How did the Earth and Man come to be?

[Tetzel]

Creationism, evolution, grand watchmaker, intelligent design. What's the truth?

[MORTANIUS]

They were formed from "nothingness" ;)

[C.F.W. Walther]

*BIG BANG*


:liturgy: God said "bang" for 6 days is a row:liturgy:






:confused:

[KagomeShuko]

*BIG BANG*


:liturgy: God said "bang" for 6 days is a row:liturgy:






:confused:

*snerk* :D :D

[KagomeShuko]

Who knows? Who cares? (not me) I just know "God created" and that's all that matters to me!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Melethiel]

God did it. Why bother arguing over the details?

[SPALATIN]

*BIG BANG*


:liturgy: God said "bang" for 6 days is a row:liturgy:






:confused:

And on the 7th day he rested because saying "bang" that many days in a row tires a God out. Maybe he said it more like Emeril Lagasse, "Bam!"

[porterross]

I know that bumping old threads is sometimes an unwelcome act, but I have some serious questions about the age of the earth and I would appreciate everyone's' input.


1.) What is your thought on the assumption that the translation of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 to be a 24 hour period for each recorded stage of God's creation?

2.) Between the initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and the recorded first day, Gen. 1:5, who can say for certain what the amount of time was that passed when the earth was without form and void? This could have been hundreds of thousands of years, yes?

3.) Is the word "yom" (day in Gen. 1) not also translated as 'time' and 'age' in other places of the Old Testament? Was it not used for many different descriptions of time periods due to the lack of descriptive words in the Hebrew language of Moses?

4.) Dinosaurs.
We know they were on the earth at one time. Carbon dating debates aside, if the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs were alive at the same time that God made all other living beings including Adam & Eve, then why did they not survive the flood?
Should the dinosaurs not have been taken into the Ark as God commanded Noah in Gen. 6:19-20,
"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every will come to you to keep them alive."


What do you all think, especially LCMS/WELS members and those with more conservative views?

I don't remember the dogma of the 6,000 year old argument being in place when I was young and went through confirmation classes. Creation versus big bang and evolution were at odds, of course, but I don't remember being told that believing anything other than the young earth view was wrong and in opposition to the Bible.

Personally, I can't logically get my head and heart around the 6,000 year old argument, but I also wouldn't make a definite stated opinion on the absolute age of all things Created because we simply don't know.

Does the age really matter as long as we accept that God the Father always has been, always will be and that He alone is the reason that all of what we know of this world exists?

I truly would appreciate your opinions, understandings and well-thought-out points of view on this.

:confused: :prayer:

[LutherNut]

I know that bumping old threads is sometimes an unwelcome act, but I have some serious questions about the age of the earth and I would appreciate everyone's' input.

1.) What is your thought on the assumption that the translation of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 to be a 24 hour period for each recorded stage of God's creation?


In the context of Genesis 1, the word "yom" really cannot mean anything but a 24 hour period. The six days of creation, according to Genesis context, were 6 consecutive 24 hour periods.

2.) Between the initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and the recorded first day, Gen. 1:5, who can say for certain what the amount of time was that passed when the earth was without form and void? This could have been hundreds of thousands of years, yes?

The initial creation and the first recorded day are in fact the same day. Noting in the context of Genesis suggests otherwise. What we aren't sure about is exactly how much time was between the events of the sixth day and the Fall of Humanity (basically between Genesis 2 and 3). Somewhere in between Satan fell from grace. The Scripture is silent on this.

3.) Is the word "yom" (day in Gen. 1) not also translated as 'time' and 'age' in other places of the Old Testament? Was it not used for many different descriptions of time periods due to the lack of descriptive words in the Hebrew language of Moses?

As with any other word in any other language the meaning in a particular place is dependant solely on the context in which it is used. The context of Genesis 1, and supported by the rest of Scripture, is that "yom" in Genesis 1 means day and not some other period of time. There are many theories about this, but Scripture interprets Scripture.


4.) Dinosaurs. We know they were on the earth at one time. Carbon dating debates aside, if the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs were alive at the same time that God made all other living beings including Adam & Eve, then why did they not survive the flood? Should the dinosaurs not have been taken into the Ark as God commanded Noah in Gen. 6:19-20,
"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every will come to you to keep them alive."


Who says they weren't on the ark? Not all dinosaurs were big, humungous creatures with big teeth and long necks. The word used in your quote above is "kind." In Hebrew it's "min" denoting a kind or type. We do acknowledge micro-evolution (the change within kinds). They also could have simply died out shortly after the flood due to lack of sufficient food supply to sustain them.


What do you all think, especially LCMS/WELS members and those with more conservative views? I don't remember the dogma of the 6,000 year old argument being in place when I was young and went through confirmation classes. Creation versus big bang and evolution were at odds, of course, but I don't remember being told that believing anything other than the young earth view was wrong and in opposition to the Bible.

Probably because there is no hard proof that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I have heard as many as 15,000 years, but not really any older than that. The 6,000 year number comes from an Anglican bishop who counted the years of the ages of Adam to Abraham as recorded in Genesis. The problem with this is that the genealogy may very well have gaps in it. Most of the genealogies in Scripture do. There is no real way of knowing this.

Personally, I can't logically get my head and heart around the 6,000 year old argument, but I also wouldn't make a definite stated opinion on the absolute age of all things Created because we simply don't know.

Exact age, we don't know. But it isn't "millions" or "billions."

[porterross]

Probably because there is no hard proof that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I have heard as many as 15,000 years, but not really any older than that. The 6,000 year number comes from an Anglican bishop who counted the years of the ages of Adam to Abraham as recorded in Genesis. The problem with this is that the genealogy may very well have gaps in it. Most of the genealogies in Scripture do. There is no real way of knowing this.

Exact age, we don't know. But it isn't "millions" or "billions."


I agree, but I heard a LCMS pastor say that the scientific method "proves" that it is 6,000 years old.

How so?

Have you heard of or seen the proof?

[Melethiel]

I agree, but I heard a LCMS pastor say that the scientific method "proves" that it is 6,000 years old.

How so?

Have you heard of or seen the proof?
It doesn't. All science points to millions of years.

Anyway, I'm conservative on this issue...St. Augustine didn't think Genesis 1 was literal either. :P

[C.F.W. Walther]

I agree, but I heard a LCMS pastor say that the scientific method "proves" that it is 6,000 years old.

How so?

Have you heard of or seen the proof?

Gosh I wish I could remember the periodical and I don't think it was Scientific America but maybe some of you remember the article. It was a truly scientific support of the six days of creation by some secular scientists. Unfortunately I think the periodical is defunct now. I think it was Discovery magazine. Sorry for being so vague.

I'm going to go look for it and will post it if I find it.

I know this doesn't support the 6K year old premiss but the simple explanation that I've read about dinosaurs is the one Luthernut posted. More to the point is that there were millions of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species then and that a lot of them died out from natural catastrophies. Considering that when the flood was over the plants were devastated on the earth and the only thing left was carrion and sea weed :).





:scratch:

[porterross]

Considering that when the flood was over the plants were devastated on the earth and the only thing left was carrion and sea weed :).





.....and olive branches....????
;)

[C.F.W. Walther]

.....and olive branches....????
;)

Most trees arn't edible but yes some would have survived. Even though it rained 40 days and nights it still took many months before the water receded to show dry land.

[LutherNut]

I agree, but I heard a LCMS pastor say that the scientific method "proves" that it is 6,000 years old.

How so?

Have you heard of or seen the proof?

He was mistaken. Like I said before, the 6,000 year theory is based upon the adding up of the ages of those listed in the genealogy from Adam to Abraham. There is no guarantee that the genealogy does not contain gaps, as most (if not all) of the genealogies in Scripture do. There is evidence that points to a period of 10 - 15,000 years, based upon ancient astronomical records.

[LutherNut]

It doesn't. All science points to millions of years.

Anyway, I'm conservative on this issue...St. Augustine didn't think Genesis 1 was literal either. :P

Not true. Scientific theory points to billions of years. If true science was used, it would show that the earth is MUCH younger.

You say you are conservative on this issue, but then you allude to the idea that Genesis isn't literal. That's a liberal viewpoint.

[LutherNut]

Considering that when the flood was over the plants were devastated on the earth and the only thing left was carrion and sea weed.

Plants can come back quite fast. There is a reservoir near where I live that was built in the 60's on the Allegheny River to generate electricity. In the fall the water level is dropped in order to protect the shoreline from ide damage during the winter. A few years ago the level dropped unusually low, and combined with a drier than normal spring, exposed land that hadn't been above water for over 30 years. (There was an entire town that was evacuated in order to flood the valley and it was exposed as well... kinda neat in an historical way.) Anyway, that spring, before the water finally began to rise, grass and other plants had begun to grow on the exposed land. The first time in 30 years that this ground was exposed to sunshine and air and the plant life came back! God's creation is wondeful!

Since Noah did not leave the ark until almost 6 full months after it had run aground, there certainly was time for the plant life to begin to return. Consider also God's hand in the recovery of the earth and the pristine condition of the earth at that time (compared to the horrid condition of the planet today).

[C.F.W. Walther]

Plants can come back quite fast. There is a reservoir near where I live that was built in the 60's on the Allegheny River to generate electricity. In the fall the water level is dropped in order to protect the shoreline from ide damage during the winter. A few years ago the level dropped unusually low, and combined with a drier than normal spring, exposed land that hadn't been above water for over 30 years. (There was an entire town that was evacuated in order to flood the valley and it was exposed as well... kinda neat in an historical way.) Anyway, that spring, before the water finally began to rise, grass and other plants had begun to grow on the exposed land. The first time in 30 years that this ground was exposed to sunshine and air and the plant life came back! God's creation is wondeful!

Since Noah did not leave the ark until almost 6 full months after it had run aground, there certainly was time for the plant life to begin to return. Consider also God's hand in the recovery of the earth and the pristine condition of the earth at that time (compared to the horrid condition of the planet today).

You have to remember that birds flying over the lake carry undigested seeds in their droppings and those seeds would have indeterminent age so those plants and trees you see sprouting are probably not 30 years old growing on the bottom of the dried lake. Besides Noah would have had enough sense to bring along seed for planting to refurbish the earth :)

THe lake you're talking about reminds me of BullShoals in Mo were they flooded an existing town. We would scuba dive in the town and see old cars and gas stations, walk through houses were things had just been left laying some 40 years previously.



:scratch:

[grabers429]

creationists.org and answersingenesis.org have some great evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together after the flood. Once you see the evidence its hard to imagine how anyone could deny it with a straight face. check it out.:thumbsup:

[Melethiel]

I can't read Answers in Genesis with a straight face.
Basically, my standpoint is: if people want to believe in a young earth on theological grounds, whatever, it's their call. But when they try to prove it with science, that's what makes me bang my head against the wall.

Luthernut: define "conservative" and "liberal". The church fathers didn't say much about it, and St. Augustine even wrote against a literal reading. One can believe Genesis is true without believing that it's literal.

[porterross]

creationists.org and answersingenesis.org have some great evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together after the flood. Once you see the evidence its hard to imagine how anyone could deny it with a straight face. check it out.:thumbsup:



Thanks grabers, I will.
:wave:

[porterross]

I can't read Answers in Genesis with a straight face.
Basically, my standpoint is: if people want to believe in a young earth on theological grounds, whatever, it's their call. But when they try to prove it with science, that's what makes me bang my head against the wall.

Luthernut: define "conservative" and "liberal". The church fathers didn't say much about it, and St. Augustine even wrote against a literal reading. One can believe Genesis is true without believing that it's literal.


Hmmm. I don't know about that. How is it a good idea to cherry-pick the Bible?

I do not doubt the Word of God as presented in the Bible, but I question man's interpretation and teaching of some of what God tells us.

Is it advisable for a Pastor to be dogmatic about the young earth, 6,000 year old, view when teaching those new to discovering the Bible?

I have to think that maybe they should be a little more flexible with that one item and not present an actual age without also providing the proof they base it on. I say this only because it would help support their statements when people look at them with such doubt because we were all taught something so dramatically different in school.

Why is this so important to some Pastors and Christians? I believe in pure divine creation, but the details of it will most likely always be a mystery to us in this worldly existence, so why is it a source of contention for some in our church?

Isn't our faith in God's supreme understanding and power to control our universe and all that is beyond enough?

I hate to say this, but the dogma I'm seeing in some Lutherans smacks of fundamentalism and it worries me.

Am I wrong to feel that way?

[KEPLER]

1.) What is your thought on the assumption that the translation of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 to be a 24 hour period for each recorded stage of God's creation?
It is just as you said: an assumption.

2.) Between the initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and the recorded first day, Gen. 1:5, who can say for certain what the amount of time was that passed when the earth was without form and void? This could have been hundreds of thousands of years, yes?
Yes.

3.) Is the word "yom" (day in Gen. 1) not also translated as 'time' and 'age' in other places of the Old Testament? Was it not used for many different descriptions of time periods due to the lack of descriptive words in the Hebrew language of Moses?
Yes.

4.) Dinosaurs.
We know they were on the earth at one time. Carbon dating debates aside, if the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs were alive at the same time that God made all other living beings including Adam & Eve, then why did they not survive the flood?
Should the dinosaurs not have been taken into the Ark as God commanded Noah in Gen. 6:19-20,
"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every will come to you to keep them alive."
A question not answerable with the available data. We'll have to ask God when we get there.

What do you all think, especially LCMS/WELS members and those with more conservative views?

I don't remember the dogma of the 6,000 year old argument being in place when I was young and went through confirmation classes. Creation versus big bang and evolution were at odds, of course, but I don't remember being told that believing anything other than the young earth view was wrong and in opposition to the Bible.
I'm not WELS, so I can't answer for them. But as an LCMSer, I will say this.

I find it not merely sad, but absolutely terrifying that I see so many LCMS people accessing, using and accepting the work of such organziations such as Answers in Genesis.

Mind you, I won't criticize ANYONE who simply wants to believe that God created the world in 6 days, and further chooses to believe that those 6 days are literal 24 hour periods as we know them today. If someone leaves it at that, FINE. Bully for them.

But the second that someone even remotely suggests that everyone MUST believe this in order to be a "good Christian", they have crossed the line of heterodoxy. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If someone goes even further and starts using the junk science of Answers in Genesis, then they have crossed the second line into heresy, for three reasons.
Lutherans do not use junk science to support theological points. In case anyone forgot, we dumped transubstantiation because it was junk science that the Papists were using to support it.
The people who run Answers in Genesis are credo-baptist, Real Presence-denying, "Left Behind" dispensationalism believing sectarians. If they can't get baptism right, if they can't get the Lord's Supper right, if they can't get Law and Gospel right...why on earth does anyone think they're trustworthy about other things?
Answers in Genesis posits that anyone who does not believe in 6 literal 24 hour days is not truly a christian. In taking that position, AiG has added to the Gospel and are thus heretics. Personally, I can't logically get my head and heart around the 6,000 year old argument, but I also wouldn't make a definite stated opinion on the absolute age of all things Created because we simply don't know.
You are in no way shape or form required to believe in 6000 year-old earth to be a good Lutheran. Anyone who says you are is a liar. OTOH, you are also not forbidden to believe in a 6000 year-old-earth. Anyone who says that is also a liar.

Does the age really matter as long as we accept that God the Father always has been, always will be and that He alone is the reason that all of what we know of this world exists?
Exactly.

I truly would appreciate your opinions, understandings and well-thought-out points of view on this.

Those are mine.

K

[KEPLER]

Not true. Scientific theory points to billions of years. If true science was used, it would show that the earth is MUCH younger.

You say you are conservative on this issue, but then you allude to the idea that Genesis isn't literal. That's a liberal viewpoint.
You calling it liberal doesn't make it liberal, Jay.

And since you didn't get it, I will offer you this:
Main Entry: iro·ny http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irony002.wav=irony%27%29) http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irony001.wav=irony%27%29)
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ironic) expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

I believe Mel's point is that non-literal interpretations did not suddenly arise after Lyell and Darwin.

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

I know that bumping old threads is sometimes an unwelcome act, but I have some serious questions about the age of the earth and I would appreciate everyone's' input.


1.) What is your thought on the assumption that the translation of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 to be a 24 hour period for each recorded stage of God's creation?

Porterross,

Much of the answer lies in faith that God can do all things at just speaking the words. God lives outside of time and can not be contained therein. In Genesis 1 we read:


3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


If this is God's definition of a "day" then shouldn't we also use that definition. Science is but the measurement of things. Chronometry is the science of "time" and this science divided this day further into smaller units we call hours and that was further divided into minutes and seconds and of course we can further break it down for things like sporting events where time is measured in thousands of a second.

In 2 Peter 3 we read


8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


We need to rest in faith that with God all things are possible and probable. That is why I don't have a problem with a 24-hour day being described in Genesis.

2.) Between the initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and the recorded first day, Gen. 1:5, who can say for certain what the amount of time was that passed when the earth was without form and void? This could have been hundreds of thousands of years, yes?

See my answer above.

3.) Is the word "yom" (day in Gen. 1) not also translated as 'time' and 'age' in other places of the Old Testament? Was it not used for many different descriptions of time periods due to the lack of descriptive words in the Hebrew language of Moses?

As I have not ever taken a Hebrew class I don't feel comfortable discussing the Yom at this time. I may be open to it after I take the classes in Sem.

4.) Dinosaurs.
We know they were on the earth at one time. Carbon dating debates aside, if the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs were alive at the same time that God made all other living beings including Adam & Eve, then why did they not survive the flood?
Should the dinosaurs not have been taken into the Ark as God commanded Noah in Gen. 6:19-20,
"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every will come to you to keep them alive."


Let's go to the book of Job 40


15"Behold, Behemoth,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040;&version=47;#fen-ESV-13880c)]
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.



Do we know what a Behemoth is? Other translations use the word Leviathon. Could these be the "dinosaurs"? In that case we see that Man in Job's time had seen dinosaurs. I believe the word "dinosaur" was not coined until the 19th century. We often use the word to speak of something ancient. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to be insufficient to truly date things.



What do you all think, especially LCMS/WELS members and those with more conservative views?


since I am one of them I think they are pretty groovy and you should give them much room in your consideration of these areas.;)
I don't remember the dogma of the 6,000 year old argument being in place when I was young and went through confirmation classes. Creation versus big bang and evolution were at odds, of course, but I don't remember being told that believing anything other than the young earth view was wrong and in opposition to the Bible.

Personally, I can't logically get my head and heart around the 6,000 year old argument, but I also wouldn't make a definite stated opinion on the absolute age of all things Created because we simply don't know.

Does the age really matter as long as we accept that God the Father always has been, always will be and that He alone is the reason that all of what we know of this world exists?

I truly would appreciate your opinions, understandings and well-thought-out points of view on this.

:confused: :prayer:

I think that 6000 may be a little too young. I could buy 10000 or maybe 15000 but 6000 is a little too young for me.

As to whether it is important--I think it is to Christianity a matter of faith in the Supreme God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit that he created them and that it is we who must put a time frame on his activities because we exist in time, but he exists in the eternal realm.

[Edial]

I know that bumping old threads is sometimes an unwelcome act, but I have some serious questions about the age of the earth and I would appreciate everyone's' input.


1.) What is your thought on the assumption that the translation of the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 to be a 24 hour period for each recorded stage of God's creation?
"Yom" means a period of time. It can be used for various lenghts.
Also, 24 hour period is associated with other planets. Sun was not created until the 3rd day.

All we know that "there was an evening and there was a morning the Nth day".

We do not know how long the period was.

2.) Between the initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and the recorded first day, Gen. 1:5, who can say for certain what the amount of time was that passed when the earth was without form and void? This could have been hundreds of thousands of years, yes?
Yes.
As long as there was one evening and one morning at the ends of these hundreds of thousands of years.

3.) Is the word "yom" (day in Gen. 1) not also translated as 'time' and 'age' in other places of the Old Testament? Was it not used for many different descriptions of time periods due to the lack of descriptive words in the Hebrew language of Moses?
It is used as a varity of time periods.

4.) Dinosaurs.
We know they were on the earth at one time. Carbon dating debates aside, if the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs were alive at the same time that God made all other living beings including Adam & Eve, then why did they not survive the flood?
Should the dinosaurs not have been taken into the Ark as God commanded Noah in Gen. 6:19-20,
"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every will come to you to keep them alive."
You have all the answers. Really.

The Earth is referred to as age-old, anscient in the OT.
6,000 years is not old.

What do you all think, especially LCMS/WELS members and those with more conservative views?

I don't remember the dogma of the 6,000 year old argument being in place when I was young and went through confirmation classes. Creation versus big bang and evolution were at odds, of course, but I don't remember being told that believing anything other than the young earth view was wrong and in opposition to the Bible.
"Young Earth" became popular because it rejects evolution due to its short span of 6,000.

It is a "trick" that some Christians invented in order to "defeat" Darwinism.

Yet Darwinism is defeated by other ways. Oh, well. :)

Personally, I can't logically get my head and heart around the 6,000 year old argument, but I also wouldn't make a definite stated opinion on the absolute age of all things Created because we simply don't know.
:)

Does the age really matter as long as we accept that God the Father always has been, always will be and that He alone is the reason that all of what we know of this world exists?
Age does not matter from a perspective of personal salvation.

Yet it does matter when the Bible is presented as a Testimony to others.
Thinking people will look at our views of Young Earth and dismiss the Bible as a fable.

I truly would appreciate your opinions, understandings and well-thought-out points of view on this.

:confused: :prayer:
I hope this helped somehow.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

It doesn't. All science points to millions of years.

Anyway, I'm conservative on this issue...St. Augustine didn't think Genesis 1 was literal either. :P
Genesis is literal.
All we should do is not to add a "definition" to it.
There was an evening and there was a morning the Nth "yom".
And "yom" is defined as various periods of time in the OT.

Some are quickly to say that the "yom" is 24 hours.
Yet they cannot prove it.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Not true. Scientific theory points to billions of years. If true science was used, it would show that the earth is MUCH younger.

You say you are conservative on this issue, but then you allude to the idea that Genesis isn't literal. That's a liberal viewpoint.
Genesis is literal.

We just should not add definitions to it, such as the "yom" is 24 hours.

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

Edial,

re: post #26.

I want to rep you but I can't.

K

[porterross]

Yet it does matter when the Bible is presented as a Testimony to others.

Thinking people will look at our views of Young Earth and dismiss the Bible as a fable.
Ed


Thank you!!!!
This is exactly my concern when this view is presented as absolute to those beginning to understand what the Bible teaches us about the world. I don't like it, but I believe others are fully within their rights to believe that way. I only wish my unwillingness to accept any defined age would be respected as well.

I don't like it being an absolute item when teaching from within the church, but I won't disagree with my pastor about it except in private. However, when it's presented as proven it bothers me and I don't want it presented as an absolute truth to my daughter.

But I don't want to disagree and be in known conflict with my pastor, either, because that would serve no purpose in benefiting our church as it tries to grow.

I'm praying for guidance. :prayer:

[Edial]

I think that 6000 may be a little too young. I could buy 10000 or maybe 15000 but 6000 is a little too young for me.
.
15,000 years is not young? :)

GE 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.

"Ancient" Strong's Hebrew 5703 is often translated as "ever" as in forever, also forever, eternal and so forth

Example -
PS 45:17 I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.

There are many examples of that word.

Earth is indeed ancient.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Edial,

re: post #26.

I want to rep you but I can't.

K
Please, it's a stunner to me already that we agree yet an another issue.

[Edial]

Thank you!!!!
This is exactly my concern when this view is presented as absolute to those beginning to understand what the Bible teaches us about the world. I don't like it, but I believe others are fully within their rights to believe that way. I only wish my unwillingness to accept any defined age would be respected as well.
To disprove the Young Earth theory is quite simple. ... But it's scary, since it's advocates (not all of course)would make you believe quite intimidated. :)

These guys are scary. :)

I don't like it being an absolute item when teaching from within the church, but I won't disagree with my pastor about it except in private. However, when it's presented as proven it bothers me and I don't want it presented as an absolute truth to my daughter.
Good. :)
Truth MUST be preserved.

But I don't want to disagree and be in known conflict with my pastor, either, because that would serve no purpose in benefiting our church as it tries to grow.

I'm praying for guidance. :prayer:
If you believe that your disagreement with pastor will bring conflict, then the church is not benefiting by you being silent.
If the pastor would start a conflict because of that or change his opinion of you and your daughter because of that, it is might be a good idead to re-evaluate your pastor. :)

There is a way of telling the truth in love.

But it must be told, otherwise truth withers once it is hidden.

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

15,000 years is not young? :)

GE 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.

"Ancient" Strong's Hebrew 5703 is often translated as "ever" as in forever, also forever, eternal and so forth

Example -
PS 45:17 I will perpetuate your memory through all generations;
therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.

There are many examples of that word.

Earth is indeed ancient.

Thanks,
Ed


In respect to those who claim it is millions and billions of years old I would say that 15000 is rather infantile wouldn't you?

[Edial]

In respect to those who claim it is millions and billions of years old I would say that 15000 is rather infantile wouldn't you?
I am not clear.
In respect to the Hebrew word ancient, as presented, you believe that 15,000 years apply?

Thanks,
Ed

[porterross]

If you believe that your disagreement with pastor will bring conflict, then the church is not benefiting by you being silent.

If the pastor would start a conflict because of that or change his opinion of you and your daughter because of that, it is might be a good idead to re-evaluate your pastor. :)

There is a way of telling the truth in love.

But it must be told, otherwise truth withers once it is hidden.

Thanks,
Ed


No need for that over one issue.
I've know him most of my life, which makes it that much harder for me to address it with him, but I feel I have to or it will drive me absolutely bonkers.
I don't know that his stating such an absolute opinion will help the church or how Lutherans are viewed here.
We're a pretty rare species in these parts. ;)

[LutherNut]

I can't read Answers in Genesis with a straight face.
Basically, my standpoint is: if people want to believe in a young earth on theological grounds, whatever, it's their call. But when they try to prove it with science, that's what makes me bang my head against the wall.

But there is plenty of real science that supports the young earth and the Genesis accounts of the history of the earth. "Evolutionary science" starts with a theory and then tries to find evidence to support it. That's not science at all. Science means taking theevidence that we have and trying to determine the truth from it. When that approach is taken, it is very evident that the Gensis accounts are much closer to the truth than the fictional "evolutionary theory."

Luthernut: define "conservative" and "liberal". The church fathers didn't say much about it, and St. Augustine even wrote against a literal reading. One can believe Genesis is true without believing that it's literal.

"Conservatives" basically hold that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, and believe what it tells us as His truth. "Liberals" try to twist the word of God to make it mean what they want to fit their agenda.
Roman Catholics believe that Genesis is a myth and they promote Darwinian evolution that has absolutely no true scientific evidence to support it.

Genesis isn't literal? What do we find in Genesis? The first prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. Is that a myth as well??? :confused: :scratch: :doh:

[LutherNut]

Genesis is literal.

We just should not add definitions to it, such as the "yom" is 24 hours.

Thanks,
Ed

Context is king, my friend. And there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that suggests that "yom" is anything other than a literal "yom" of 24 hours. Trying to stretch it to thousnads or millions of years degrades God in His power and glory. Can't He do what He said in 24 hours? Do you really believe He needed thousands or millions of years to do what He said was done in a "yom"?
:doh:

[Melethiel]

But there is plenty of real science that supports the young earth and the Genesis accounts of the history of the earth. "Evolutionary science" starts with a theory and then tries to find evidence to support it. That's not science at all. Science means taking theevidence that we have and trying to determine the truth from it. When that approach is taken, it is very evident that the Gensis accounts are much closer to the truth than the fictional "evolutionary theory."

Absolutely not true. First of all, I am not aware of any science that supports a young earth. Second of all, the Theory of Evolution came after much of the evidence was in, and further evidence supports it.

Answers in Genesis does exactly what you are accusing the scientists of doing: starting with a position and working the facts to fit it.

Genesis isn't literal? What do we find in Genesis? The first prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. Is that a myth as well??? :confused: :scratch: :doh:

If one holds Genesis 1 as a myth (which, btw, is much different from a fairy tale), it actually holds more truth. Yes, exactly, it holds the prophesy of the coming of the Messiah. That can be true without believing in a literal talking snake.

There was a thread in origins theology on this very topic of myth...http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html

[LutherNut]

Thank you!!!!
This is exactly my concern when this view is presented as absolute to those beginning to understand what the Bible teaches us about the world. I don't like it, but I believe others are fully within their rights to believe that way. I only wish my unwillingness to accept any defined age would be respected as well.

I don't like it being an absolute item when teaching from within the church, but I won't disagree with my pastor about it except in private. However, when it's presented as proven it bothers me and I don't want it presented as an absolute truth to my daughter.

But I don't want to disagree and be in known conflict with my pastor, either, because that would serve no purpose in benefiting our church as it tries to grow.

I'm praying for guidance. :prayer:

There are those who deny that Jesus ever lived. Do you not what that presented as dogma to your daugther?
There are those who deny that He was crucified and rose from the dead. Afterall, the idea of someone rising from the dead goes against all of our "scientific" understanding. We certainly wouldn't want our children to be taught something as absurd as the reusrrection now would we?
I mean, trying to convince someone of something that is so preposterous and ridiculous as someone rising from the grave would certainly drive them away and then the church wouldn't grow at all!
I know, why don't we ask people what they want to believe, and then we'll just teach them what their itching ears want to hear! I'll bet trhe church will grow, then, now won't it?

:doh: :doh:

<shakes head and walks away>

[LutherNut]

Second of all, the Theory of Evolution came after much of the evidence was in, and further evidence supports it.

It takes much more faith to believe in the Theory of Evolution (which outright denies the very existance of God, BTW) than to hold to the Genesis, young-earth account.

Where does your faith reside - with God or with Man?
What did Jesus say to Peter... "Get behind Me, Satan..."

[KEPLER]

There are those who deny that Jesus ever lived. Do you not what that presented as dogma to your daugther?
Non sequitur
There are those who deny that He was crucified and rose from the dead. Sfter, the idea of someone rising from the dead goes against all of our "scientific" understanding. We certainly wouldn't want our children to be taught something as absurd as the reusrrection now would we?
Non sequitur
I mean, trying to convince someone of something that is so preposterous and ridiculous as someone rising from the grave would certainly drive them away and then the church wouldn't grow at all!
Hmmm, do we "convince" people of the veracity of the Resurrection? Or do we preach it?
I know, why don't we ask people what they want to believe, and then we'll just teach them what their itching ears want to hear! I'll bet trhe church will grow, then, now won't it?

:doh: :doh:

<shakes head and walks away>
Get this straight, Jay. If a Jehovah's Witness can preach it form his pulpit (and yes, JWs believe in a 6 literal 24 hour day creation) and a Lutheran can preach it from his pulpit, then by definition, it must NOT be pertinent to the Gospel.

[LutherNut]

This is the official position of the LCMS:

"It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days."

[Melethiel]

the Theory of Evolution (which outright denies the very existance of God, BTW)

It does no such thing. You really honestly think biologists are concerned with disproving the existence of God? Evolution describes how organisms change over time. It says nothing about the origin of life. As such, I fail to see how it denies God.

It does not take much more faith. It takes no faith at all - evolution can be observed in a laboratory. Believing in a young earth, on the other hand, in the face of all contrary data, takes much more faith.

Nice to know that you think non-YEC are bad Christians...

[Melethiel]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the "real scientific evidence" that proves a young earth. This has to be from published, reputable journals, not AiG.

[Melethiel]

This is the official position of the LCMS:

"It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days."
Needless to say, I believe the LCMS is wrong here. As it is on many other things; surely you don't believe everything in the LCMS is right?

[LutherNut]

Non sequitur

Non sequitur

Hmmm, do we "convince" people of the veracity of the Resurrection? Or do we preach it?

I don't believe that I was talking to you.

Get this straight, Jay. If a Jehovah's Witness can preach it form his pulpit (and yes, JWs believe in a 6 literal 24 hour day creation) and a Lutheran can preach it from his pulpit, then by definition, it must NOT be pertinent to the Gospel.

Well, at least the JW's have something right then don't they? :wave:

[LutherNut]

It does no such thing. You really honestly think biologists are concerned with disproving the existence of God? Evolution describes how organisms change over time. It says nothing about the origin of life. As such, I fail to see how it denies God.

It does not take much more faith. It takes no faith at all - evolution can be observed in a laboratory. Believing in a young earth, on the other hand, in the face of all contrary data, takes much more faith.


You are confusing Theory of Evolution, which most certainly does deny the existance of God and deals with the origin of life, with Natural and Artificial Selection (sometimes known as "micro-evolution") which the Church does accept.

Ity would be easier to talk with you if you used the right terminology. ;)

[grabers429]

"If someone goes even further and starts using the junk science of Answers in Genesis, then they have crossed the second line into heresy, for three reasons.
Lutherans do not use junk science to support theological points. In case anyone forgot, we dumped transubstantiation because it was junk science that the Papists were using to support it.
The people who run Answers in Genesis are credo-baptist, Real Presence-denying, "Left Behind" dispensationalism believing sectarians. If they can't get baptism right, if they can't get the Lord's Supper right, if they can't get Law and Gospel right...why on earth does anyone think they're trustworthy about other things?
Answers in Genesis posits that anyone who does not believe in 6 literal 24 hour days is not truly a christian. In taking that position, AiG has added to the Gospel and are thus heretics." KEPLER, what exactly makes this "junk science"? I would disagree with their statement that you are a bad christian if you dont believe this, but you seem to disregard their science simply because you disagree with them theologically. This seems a bit arrogant of you. Theological differences do not invalidate their evidence.

[KEPLER]

This is the official position of the LCMS:

"It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days."

Nice try, Jay. Now let's look at the whole passage (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2210), rather than your selective snip:
Question: A person, because of his study of science, does not believe that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour periods. Does this fact, by itself, render this person ineligible for membership in the LCMS?

Answer: A person's private views regarding this question do not automatically disqualify a person from becoming a member of the congregation. It is possible, of course, that someone holding to a given theory about the "six days" of the creation accounts also holds to views about the Bible that would be troublesome and perhaps in some cases detrimental to saving faith.

But judgments in this regard belong in the realm of individual pastoral care, and are not a matter of hard and fast rules so that someone's personal opinions in this area would become in effect a kind of litmus test for membership.


It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).

[KEPLER]

You are confusing Theory of Evolution, which most certainly does deny the existance of God and deals with the origin of life, with Natural and Artificial Selection (sometimes known as "micro-evolution") which the Church does accept.

Ity would be easier to talk with you if you used the right terminology. ;)

You're wrong, Jay. What you are describing is the theory of abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).

[Melethiel]

You are confusing Theory of Evolution, which most certainly does deny the existance of God and deals with the origin of life, with Natural and Artificial Selection (sometimes known as "micro-evolution") which the Church does accept.

Ity would be easier to talk with you if you used the right terminology. ;)
You are incorrect. The Theory of Evolution encompasses all types of evolution, and makes no statement about the origin of life, or about the existence of God. Abiogenesis is still in the realm of hypothesis and is not part of the Theory of Evolution. (BTW, in science, a Theory is almost as good as a Law.)

Microevolution deals with changes and mutations within a species. Obviously, you know what natural selection is. Macroevolution deals with the formation of new species, which has been observed and documented, and the mechanism of macroevolution is microevolution and natural selection.

Don't talk to me about correct terminology, I've just sat through two months of lectures on this topic and have the definitions down by heart. :P

[Melethiel]

You're wrong, Jay. What you are describing is the theory of abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).
Abiogenesis isn't in the realm of theory yet. ;)

[grabers429]

You are incorrect. The Theory of Evolution encompasses all types of evolution, and makes no statement about the origin of life, or about the existence of God. Abiogenesis is still in the realm of hypothesis and is not part of the Theory of Evolution. (BTW, in science, a Theory is almost as good as a Law.)

Microevolution deals with changes and mutations within a species. Obviously, you know what natural selection is. Macroevolution deals with the formation of new species, which has been observed and documented, and the mechanism of macroevolution is microevolution and natural selection.

Don't talk to me about correct terminology, I've just sat through two months of lectures on this topic and have the definitions down by heart. :PA theory is still unproven though. And which species have been observed to form?

[SPALATIN]

I am not clear.
In respect to the Hebrew word ancient, as presented, you believe that 15,000 years apply?

Thanks,
Ed

First of all Ed,

I am not interested in the definition of the word "Yom"

I am talking about my opinion of how old the earth is compared to a bunch of neanderthal scientists.

So that is my final word on this topic.

[Melethiel]

A theory is still unproven though. And which species have been observed to form?
No. You are confusing the colloquial use of the word "theory" with a scientific theory. A colloquial theory is closer to the scientific hypothesis. A scientific theory is a formulated statement that is written to work with observed facts, and is as good as a Law.

Off the top of my head, there are two species of birds (mockingbirds, I believe) which have deviated to the extent that they are now unable to mate with each other.

[LutherNut]

Macroevolution deals with the formation of new species, which has been observed and documented, and the mechanism of macroevolution is microevolution and natural selection.

Must be the definitions have changed in recent times.
Macroelvolution has always been understood as the change between kinds.

I'm still waiting for someone to breed a dog with feathers... ^_^ ^_^

Until then, I'll stick with God's inerrant Word over Man's errant word.

Ciao

[LutherNut]

Off the top of my head, there are two species of birds (mockingbirds, I believe) which have deviated to the extent that they are now unable to mate with each other.

Well, when one of them turns into a goat, then I'll believe your "Theory" of Evolution. Until then, I'll stick to God's facts.

:wave:

[Melethiel]

Must be the definitions have changed in recent times.
Macroelvolution has always been understood as the change between kinds.

I'm still waiting for someone to breed a dog with feathers... ^_^ ^_^

Until then, I'll stick with God's inerrant Word over Man's errant word.

Ciao
Define "kind". Your quip about breeding a dog with feathers shows your misunderstanding of the basic concepts of this theory.

[grabers429]

Must be the definitions have changed in recent times.
Macroelvolution has always been understood as the change between kinds.

I'm still waiting for someone to breed a dog with feathers... ^_^ ^_^

Until then, I'll stick with God's inerrant Word over Man's errant word.

CiaoIm with LutherNut on this. Besides, we are simply going to go around and around and noone is going to convince anyone else about this topic. The fact remains we are all children of God and worship the lord and savior Jesus, and thats all that really matters in the end.:prayer:

[Melethiel]

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for this "real scientific proof" for a young earth.

[Ethan_Fetch]

I know what Luther would say. He'd say, "Reason is a whore."

I'll just say, "Science-Schmience"

Evolution does away with original sin since it necessitates death before death entered the world.

[Melethiel]

Like I said, if one chooses to believe YEC on theological grounds, I'm cool with that. Just no using junk science to try to back it up. :P

[Edial]

Context is king, my friend. And there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that suggests that "yom" is anything other than a literal "yom" of 24 hours. Trying to stretch it to thousnads or millions of years degrades God in His power and glory. Can't He do what He said in 24 hours? Do you really believe He needed thousands or millions of years to do what He said was done in a "yom"?
:doh:
Now you seem to sound like some of my Fundamental Baptist friends. :)

It is not a matter whether God would not be able to do things in a short period of time. It is a matter of whether the Bible says he did that in a short period of time.
The Bible does not.

Did you ever consider all the things that Adam would need to do in 24 hours?

Thanks,
Ed

[Ethan_Fetch]

Now you seem to sound like some of my Fundamental Baptist friends. :)

It is not a matter whether God would not be able to do things in a short period of time. It is a matter of whether the Bible says he did that in a short period of time.
The Bible does not.

Did you ever consider all the things that Adam would need to do in 24 hours?

Thanks,
Ed

So, the expression, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (second day, etc.)" could mean something other than a normal "solar day"?

The choices are:

1. God created the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago, or

2. The Bible contains error.

[Edial]

First of all Ed,

I am not interested in the definition of the word "Yom"

I am talking about my opinion of how old the earth is compared to a bunch of neanderthal scientists.

So that is my final word on this topic.
Just one note.

The "scientists" discovered that "a man" is 1 million years old.

What they did discover is some bi-pedal creature that is 1 million years old.
That creature walked on 2 feet.

That bi-pedal creature was not a man, just a bi-pedal creature.:)

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

...Answers in Genesis does exactly what you are accusing the scientists of doing: starting with a position and working the facts to fit it.

...
Very good, Melethiel. :)

Ed

[Melethiel]

So, the expression, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (second day, etc.)" could mean something other than a normal "solar day"?

The choices are:

1. God created the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago, or

2. The Bible contains error.
Solar evenings and mornings before the sun was created, huh?

I find it rather telling that the first few chapters of Genesis are written in poetic form, not historical narrative. Coupled with the fact that the church fathers weren't YEC, I see no reason to believe in that position.

[Ethan_Fetch]

Solar evenings and mornings before the sun was created, huh?

I find it rather telling that the first few chapters of Genesis are written in poetic form, not historical narrative. Coupled with the fact that the church fathers weren't YEC, I see no reason to believe in that position.

Sure, seeing that the form continues after there was a sun to rise and set, I see no necessity for the expression's pure dependence upon it's being there.

The point of the text, when it use the expression "evening and morning" is to point to a normal "solar day" as the measure.

Also, the Jews always understood it this way. To deny it would be for them to make a mockery of what they clearly understood to be part of an early articulation of the sabbath doctrine.

This is not a "salvation issue" of course...but I do find it disturbing when Lutherans, of all people, prefer scientific orthodoxy to the pure milk of God's Word.

The discussion in the other thread on the alien-ness of scholasticism as it relates to some high church practices is instructive as well on this point.

[Edial]

It does no such thing. You really honestly think biologists are concerned with disproving the existence of God? Evolution describes how organisms change over time. It says nothing about the origin of life. As such, I fail to see how it denies God.

It does not take much more faith. It takes no faith at all - evolution can be observed in a laboratory. Believing in a young earth, on the other hand, in the face of all contrary data, takes much more faith.

...
Actually, the evolutionists went a step beyond of a scientific evidence of organisms evolving.
They are stating that organisms evolve into different kinds of organisms.

The Bible states that God created organisms according to their kind.

GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And the science does not have any fossils that show "half fish half something else".

True science and the Bible never disagree.:)

They cannot.:)

Thanks,
Ed

[Ethan_Fetch]

I'll agree with you on one thing for sure...the revisionist evidentialism of Answers in Genesis is just as rationalistic and un-biblical as "theistic evolution" and should be avoided...

As though God's Word needed backup.

[Melethiel]

Actually, the evolutionists went a step beyond of a scientific evidence of organisms evolving.
They are stating that organisms evolve into different kinds of organisms.

The Bible states that God created organisms according to their kind.

GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And the science does not have any fossils that show "half fish half something else".

True science and the Bible never disagree.:)

They cannot.:)

Thanks,
Ed
1) define "kind"
2) Archeopteryx

[Melethiel]

Anyways, getting back to the topic, I don't believe that Genesis 1 necessitates a "24 hour day" interpretation, and this certainly isn't a new standpoint.

For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.

God told Adam that on the "day" he ate of the fruit, he would die. AFAIK, it's the same word being used.

Another one on why it can't be literal:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

I doubt Augustine would have found a 24 hour day impossible to conceive.

And I find this one particularly interesting:

That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day.

[porterross]

What we're witnessing in these animated exchanges of this this afternoon is exactly what I don't want to happen in my church over this issue.

I honestly don't believe it's worth arguing over, but this does prove my point of it being an incredibly varied issue that points to personal interpretation and thought processes.
That's precisely why I think that stating ones understanding, whatever that might be, as the undisputed truth on this matter is not beneficial to or necessary for the acceptance of Lutheran doctrine and apparently, the LCMS sees it the same way.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Kepler for directing me to this:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2210

That is exactly what I have always been led to understand the church's view was since I was a young, overly analytical child who exasperated adults who could not answer my questions with anything except dogma. I truly believe approaching honest inquiries in such a manner that refutes pious conscience does more to cause people to turn away from the church and it's not the manner in which I envision Jesus addressing us either.

I will have this with me when I speak with my Pastor specifically on this issue and we'll go from there.

[Ethan_Fetch]

I completely agree with that CTCR FAQ link btw.

[porterross]

There are those who deny that Jesus ever lived. Do you not what that presented as dogma to your daugther?

Silly analogy.
If I did, then I most likely would not have brought her up as I have nor would I have her with me in church and in confirmation classes.
Armed with the truth of Christ's life and Crucifixion, she will know to discount those lost souls for what they are and to pray for them to come to know the Truth.




There are those who deny that He was crucified and rose from the dead. Afterall, the idea of someone rising from the dead goes against all of our "scientific" understanding. We certainly wouldn't want our children to be taught something as absurd as the reusrrection now would we?
I mean, trying to convince someone of something that is so preposterous and ridiculous as someone rising from the grave would certainly drive them away and then the church wouldn't grow at all!


Jesus Christ's life is not disputed my too many theologians that I know of, but then I don't go looking for the company of those who are so lost.
His death and resurrection was witnessed and attested to by numerous people of His time.
Your point is one that may indeed cause someone with less faith in the recorded FACTS of the New Testament to question the One who provides our Salvation, but not me. The Holy Spirit has shown me the Truth and there is nothing to question on this issue.



I know, why don't we ask people what they want to believe, and then we'll just teach them what their itching ears want to hear! I'll bet trhe church will grow, then, now won't it?

:doh: :doh:

<shakes head and walks away>


A tad overly dramatic, don't you think?

That is not what I offered up for validation here.

I needed to know whether or not this portion of the Scripture was indeed difficult for others to define or understand and therefore hard to state in absolution from one person to the next what they understood the words to mean.

When something nags at my thought processes, there is usually a reason for it and at the very least, further discovery is warranted to put it to rest.

My conscience was truly having a difficult time with this matter and I have prayed about how to deal with my questions.

The various answers and views presented here have helped me greatly and I appreciate it more than you realize, but out of context sarcasm and questioning my seriousness as a parent as it concerns my child's spiritual training is unnecessary. She can follow her own conscience on this matter, too, as long as she keeps to the Truth of Salvation and does a better job listening to the Holy Spirit than I have in the past.

[porterross]

Thanks to Kepler, I found a direct answer to my search within the FAQs of the LCMS site. Too bad it's so deeply buried.


Age of the Earth
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gif http://www.lcms.org/graphics/blank.gifQ. What is the LCMS position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth's age to be in the billions of years?

A. The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise "age of the earth," since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is. Nor is it the Synod's position that everything in the Bible is to be understood "literally." There is much in the Bible that clearly purports not to be understood literally--but this must be determined by the Bible itself, not by science or human reason. There is nothing in the Bible itself to suggest that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.
The Synod has affirmed the belief, therefore, based on Scripture's account of creation in the book of Genesis and other clear passages of Scripture, that "God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in six days by a series of creative acts," that "Adam and Eve were real, historical human beings, the first two people in the world," and that "we must confess what St. Paul says in Romans 5:12" about the origin of sin through Adam as described in Genesis 3 (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31). The Synod has also, therefore, stated that it rejects "all those world views, philosophical theories, exegetical interpretations and other hypotheses which pervert these biblical teachings and thus obscure the Gospel" (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31).
At the same time, the Synod firmly believes that there can be no actual contradiction between genuine scientific truth and the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for "harmonizing" Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already "mature" state, so that scientific "data" leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.)
Numerous books are available that discuss these issues in more detail. One of these is "Studies in Creation" by John Klotz (1985), available by calling Concordia Publishing House (http://www.cph.org/html/home_set.htm) (1-800-325-3040), and asking for stock no. 12-3004.



http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2207




I will sleep so much better tonight!
:clap:

[LutherNut]

Actually, the evolutionists went a step beyond of a scientific evidence of organisms evolving.
They are stating that organisms evolve into different kinds of organisms.

The Bible states that God created organisms according to their kind.

GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And the science does not have any fossils that show "half fish half something else".

True science and the Bible never disagree.:)

They cannot.:)

Thanks,
Ed

I honestly believe that this is the first thing you've ever posted that I agree with.

:thumbsup:

[C.F.W. Walther]

Im with LutherNut on this. Besides, we are simply going to go around and around and noone is going to convince anyone else about this topic. The fact remains we are all children of God and worship the lord and savior Jesus, and thats all that really matters in the end.:prayer:

I'm backing Luthernut up to on this to because I can't believe how deviant peoples belief of the Bible is and how shallow they accept God's word. Personal opinion doesn't mean squat where the Bible is concerned. You either belive in the literalcy of it or you don't and don't try to twist it around to support an unorthodox view of the origin of the world with secular arguments that would make the liberals jump up and down with glee. I'm surprised the "libs" aren't in here patting you all on the back. I've allways looked at both sides of an issure but to take extensive courses to "learn" a "theory" is ridiculous. Catering to secular hype is only playing into their hands. Time would be better spent studying the Bible because that's were faith comes from and then there wouldn't be all these doubts and questions becasue the faith would be more prevalent than the doubts.

And "yes" evoloution is still hypothetical and I could site as many sources as other people on this forum that it is just an "opinion" but it's not worth it. Looks like someone was just wanting to be controversial and stir things up. I'd rather believe God's word than some guy that was in totall opposition to the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics, the Law of Cause and Effect and even The Law of Biogenesis which states that life comes from life, the Law of Mass Action, Law of inertia, Law of Angular momemtum, Law of Probablility and fossil records that show absolutely NO evidence of evolution whatrsoever.



:scratch:

[Edial]

I honestly believe that this is the first thing you've ever posted that I agree with.

:thumbsup:
:)

[porterross]

Time would be better spent studying the Bible because that's were faith comes from.....and then there wouldn't be all these doubts and questions becasue the faith would be more prevalent than the doubts.
:scratch:


and that's what I've been doing. The actual undisputed age of the earth or time passed from the instant of original formation of the earth and the end the first day is truly something I have a hard time defining for myself.

This does not mean I don't believe the Word, it means that my way of thinking is having a hard time 'getting it' and when you suggest that we stop trying to understand the Scriptures you risk some people taking that to mean reading the Bible for themselves is pointless. Some of us need things explained in different ways. That doesn't make us any less faithful.

I've been reading and digging in www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org) and there a great many things addressed on this site that would send the liberals and their 'theories' running for cover, so my asking the questions I did here has helped me tremendously as I study the Gospel and I hope it benefits someone else as well.

:wave:

[Edial]

1) define "kind"
GE 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

"Kind" needs not be defined, whether they are horses, elephants, mice.

Bible states that there are "kinds". That means there are different types of creatures that were made independent of each other.

Evolutionists overstep their bounds when they state that there were no "kinds", that all life "evolved" from ameba, a single-cell organism.


2) Archeopteryx
I certainly hope you do not suggest that all the birds came from it.

Thanks,
Ed

[Melethiel]

I certainly hope you do not suggest that all the birds came from it.

I never did. It's simply one example of a species with characteristics of two "kinds".

Theory doesn't state that all life came from amoeba. There are more single celled organisms than that. :P

[Melethiel]

*shrug* But at any rate, I'm done with this discussion. It's obvious I'm in the minority view here, so I'll just take my liberal, shallow-reading, non-fundamentalist, unorthodox self back to GT where I belong. :P

[Edial]

I never did. It's simply one example of a species with characteristics of two "kinds".

Theory doesn't state that all life came from amoeba. There are more single celled organisms than that. :P
This came from Darwin's "Origin of the Species". The "father" of evolution.

His theory. All came from ameba.

It was a required reading back in the USSR. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[Melethiel]

This came from Darwin's "Origin of the Species". The "father" of evolution.

His theory. All came from ameba.

It was a required reading back in the USSR. :)

Thanks,
Ed
Theory has progressed past Darwin. :)
And I wouldn't know that - I left the USSR when I was 3. :P

[Edial]

Reputability of science is really low.

We cannot cure cancer.

We have a need for a specialist for about each body part.
A "foot" doctor for a same foot that never changed in thousands of years. How much can one learn about a single foot? :)

We cannot change wheather.

There are millions of bacteria that can kill us with one swipe.

Each trip to the stratosphere is an unpredictable adventure.

We are sick, fat and stupid - can't "fix" that as much as we try.:)

No wonder Jesus Christ said 2000 years ago that we could not change even one hair from white to black.
MT 5: 36 ... for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
Our response 2000 years later? - hair dye. :)

Now why would anyone want to accept a proofless scientific theory that all life came from an ameba? :)

Yet many believers are so scared of the thought of evolution that they invent their own theories of the Young Earth despite of the fact that the Scriptures call the Earth "ancient".
(A very strong Hebrew term that disproves the Young Earth theory with one little word).

No wonder evolutionists still exist.
Young Earth advocates give them food for life.

Fascinating.

Ed

[Edial]

Theory has progressed past Darwin. :)
And I wouldn't know that - I left the USSR when I was 3. :P
I noticed your signature some time ago. :)

[porterross]

In taking Radidio's scolding to heart, I have come to realize that, for myself and my part, I do take the Scripture literally, which for me, brings the following understanding:




Genesis 1:1-5 (New International Version)The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.





Genesis 1:1,2 hold and offer NO stated measure of time. This is truly how I read it, literally. This in no way leads me question how much time or how many 'days' passed after that this time.
I understand NO literal offering of time to be considered here.



3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.



Gen 1:3-5. Here, I understand a definite statement for an understanding of the beginning of a measure of time in the Divine process of Creation. I do not question God's literal creation of all that is, of His Biblically told creation of man, animals or plants and I wholly reject the idea of evolution. I know that the great flood is the answer to many geological assumptions and theories.
None of God's Word is questioned by me in any way.


My literal understanding is obviously different from other Lutherans and I do not claim to be right or that any else is wrong and maybe it doesn't really matter.

Given that we accept that God has always been and always will be in a realm of existence where time is of no consequence or consideration in need of measure, our attempts and the need to place a timeline on the beginnings of this world are completely pointless and have no bearing on God's purpose for our being here at all.

Perhaps any statement or discussion and our need to know what only God can know is one of our curses from the fall. It is all an exercise in futility from what I can conclude.

We all know that science is limited and subject only to those discoveries that God allows to begin with. I love knowing this, by the way!

Our theories are flawed and based on a great deal of assumption, no matter what line of thinking one follows. If this were not true, then why can medical research not cure all diseases, why is carbon-14 dating disputed, etc.?

The bottom line is that only God has the answers and I'm sure that whatever time elapsed to get us to where we are is not seen in the same manner by us and Him.

So, I am content in what this discussion has led me to and I appreciate everyone's input more than you know.

I will say for certain that the idea of accepting Darwinian evolution is something that I strongly object to and I regret that my original question led to a discussion on a man-made idea that I see as an affront to God Himself.

Thank all of you. :bow:

:thumbsup: :amen:

[LutherNut]

Yet many believers are so scared of the thought of evolution that they invent their own theories of the Young Earth despite of the fact that the Scriptures call the Earth "ancient".
(A very strong Hebrew term that disproves the Young Earth theory with one little word).

There are at least three different Hebrew words that are translated "ancient" in English texts. And any of them can be used to indicate an time past. Even 15,000 years can be (and is) "ancient."

[LutherNut]

Genesis 1:1,2 hold and offer NO stated measure of time. This is truly how I read it, literally. This in no way leads me question how much time or how many 'days' passed after that this time.
I understand NO literal offering of time to be considered here.


I'm not sure what you are reading, then. Genesis 1:1-3 are clearly the First Day according to the text. Don't read more into it than what is there. It says what it says, literally. The "beginning" was the beginning of the First Day. ("In the beginning..."- the start. "evening and morning, the First Day"- the end of the First Day. It's quite clear if you just read what is there and not add anything to it.)

God doesn't need a sun-dial to tell time.

[Edial]

There are at least three different Hebrew words that are translated "ancient" in English texts. And any of them can be used to indicate an time past. Even 15,000 years can be (and is) "ancient."
GE 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.
(Age-old {olam}- Strong's 5769)
This word denotes such a long period of time that it is translated as "ever" (as in forever and ever) in many, many places.

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

So, the expression, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (second day, etc.)" could mean something other than a normal "solar day"?
Of course.

The choices are:

1. God created the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago, or

2. The Bible contains error.
You forgot #3:
3. In Genesis, God is telling a TRUE story about the origins of the world. The story, however, uses language that people would be able to comprehend at the time.
For example, God calls the Sun and the Moon the "two great lights" (Gen 1:16). Are we to interpret this literally? Are we to conclude from this that the lunar surface generates its own light? Or is it possible, conceievable, that God called the moon a light when in reality it is a refelctor?

"And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (second day, etc.)"

God says (quite explicitly):
14And 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, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

1) "They" (i.e., the lights ) are for "signs and seasons, and for days and years." "Days" in this sentence (according to Jay) can mean nothing other than "literal 24 hour periods"... SO...... The "lights" are for ruling the "days", and yet we had three "days" with no "lights".

2) "Morning and evening" are constructs which we define by the rising/setting of the sun and the rising/setting of the moon. Since there was neither moon nor sun on the first three days, what does God mean he says, "morning and evening"?

If you CHOOSE to answer, "God said it was morning and evening, and that's what I believe", well that's ok. But it is not Scripture that compels you to believe this, because Scripture does not say it. (IMHO, Scripture actually forbids one from reading the passage that way....but whatever.)

[Edial]

So, the expression, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (second day, etc.)" could mean something other than a normal "solar day"?

The choices are:

1. God created the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago, or

2. The Bible contains error.
You are limiting your options.

The time span between the evening and the morning is not refined in Genesis.
The Hebrew word "yom" is a perriod of time that is used for 1/2 a year in the OT in one occasion.
It does not, simply does not mean 24 hours.
To say that this what "yom" means is not true.

Consider this.
In Leningrad there are White Nights. That means that for weeks there is no night. People read at night with no light.

There is no 24 hours even in our understanding of day.
The Earth is slowing down few seconds each year.

Thanks,
Ed

[LutherNut]

GE 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.
(Age-old {olam}- Strong's 5769)
This word denotes such a long period of time that it is translated as "ever" (as in forever and ever) in many, many places.



Meanings of words are dictated by their context. There is no way to determine that the word "olam" denotes a specific period of time. That is determined elsewhere. Once that is determined, the context will then dictate the meaning of the word.

There are numerous meanings of "olam":


all successive, always, ancient, ancient times, continual, eternal, eternity, ever, everlasting, Everlasting, for ages, forever, forevermore, from of old, lasting, long, long ago, long past, long time, more, never, of old, permanent, permanently, perpetual, perpetually.



There is no meaning of this word used in the conetxt of Scripture that definitely states whether or not the earth is thousnads, millions, or billions, or whatever years old. Your claim that one word (whether its "olam" or "qedem" or "attiq") automatically dismisses a young earth does not hold water.


Nice try, though.:)

[LutherNut]

Consider this.
In Leningrad there are White Nights. That means that for weeks there is no night. People read at night with no light.


Which proves that the rising and setting of the sun does not dictate what a "day" is. Could there have been a 24 hour day before the sun (even though the Scripture does not even mention the creation of the sun, but mentions "light" and then the division of "greater" and "lesser" light) was created? Of course.
Matthew 19:26, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[Edial]

Meanings of words are dictated by their context. There is no way to determine that the word "olam" denotes a specific period of time. That is determined elsewhere. Once that is determined, the context will then dictate the meaning of the word.

There are numerous meanings of "olam":




all successive, always, ancient, ancient times, continual, eternal, eternity, ever, everlasting, Everlasting, for ages, forever, forevermore, from of old, lasting, long, long ago, long past, long time, more, never, of old, permanent, permanently, perpetual, perpetually.





There is no meaning of this word used in the conetxt of Scripture that definitely states whether or not the earth is thousnads, millions, or billions, or whatever years old. Your claim that one word (whether its "olam" or "qedem" or "attiq") automatically dismisses a young earth does not hold water.


Nice try, though.:)




Thanks for word definitions - I rest my case on the study of "olam".

"Olam" certainly does not fit the Young Earth definition.

You see, the burden of proof is on your side.
The ball is in your court.

The problem with Young Earth advocates is that they do not have ONE SINGLE verse to prove that the Earth is young. NOT ONE.

However, they are debating the Scriptures. :)

They are making bold statements that Earth is 6,000, even 15,000 years old and convincing people that it is "in the Bible".

(In Christ's definitions the "last hour" already takes at least 2000 years).

I personally found the Young Earth advocates to be quite intimidating to others.

They usually present themselves as "Super-Christians" who are defending the truth against evil Evolutionists.

Actually, they exist just because Evolutionists exist.
And the Evolutionists exist because the Young Earth advocates exists. :)

Evolutionists have not one scientific proof that a man evolved from ameba.
Young Earth advocates have not one verse to prove that they Earth is young.

Young Earth pretends that it defends Christians faith against the evils of science.
Evolutionist pretent that they defend the science againts the Fundamentalist zealots.

And by sheer yelling, self-righteousness and promotion of fear of the "other side", both of them take the center stage.

And Bible believing Christians and sincere scientists are just too intimidated to go against pressure.

But some are not.

I am not saying that you represent one of these people.

What I am saying is - prove it with Scriptures.

Ed

[SPALATIN]

They are making bold statements that Earth is 6,000, even 15,000 years old and convincing people that it is "in the Bible".


Ed

First of all Ed, 15000 was a guess on my part not a scriptural reference. I do not have scriptural proof for my guess. It is just a guess. I did not say it was in the bible therefore your claim that it was said is a false accusation.

Can you give me any SCIENTIFIC HARD FACT that it is Millions and Billions of years old as you claim? Carbon Dating is laughable. A science class had been studying the remains of a seal and decided to test carbon dating. They sent the bones in for carbon dating and gave false dates to see if Carbon dating would confirm the dates they gave as a lie or say that they were true. The dates they gave were 500 years ago. The lab tests came back confirming that the bones were 500 years old. The truth of the matter is that the seal had only been deceased for about a month.

So where is the proof that Carbon14 dating is anywhere near accurate?

When you can give me bonafide science fact that the earth is more than 15000 years old then we will talk until then my mind is closed on the subject.

[Melethiel]

First of all Ed, 15000 was a guess on my part not a scriptural reference. I do not have scriptural proof for my guess. It is just a guess. I did not say it was in the bible therefore your claim that it was said is a false accusation.

Can you give me any SCIENTIFIC HARD FACT that it is Millions and Billions of years old as you claim? Carbon Dating is laughable. A science class had been studying the remains of a seal and decided to test carbon dating. They sent the bones in for carbon dating and gave false dates to see if Carbon dating would confirm the dates they gave as a lie or say that they were true. The dates they gave were 500 years ago. The lab tests came back confirming that the bones were 500 years old. The truth of the matter is that the seal had only been deceased for about a month.

So where is the proof that Carbon14 dating is anywhere near accurate?

When you can give me bonafide science fact that the earth is more than 15000 years old then we will talk until then my mind is closed on the subject.
There are other ways than carbon dating. Carbon dating only works for 10,000 years or so. Why it didn't work on the recently deceased seal is simple: it does not work on living or recently deceased organisms, because the cell cycle constantly replenishes the carbon and keeps it from degrading.

I'm not too familiar with this, but the most direct method of calculating the age of the earth comes from measuring the decay of lead isochrons, uranium decay, and many other methods.

[Edial]

First of all Ed, 15000 was a guess on my part not a scriptural reference. I do not have scriptural proof for my guess. It is just a guess. I did not say it was in the bible therefore your claim that it was said is a false accusation.
I am not quoting you, Scott.

6,000, 10,000, 15,000 and even 50,000 years are the commonly stated numbers (except for 50,000) by the Young Earth advocates.

Can you give me any SCIENTIFIC HARD FACT that it is Millions and Billions of years old as you claim? Carbon Dating is laughable. A science class had been studying the remains of a seal and decided to test carbon dating. They sent the bones in for carbon dating and gave false dates to see if Carbon dating would confirm the dates they gave as a lie or say that they were true. The dates they gave were 500 years ago. The lab tests came back confirming that the bones were 500 years old. The truth of the matter is that the seal had only been deceased for about a month.

So where is the proof that Carbon14 dating is anywhere near accurate?

When you can give me bonafide science fact that the earth is more than 15000 years old then we will talk until then my mind is closed on the subject.
I am not interested whether the carbon dating is a reliable source of measuring the age of Earth or not.
Carbon dating is only reliable if aging process is relatively even throughout the history.
Even then it is not a reliable scientific fact.

I am saying that the Earth is old because the Bible shows that it is ancient.
Hebrew word "olam" specifically shows it.

I do not know how old the Earth is.

However, when Young Earth advocates state that it is 6,000 to 15,000 years old, it is not ancient, not olam.

Man is young (created on 6th Day), but not the Earth.

Thanks,
Ed

[porterross]

Carbon dating only works for 10,000 years or so.


:confused:

Sooooo, you're admitting that there is no way for the reputed, most relied-upon method of time-of-'death' determination to prove for certain that any organic discoveries can be dated with undeniable certainty to be much older than the age of the earth as approximated by Genesis 1.

It's because of such truths that it's so easy to laugh at evolution. It also makes it that much easier to reject the idea that the earth is billions of years old. There are too many assumptions in this theory and the fact that it's been taught in school for so long is nothing short of irresponsible.
:(

[LutherNut]

Thanks for word definitions - I rest my case on the study of "olam".

"Olam" certainly does not fit the Young Earth definition.

Where do you get that from? 100 years could certainly be "olam." 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 15,000 years could be "ancient" depending upon the context. The definitions given certainly do show that. I suggest you read them all again.

The problem with Young Earth advocates is that they do not have ONE SINGLE verse to prove that the Earth is young. NOT ONE.

A single verse? No. Nor is there a single verse that proves the Trinity.
The basic context of Scripture as a whole supports a young earth.


(In Christ's definitions the "last hour" already takes at least 2000 years).

Context is king. Until you figure this out, you will never understand m,ost of what the Scriptures actually teach us.

[SPALATIN]

There are other ways than carbon dating. Carbon dating only works for 10,000 years or so. Why it didn't work on the recently deceased seal is simple: it does not work on living or recently deceased organisms, because the cell cycle constantly replenishes the carbon and keeps it from degrading.

I'm not too familiar with this, but the most direct method of calculating the age of the earth comes from measuring the decay of lead isochrons, uranium decay, and many other methods.

Mel,

The problem is that Carbon dating stated that the seal was dead for several centuries when in fact it had been only dead for less than 2 mos.

You're right in that Carbon dating is not accurate. It is a sham as is any other type of dating system known to man.

[Jim47]

This all seems quite simple to me. Either we trust that God did create earth in 6-24 hour days or we don't trust Him thinking He was too weak too accomplish such a great feat in such a short time.

Myself I choose to believe it as written becasue God has never failed at even one of His promises and His foolishness is greater than mans wisdom.

My fears are for the younger generation, from what I have read here I can see that teachers are becoming more proficient at destroying ones faith and understanding of God's Word.

Mt 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

[Melethiel]

:confused:

Sooooo, you're admitting that there is no way for the reputed, most relied-upon method of time-of-'death' determination to prove for certain that any organic discoveries can be dated with undeniable certainty to be much older than the age of the earth as approximated by Genesis 1.

It's because of such truths that it's so easy to laugh at evolution. It also makes it that much easier to reject the idea that the earth is billions of years old. There are too many assumptions in this theory and the fact that it's been taught in school for so long is nothing short of irresponsible.
:(
No. It's simply a case of using the wrong tool for the job, that's all. Carbon dating is accurate when used in its proper context. There are other dating methods.

[Melethiel]

we don't trust Him thinking He was too weak too accomplish such a great feat in such a short time.

Strawman. It's not a question of COULD He but DID He.

[porterross]

No. It's simply a case of using the wrong tool for the job, that's all. Carbon dating is accurate when used in its proper context. There are other dating methods.


AKA "Exercises in redundant and obstinate futility".

Truth is, we'll never know for sure while in this world and I'm OK with not having someone else's assumed certainty shoved down my throat.

There is only one who has all the answers and I trust in Him to provide pathways to what knowledge we need to best serve Him while we're here.

He will only show us what genuine truths He wants revealed.

[Edial]

Where do you get that from? 100 years could certainly be "olam." 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 15,000 years could be "ancient" depending upon the context. The definitions given certainly do show that. I suggest you read them all again.
A 100 year old mountain is ancient? :)
Does it make sense to you?

Cross reference olam in the OT and try looking at it objectively.



A single verse? No. Nor is there a single verse that proves the Trinity.
You do sound more and more like my Fundamentalist Baptist friends. :)
They always cling to Trinity when they want to justify their lack of Scriptural support.

It is good however, that you agree that there is not one verse to show that the Earth is young.

Concerning Trinity, there is MUCH in the Bible from which the Trinity is defined. MUCH.
The Father is called God.
The Son is called GOD.
The Holy Spirit is called God.
And CHrist said there is ONLY ONE God.
... hence Trinity.

LutherNut, don't you see that you have been taught a "script" by the Young Earth advocates?
I can probably anticipate every objection that they can throw.
Yet one thing I know - they have no verses.



The basic context of Scripture as a whole supports a young earth.
How?


Context is king. Until you figure this out, you will never understand m,ost of what the Scriptures actually teach us.
Strong statement.

I teach the Bible on various levels, from beginners to the advanced.

The hermeneutics I use are STRICTLY cross-referencing in the original languages.

Bible changed my mind concerning various views that are floating around, simply based on the fact that there is not one verse proving that view.

I used to be Young Earth advocate - until the Bible showed me that there not one verse to prove it.

I used to be a pre-trib rapture advocate - until the Bible shpwed me that there is not one verse to prove it.

I used to be a Calvinists - until the Bible showed me that there is not one verse to prove that Christ died only for the part of the world.

I used to believe in the purely symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper - until the Bible showed me that there is not one verse to prove that symbolism is all there is to it.

There are others.

Ed

[Edial]

This all seems quite simple to me. Either we trust that God did create earth in 6-24 hour days or we don't trust Him thinking He was too weak too accomplish such a great feat in such a short time.

Myself I choose to believe it as written becasue God has never failed at even one of His promises and His foolishness is greater than mans wisdom.

My fears are for the younger generation, from what I have read here I can see that teachers are becoming more proficient at destroying ones faith and understanding of God's Word.

Mt 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Jim, you have no idea how frustrating this response is.

Thanks,
Ed

[Colabomb]

And on the 7th day he rested because saying "bang" that many days in a row tires a God out. May