How do you young earthers know

Matt, are you saying there's more than one God?

 

I'll answer this as if it were an honest question, though we both know that isn't quite your intent.

There is only one true God. Many people worship false gods, but they all boil down to worshiping Satan. Either you worship the true and living God, or you worship Satan. There is no in between.

 

Well let's see Gen. 1:5 and the "`ereb" evening, night, sunset evening, sunset night, where is the poetic portion of this word it seems quite literal in the Hebrew word, no poetic meaning it is literal evening, then it goes and says that the "`ereb" and the "Boqer" morning, break of day morning of end of night of coming of daylight of coming of sunrise of beginning of day
of bright joy after night of distress (fig.) morrow, next day, next morning these two became the " 'echad" "Yowm", first day.
" 'echad means: one (number) one (number) each, every a certain an (indefinite article) only, once, once for all one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one first
eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

Notice this is one or once or first and Genesis 1: translates first, so it is a literal first.

"Yowm means: day, time, year day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general) year temporal references today yesterday tomorrow
Now notice the Strongs reference to as seen in Genesis one as a 24 hour period or a working day, one day or as Genesis 1:5 states the first day. These words are used throughout Genesis 1 seems quite clear what the intent of the term was, God used working days to create the world and man and in 6 literal days He did it and on the seventh He rested.

Again no poetic use of these terms.
Now you also want to talk about the 3 day and 3 nights Jesus refered to and use them of three non-literal days, scripture doesn't back this up either it in fact backs up that Christ died on a Wednesday evening before the passover. Each Gospel makes that very clear too.

 

So basically you think Magnetic Poles is really a devil worshipper because he disagrees with your view on creation, right? What about my former pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jerry Vines- does he worship the devil because he believes in the Gap Theory?

 

I'm not in a position to comment on individual people's situations.

 

The Gap theory I know the one I was taught but I understand there a re several. The one I was taught and believed for years until I studied several books on the creation for my college science courses, was that there is a Gap between Gensis 1:1 and 1:2, that gap was for an undetermined amount of time. During which time the earth became void and without form, some teach that was because when Satan fell he was cast to the earth and became the prince and power of the air during this gap period. All life forms that were living during that time died during the Ice Age and then God re-created or reformed the earth in 7 literal days, is tha the theory you refer to, Paul?
There are several problems with that theory. The biggest is scripture saying that death didn't occur until the sin of Adam took place.

 

There is a great deal of scientific evidence available to refute the evolutionist age of the earth. Ocean sediment is not thick enough for the billions of years that the earth is said to have existed. The numbers of skeletal remains of animals and humans would be enormous and yet only a few are in existence.
The day-age-theorist also point to the Hebrew word “yom” used as day in the Genesis verses to support their point of view. This word has variable meanings. It can mean a twelve hour day, a twenty four hour day or a long, indefinite period of time. They use the infinite period of time interpretation to support their theory. Saying the six days of creation is not literal days but is really long periods of time. As scripture is studied with the use of “yom” as a long or indefinite period it would normally be accompanied with helping terms such as “time of adversity” or the “day of prosperity.”
If the day-age-theory were true the days of creation using the 4.5 billion years of the earths age as used in evolution then these long periods of time for creation would then make each day be close to 833,333,333 years for each day.
Now The Sun, Moon and Stars were not created according to scripture until day 4 but plant life was created on day 3 and we all know that plant life must have the Sun in order to grow so the plants would never survive if the day was 833,333,333 years of mans time, the plants could not have survived. As evolution teaches the Big Bang Theory the Sun existed before the Earth and therefore Scripture is again contradicted.
All indictions physical and scriptural point to a young earth.

 

A number of people on this board have postulated a seven-day creation of the world.
That is utterly ridiculous.





The Bible says He did it in six. :smilewinkgrin:

However, there is also a problem over six-day creation that no one has addressed yet.





What took Him so long?

Steve

 

Soooo simplistic...

 

Perhaps! But still the truth! Either you believe the Genesis record to be accurate or you do not. There is absolutely no basis for theistic evolution in Genesis 1 for a great number of reasons.

 

That was in response to something Walter said. I feel he did not really address that point.

But are you suggesting from this verse that there was a solid firmament, or perhaps the old "water canopy" (held up by God's supernatural power?), and that it was dissolved or something? The verse just says that the heavens were "opened" as to allow the water to come down, rather than anything "happening" to it, like in a permanent fashion, if that's what you mean.

I know creationists used to believe in a water canopy, though I had gotten the impression that was largely dropped, and the "firmament" was interpreted simply as the water vapor in the clouds.

No, that was the point I was acknowledging, only I worded it differently, because I did not remember the exact way you put it.

Your point was the specificness of the use of "days". Now, you're saying this rule doesn't hold because it's prophecy? Where is this distinction ever made?
Yes, prophecy is often symbolic, but then scripture will interpret its own symbols, somewhere. But Jesus' words there were not regular prophecy (I.e. apocalyptic literature).
It was just as "matter of fact" as all the scriptures you're citing on Genesis.

It was actually another person who spoke of "non-Christians", so I was addressing both that and your statements.

And it would make perfect sense to question their relationship it they so "oppose" Christ! This is a bit of double-talk. Coming as close to denying people's walk without technically crossing the line.
They do not oppose Christ. Their theory could be wrong, but then that is not the same as opposing Christ, because they do not make the CONNECTION that you do; between a literal reading of Genesis and the deity of Christ.

 

I saw no point to address

You are dancing around your real problem and the real answer to all your speculations. The difference is obvious and explicit CONTEXT! You have NO CONTEXT to base your speculative theory upon.

You are desperately trying to establish a context for speculation but you HAVE NOT. Genesis 1:26-27 does not offer even a REASONABLE basis for your speculation. And the actual words you want to speculate about "the evening and the moring were the first....second....et." offers absolutely nothing for you to speculate about. FIRST you must establish that the contextual relationship of numbers in Genesis with "the evening and morning" is EVER used in Hebrew scriptures in connection with symbolic numbers. You haven't established that because there simply are no such examples.

Furthermore, Christ's on use of Genesis 1:26-27 simply denies room to speculate after that manner.

Hogwash! If you embrace a doctrine/theory that contradicts the words and teaching of Jesus Christ you are OPPOSING Him just as much as creationism opposes evolutionism. If you embrace a theory that IN PRINCIPLE denies the deity of Jesus Christ you are OPPOSING Jesus Christ.

You are the one doing the "double talk" when you state "They do not oppose Christ. Their theory could be wrong, but...that is not the same as opposing Christ." If their theory OPPOSES Christ the person adapting that theory is OPPOSING Christ whether they are conscious of that fact or not.

Your double talk is like saying I am not opposed to that man just because I pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, that may be a wrong thing to do but I am not opposing that man. You are defending a position that in PRINCIPLE must deny the deity of Christ and yet out of the other side of your mouth you say just because I defend that position does not mean I am opposing Jesus Christ. You cannot oppose HIS WORD without opposing HIM!

 

This post displays the mentality that is based on fear rather than a sound mind. It promotes vitriolic language rather than loving discussion. It is unnecessary to turn a different view into this kind of accusation.

In fact it could be that someone sees and understands what is said in the Bible and what Jesus said as meaning something different than you do. They may be wrong by a long shot but it still does not reach this level. We need more civility and less garbage like this post.

 

Yes, the creation account is very simple to understand. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Wow--the scripture tells me they will know we are Christians by our love.

Seems some think unless you are young earth 6/24 creationists you are not saved. Hmm--I don't see the love coming through the vitriol.

This is something good, saved folks have different opinions on--not that all are equally correct.

We understand scripture as we understand scripture. None of us was around back then--think God raised the issue in the book of Job--so we won't know for sure until we get to the other side.

Time was Baptists and other Christians could discuss and debate without losing their tempers and acting like the world.

Another thread in BB asks if there can be carnal Christians.

Apparently, reading this thread.

 

May I ask you what qualifications you possess to be able to examine motives or intents of the heart? Seems like it is the pot calling the kettle black. No one called anyone any kind of names. The accusation was based upon PRINCIPLE not based upon actual position.

I don't recall anyone electing you to be the forum police? Perhaps I missed that memo. The term "hogwash" is an old southern term that simply means "absurd."

Apparently, you have not read too much of this debate. I have plainly and clearly stated that a person's salvation is not at stake in this discussion.

However, any argument that explicitly denies the very words of Christ, Who is the Creator concerning his own TIME PLACEMENT on Genesis 1:26-27 is by PRINCIPLE opposing Christ's word's, and in this kind of discussion is in principle denying his omniscience.

It is "hogwash" or if you please "absurd" to argue that man originated billions of years after the beginning of the universe when Christ explicitly states the creation of man was "at the beginning of creation." That is a direct contradiction no matter how you cut it.

If you think that my attitude needs correction there is a moderator and may I suggest that you stop usurping his position and simply address your issues to him.

 

If someone on this forum actually said that you would be right. However, I have never said that. In fact, in just a recent post I made it clear that I did not beleive a person is necessarily lost because they repudiated the Genesis record as some have OR attempted to reinterpret the language to fit evolution as some have.

Apparently you believe you have been sent to judge the motives of other's as well as their spiritual condition. Isn't that a little like the pan calling the pot black? I don't know of anyone on this thread who has accused anyone of being lost simply because they disagreed with what the Scriptures literally and actually say. If they have made that accusation, I missed it.

 

Jesus used the exact expressions found in Genesis 1:26-27 and was referring to the creation of man. Jesus gave a very precise TIME FRAME for the occurrence of the creation of man. He placed the creation of man "from the beginning of Creation" or as the parallel gospel reads "at the beginning of Creation." To argue or to suggest that man actually came on the scene BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of the universe is a direct contradiction to the words of Christ. You can no more spiritualize, allegorize, or explain away these words by Christ any more than you can spiritualize, allegorize or explain away the consistent use of the phrase "the evening and the morning were the first.....second....etc."

It is an argument based on complete hogwash (absurdity) that no reasonable person should even consider for a moment.


Moreover, whether you like it or lump it, when you oppose Christ's explicit and specific TIME FRAME words with an interpretation that is in direct CONTRADICTION to his words = you are either (1) denying what he said was part of the inspired record or (2) implying he was deceived; (3) lying - all of which by PRINCIPLE is either a denial of the inspiration of the scriptures and/or a rejection of Christ as the Son of God.

Now if this sounds mean spirited to you - then so be it.

BTW it is one thing to say that in "PRINCIPLE" they are embracing an argument that opposes Christ and denies his deity and quite another thing to charge them with opposing Christ and denying his deity. I never said the latter only the former and I stick to it.

 

Again, how does your theories stand up against how INSPIRED men interpreted "And God Said" content of Genesis One?

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1:26 as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

David interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

Peter interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

God Himself interprets Genesis one as literal non-poetical historical narrative as the basis for the Fourth Commandment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Literal statement or figuragive words:

And God said, - v. 1

And God said,- v. 6

And God said, - v. 9

And God said, - v. 11

And God said, - v. 14

And God said, - v. 20

And God said, - v. 24

And God said, - v. 26

And God said, - v. 29


Literal or Figurative:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Ex. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 FOR in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God Himself interprets these numerical days as non-poetical but literal historical narrrative and sets them forth as THE EXAMPLE for observing non-poetical but literal historical seven days in our own life. Poetical numbers involving billions of years would be ABSURD for such an example to follow.


FINAL NOTE: Jesus makes a direct reference to Genesis 1:26-27. We know this because Genesis 1:26-27 is the ONLY PLACE in the Genesis record where the words "male and female" are found and Jesus says:

Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

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

Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The "poetical" theory is based upon the wording in Genesis 1:27 in order to use it as a lift off to interpret the repetitive words "the evening and morning were the first.....second....ect" as poetical, not to be literally understood but rather figuratively understood! Why? In order to make the Genesis record fit the BILLIONS OF YEARS evolution model.

However, it is this very text (Gen. 1:27) that Jesus lifts his very words "male and female" from and places the origin of man "AT the beginning" or "from the begining of Creation" rather than BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of the universe.

This "poetical" developmental argument interpretation makes Genesis 1:26-27 directly contradicts the TIME FRAME in which Jesus places the origin of man.

This is not an INTERPRETATION problem with Christ's words. You cannot HONESTLY interpret those words to mean the exact opposite. Search the use of the term "beginning" used by the New Testament writers in regard to creation and you cannot find any objective evidence to force Christ's words "at the beginning" and "from the beginning of creation" to mean BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of earth - can't be done HONESTLY!

Hence, by PRINCIPLE the evolutionary BILLIONS OF YEARS interpretation opposes Jesus Christ, His words and ultimately His own veracity and thus His character as the Son of God. If you deny His words are part of the inspired scriptures then you are taking a position that no other textual critic has advanced and provided any evidence to support. Hence, you are again in PRINCIPLE rejecting Christ as the Son of God because he regarded scriptures as inspired and so did those He taught.

 

GE:

Absolute un-founded un-Biblical NONSENSE!

http://www.biblestudents.co.za
latest article, 'BONE-day combining day'