millions of years went by and animals and plants didn't die, how could they all fit in? They would be procreating, but none would die. So we would have probably millions of animals 7 millions old or whatever they current theory is. I am not sure if people are in this scenario or not, but if so, they would be procreating but none would die for millions of years. This makes no sense.

 

Lots of things do not make sense they way we think of them. Before sin entered into God's creation, what would have been the reason for death?

By the way, I believe in the 6 day literal creation. I think questions asked get people to think.

Another question for you. Do you have any theories on the dinosaur bones found by the thousands, in relation to a new earth?

 

Carbon dating is very inaccurate, the dinos were here from Adam to the flood.

 

I'm not sure what the point of your post is Thinkingstuff or how it relates to the debate.

If you are saying that the Genesis 1 account of creation is a "story" which may or may not relate directly to the reality of the details as related to the length of time it took God to create this universe then I have to disagree.

Here is the reason: Where does the "story" end and the truth begin?

As several have pointed out there are several Scriptures which support the literal account of Genesis 1.

e.g. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

If there was no literal day six then there is no literal "Adam" because Adam must be an allegory if the days of Genesis 1 are allegorical.

However, the NT Scripture support a literal Adam:

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.​

If Adam is an allegory then Christ also must also be an allegory because He answers to the "First" Adam​

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.​

So, you see if we don't have a literal six day creation then we don't have a literal Adam. Then for whom did the lliteral Jesus Christ die? An allegory?

Jesus verified the creation of a literal man and woman:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.​

HankD​

 

Because I do not think animals and men procreating for millions of years without death could exist on the planet. There would not be enough room.

Okay.

I don't think the dinosaurs are as old as scientists say they are. Also, scientists have been wrong about dinosaurs a number of times.

 

Dinasaur bones have been found in Alberta, Canada.. At what point in history did they appear in Alberta?

http://www.manitobamuseum.ca/mu_find.html

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't think anyone knows. But they did not live milllions of years ago and no one can prove that they did.

 

You will notice that the Bible says in the beginning God created and that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. You will also notice that the Bible does not say when the beginning was or how long the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Therefore, I think that millions of years is a possibility. I will not dogmatically say either way. If the creation is old or young, it still brings God glory and declares His handiwork.

 

Marcia, I am not defending the gap theory, but I do see a flaw in your argument.

If there was an old earth that was destroyed and rebuilt, how do you know for sure there wasnt sin in it? If the theorists are correct and the 6 days in Gen was actually a restoration because God destroyed the first civilization, doesnt it make sense that that civilization must have been sinful? God wouldnt have destryed it if it was perfect and without sin.

It is tempting to point to scriptures in Romans that refer to sin entering into the world as proof that there couldnt have been a sinful world before ours, but it could also just be talking about the world that we live in now, and doesnt address a past world that has nothing to do with us or our relationship with God.

Again, I am not advocating that this is correct, I am just saying that your argument against it has holes in the logic.

AJ

 

Pangea....

 

A "Day" can be 24 hours, or a "year", as in Daniel's 70 week (490 years) prophecy, or a "thousand years",

so the definition of "day" depends on the "Context" in which it's used.

As I said before, "time", or the recording of time, didn't actually begin until sin enter the picture.

Sin placed a "time limit", a "recording of time" for man/planet to exist.

The "creation day" recorded a "pattern", but there's no "Record" of "time" to Judge the "CONTEXT" of how long each day represented.

And without a "context", each day could be 24 hours, a year, thousand years, or "anything".

 

Ok. if I accept your teaching on this, and agree that when the Bible says a "day" that it doesnt really mean a day....then...

What else is the Bible deceiving us on? If we cant believe the very first chapter, then surely there are other errors in the rest of the book as well.

AJ

 

I made an attempt to generalize this discussion about that subject which can be found on p. 4 of this thread. But I will paste it here:

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?

 

Quote: What else is the Bible deceiving us on? If we cant believe the very first chapter, then surely there are other errors in the rest of the book as well.
----------------------------------------

Could this be your misconception of what scripture is saying, and not a deceptive passage at all?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sin did not affect animal life, only human-moral life, and brought about the penalty of death.

Animal life is already determined at whatever length that happens to be. Animals don't commit sin!

Martin Luther...What is the word you used,,pangea....I am not familiar with it?

Cheers,

Jim