The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I may believe that all "ducks" came from 1 Kind of duck, but compared to what evolutionists, believe that we came from slime, i find my idea much easier to believe, now i am curious what you as an OE believes, even if as you mention ahead (which i will get to) that the day "yom" means one day, and it was only later that god made "the first day", this only takes care of...the age of the solar system and our earth, land animals still have not been introduced, and when they are, there is no more places for you to put gaps of time, even if you could! the flood dates have no gaps in them so i then ask you what do you suppose happened on the ark? you yourself are stuck to belive in some sort of mass speciation!


i found this article kind of scary, your article goes on to say that fish would of had a very hard time to survive during the flood, this is true, they would have, but in an OE flood, nothing is different, we still see a global flood that would have been hard for the marine habitat, furthermore it goes to say that the ark couldn't withstand the punishment of the condition implied.. check out AIG's view of noahs ark...the thing is a tank!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark



What i read here, is that their idea is equally valid, and the reason it is rejected is because THEIR depiction is not in with the "secular evolutionary worldview"
they are saying that evolutionary thinking has taken over a lot of peoples minds, which it has, and i agree, is your model not a creation model? then it does not deal with what they consider the majority, although you are right, they do disagree with the OE idea. As do i? but again, its not about biblical authority that's all! this simply my, and AIG's take on it.



They don't make sense? they fit within my interpretation of the biblical time scale, and leads us perfectly into todays time. I see no issue, i am not playing the "i don't see it, so i wont recognize it" card, i sincerely understand and agree with models i read.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
The great debate videos, talk about YE vs OE

I agree that the bible should be read in context, so does AIG and all YE creationists, its a universal fact, we read everything in context and build our understanding, I believe god knows how long a day is, if he made things in days, but then on gods 3rd day of work, the solar system saw its first day. My explanation me be hard to understand, please watch those videos for further understanding, the only other way i can explain it is..think of a daily checklist that god has.

Day 1- he creates Heavens and Earth
Day 2 -he creates Light, dark, Morning, Evening
day 3 - heturns on the system, and it runs, "it was good", and the solar system had its first full day!

god lives outside of time, so he made a time for us, and used our language for us to understand how long it took him to do all that he did, to show his majesty and glory.

Edit: another link on the Yom and day.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/day.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/Wang.asp

In love and in Christ
For gods glory
God bless
Jordan
Gorship

_________________
To Live is Christ, To Die Is Gain

Gorship writes:

If you accept this as a literal set of events, then you should address how you reconcile this with Genesis 2 which says man was created in the same day as the heavens and earth, and that the chronology was:
Day 1 -- he creates heavens and earth and man
After man, in this order (without specifying whether it was the same day or later): plants, animals, Eve

This is what amazes me, that people who accept a literal 6-day chronology of creation from Genesis 1 must deny the literal reading of Genesis 2. Gorship, how did you decide that Genesis 1 is the literal one and Genesis 2 is not?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Cobra,

You seem to bring this up in any thread discussing Genesis and/or Creation. This has been answered by more than one member throughout the forum so any explanation Gorship offers will be disregarded as the rest have been. Members can use the search feature to find you opinion on this matter as well as the replies that give the "flipside" of your arguments here.

So now I am officially asking you to " Please refrain from posting the same message numerous times in multiple threads throughout the forum." If you have any questions please re-read the Code of Conduct.

Thank you.

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog

I haven't talked origins here in while, so I might as well jump in...

To let everyone know where I'm coming from up front...
I was raised with YEC and was taught YEC in both High School and College. It was years later and after much Bible study that I realized that YEC is not taught in Scripture and is nothing more than a man made tradition that is adopted by a minority of Christians.

For me it all comes back to what Scripture says...
- the use of 'yom' in Gen 2:4 gives us insight as to how 'yom' is used within the immediate context of Gen 1 and 2.

Even the three passages you reference fail to support the YEC position
- Luke 3:23-38 explicitly shows that there are gaps in the Genesis geneologies (Compare Gen 10:24 with Luke 3:35-36)
- And the YEC understanding of 'beginning of creation' in Mark 10:6 comes into direct contradiction with the sequence of events given in Genesis 1. According to Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were created on day 6 (the last day of creation, not the beginning of creation).

Now I have no problem with a person saying they personally believe the earth is 6000 years old, I have a number of Christian brothers and sisters who believe that, and that's ok. However I take strong exception to those who claim that the Bible clearly teaches YEC. It doesn't... and those who claim it does are equating a man made YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture.

The real harm of equating the YEC tradition with the authority of Scripture is seen when people turn their back on the Gospel or shipwreck their faith because they actually do buy into the premise that Scripture is just as fallible as the man made YEC tradition.

Scripture does not explicitly teach YEC and we as Christians should try our best to avoid claiming Scripture says something that it doesn't.

In Christ

Dear Paco I agree but it appears that presently there seems to be a surge in allegorising everything so are we very far away from some saying that what is written in the bible about Christ and his life , death and resurrection isnt what really happened , but it is open to anyones interpretation of it

Ccousine,

Please see this new thread for my response
http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?f=154&t=9126&p=87364#p87359

-Mark

I hope you don't mean to imply that anyone not choosing Genesis 1 as a play-by-play account of 6 days of historical events of creation will also jump to denying the death and resurrection of the Savior. That would be escalating a single man-made tradition of interpretation to an essential of Christianity.

The same alarmist technique could be applied to anyone who believes Jesus was speaking figuratively about the wine He handed the disciples at the last supper -- declaring if you don't believe He was literally handing them a glass of blood, you don't believe Jesus gave His life for us.

It is not an appropriate way to view the situation, because it tars honest believers seeking the truth as deniers.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

AS christians the truth is in His Word and the answers are in the scriptures , if religion wants to cast doubt on the truths in His Word in order to fit nicely and comfortably within the world and mans wisdom and knowledge then that is wrong . Honest believers look and seek the truth within the word , it is not alarmist we are told to study the word . OE> YE< GAP theory etc are just ways of trying to organise the truths in a way that fits into mans wisdom , and all that about the wine is really not worth a peply

I think Cobra's point about the wine is an extremelyu insightful comment. I am saddened that you do not recognize it as such.

Are not honest believers told to seek the truth from nature as well. I know I bring it up alot, but should not we also read Psalm 19 as a command to investigate our natural world.


I think this passage shows a healthy relatonship between nature, scripture, and religous practice, don't you.

-Mark

How is the comment on the wine insightfu, when the scripture explains itself from the scriptures

I would agree 100 % with your quotation and that is the point I am trying to make , except the religious practice , what does that mean ?

I read this and wonder to myself is it truly a crisis of faith to believe that the Earth is old and the processes that going on here take a long time? Is faith so fragile that a different time line of life would destroy belief in Jesus? As best that I can tell knowing the Truth about the Bible and history is to know God and all that God has done in this world...and several others. Challenging theological presuppositions about the age of the Earth seems to me to be a sign of spiritual maturity and growth in knowing about the nature of God. Hiding the light of Truth under something does not appear to me to glorify God or even allow for a discussion of this topic.

You can challenge theological presuppositions as long as you like thats fine but how it is a sign of "spiritual maturity " that I question The Jews reqiure signs the greeks seek after wisdom ,

onesiphorus,
In some ways theology is sort of like the purchase of a box of cheap Chocolate Chip ice cream. You can buy it and take it home in great anticipation that it a joyous celebration for the taste buds. Once home the box is opened only to find...no chocolate chips is evident on the top. So in great disappointment you take back to the store demanding your money back because you didn't find any chocolate chips. The store manager asks if there is anything wrong with the ice cream and you respond yes there are no chocolate chips. The manager ask if you actually tried the ice cream. Your response is no because you know that the whole box is exactly like what can be seen at the top of the opened box...regular ice cream. The manager responds that perhaps next time it would be helpful to scoop some out before returning the ice cream to the store. In this way I think spiritual growth means to dig a little deeper in scripture and theological studies before assuming everything is exactly as it seems on the surface..this is spiritual growth.