How did the Earth and Man come to be?

[Protoevangel]

This way.

If he made it to "look" old while it is not, and when he refers to it as ancient, and when he tells us to examine the nature in order to understand him - then it does not fit his character to make it young while making it "look" old.

Thanks,
Ed

Unless you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the evidence. RE: God's foolishness; man's wisdom.

I'm not yet arguing either point, but simply saying that the phrase "if God did x, he is wrong, a liar, not loving," etc. is always a bad idea. If God did x, it was for a good purpose (obviously not deception), no matter how you interpret it.

 

[Edial]

...

Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."​

Exodus 31:17, "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."​

Both of these verses concern the six day work week and the observance of the Sabbath day. In their context, "yom" means "day."​

Plus, there are a number of verses telling us how old each of the descendents from Adam to Abraham was when they had sons and when they died. The assumption that is made here is that the genealogy contains gaps, which most Scriptural genealogies do. The gaps could account for a few thousand years, but certainly could not account for millions, let alone billions.​

What it all boils down to is the age old question, "Did God really say...?" I opt to believe that He did, and He meant what He said.

Exactly - "Did God really say?"

He did not say that it is a 24 hour day.

He did not say it quite "loudly" by presenting that the Sun was created on the 3rd day and that "yom" means a variety of time periods in the Bible.

He did not say it when he clearly stated that to Him a day is LIKE a 1000 years.

By that he is CLEARLY not saying that it is 24 hours.

All he said was that there is an evening and the morning (before the Sun was created).

God is not saying these things.

The Young Earth advocates are saying these things and attributing these things to God.

The rest repeat what the YEC indoctrinate.

Ed

 

[Edial]

Isn't it odd that we have to sit here and quote opinions after opinions on when the earth was created and how we truly know by certain evidence we've extrapolated that totally supports our position. When the most important thing is that creation really happened and not one of us can prove creation was done one way or another? These differances of opinion are because we can't wrap our minds around such an astonding happening and we have to try to bring it down to our terms and that is totally impossible!

I think I can honestly say that there isn't one person in this group that hasn't been in a constant state of "learning" their whole life and that's commendable except maybe we look for explanations in the wrong places. "No" the Bible is not a scientific vanguard but it has "never" been proven wrong and that should count for something.

.
Ed

 

[LutherNut]

This way.

If he made it to "look" old while it is not, and when he refers to it as ancient, and when he tells us to examine the nature in order to understand him - then it does not fit his character to make it young while making it "look" old.

Thanks,
Ed

You are certainly hell bent on this word "ancient" and are not willing to take it in context but to mean only whay YOU want it to mean. Until such time as you learn what CONTEXT means, you and I cannot have any further discussion on this matter.

I read the Scriptures based upon what it tells us. You are reading it based upon what you want it to mean. (Which, BTW, is the main difference between the LCMS and the ELCA.)

 

[LutherNut]

Exactly - "Did God really say?"

He did not say that it is a 24 hour day.

He did not say it quite "loudly" by presenting that the Sun was created on the 3rd day and that "yom" means a variety of time periods in the Bible.

But in His word, there is nothing to suggest that it isn't. We have already proven that the sun does not need to be present for there to be "day." Think Barrow, AK in January.

He did not say it when he clearly stated that to Him a day is LIKE a 1000 years.

Context. Context. Context. Until you learn what that means, you will never get it, Ed. Never.

The Young Earth advocates are saying these things and attributing these things to God.

I am only reading what the Scriptures say. I am not reading anything into them or trying to make words mean something that does not fit the context.

 

[Melethiel]

I guess that depends on who you believe.
God or a high school science teacher.

I would tend to go with the one who was actually there when it happened.

Considering that I hated most of my high school science teachers, and we didn't really learn all that much about geology anyway, I can't say that I'm listening to them.

However, in reading the Scriptures in context, I see absolutely no reason to assume that the earth is young, no more than I have reason to assume that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[KEPLER]

Explain this to me. How does this make God to be a liar??

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now: this is why I use words like "seems".

I did not say that it does make God a liar. But I feel I must be constrained by the possibilties of "where is this theology going...???"

When we get to the position of saying that God created the world with the "Appearance of Age" (to coin AiG), how do we square that with Scriptures like Psalms 19 or Romans 1???

This, BTW, is one of the possibilities passed on by the LCMS:

Are you saying that the LCMS is calling God a liar???

The operative term being "one of". That doesn't mean it's the best possibiltiy, merely a possibility.

And as for this brilliant (***rolls eyes***) statement:

But in His word, there is nothing to suggest that it isn't. We have already proven that the sun does not need to be present for there to be "day." Think Barrow, AK in January.

...umm, in Genesis, the "greater light" was not merely "out-of-direct-line-of-sight", as is the case in Barrow, AK.

IT. DID. NOT. EXIST.

K

 

[KEPLER]

Considering that I hated most of my high school science teachers, and we didn't really learn all that much about geology anyway, I can't say that I'm listening to them.

However, in reading the Scriptures in context, I see absolutely no reason to assume that the earth is young, no more than I have reason to assume that the sun revolves around the earth.

Francis Pieper was a geocentrist.

I would bet a whole boat-load of money that Jeff Williams, the LCMS Lutheran astronaut who arrived at the International Space Station yesterday, is not.

K

 

[Edial]

But in His word, there is nothing to suggest that it isn't. We have already proven that the sun does not need to be present for there to be "day." Think Barrow, AK in January.

Oh my.
What makes 24 hours within a day?
Rotation around its axis as it revolves around the Sun.
Sun makes it an evening and the morning.

There is no Sun in the first 2 days.

There is light in the first days (not the Sun, but light).
That light is most probably the glory of God.

Earth has no form and is shapeless, void (hoku-boku).

Where do you get that the Day before the Sun in 24 hours?

Context. Context. Context. Until you learn what that means, you will never get it, Ed. Never..

Good.
Explain hermeneutically what you are saying.
Show me how to define the context.

I am only reading what the Scriptures say. I am not reading anything into them or trying to make words mean something that does not fit the context.

You are reading what you wish that the Scriptures say.

When was the last time the Scriptures changed your mind about something? Just wondering.

Ed

 

[KEPLER]

Yo, Jay...

I thing I'm gonna hang up here. But let me say that I appreciate and admire your passion for the Scriptures. Honestly dude, when you go after AngelusSax, you're my freakin' hero! (Sorry Angelus, if you're reading this...nothin' personal, but Jay usually wipes the floor with some of your more...um...creative answers.)

Jay, (and anyone else who is concerned) I believe the Scriptures 100%: they are 100% inspired, 100% authoritative, 100% rock on. I hope I haven't caused anyone concern. I simply don't feel that Scripture compels me to read Genesis as you do. I hope that doesn't exclude me from any pot-lucks.

Peace, man...

Eric

 

[Edial]

You are certainly hell bent on this word "ancient" and are not willing to take it in context but to mean only whay YOU want it to mean. Until such time as you learn what CONTEXT means, you and I cannot have any further discussion on this matter.

It is at least the second time you are making a charge concerning the context.

I asked you this on another post -

Good.
Explain hermeneutically what you are saying.
Show me how to define the context.

I read the Scriptures based upon what it tells us. You are reading it based upon what you want it to mean. (Which, BTW, is the main difference between the LCMS and the ELCA.)

I do not know that I represent LCMS.
I do not even know what they believe concerning this, or concerning interpreting the Scriptures.
I taught the Bible before I became a Lutheran.
And I am still learning it as I go along.

You claim to represent ELCA. Fine.
So, if the Bible tells ELCA that the Earth is young, then show me the Scriptures saying that.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Melethiel]

You claim to represent ELCA. Fine.
So, if the Bible tells ELCA that the Earth is young, then show me the Scriptures saying that.

Jay's LCMS.

 

[Edial]

Unless you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the evidence. RE: God's foolishness; man's wisdom.

Just a note.
1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

The context of "foolishness of God" and "weakness of God" [v.25] does not imply a certain quality of God that is lesser even within a context of God.

V.18a starts off that the message of the cross is foolishness for the ones that are perishing.

That "foolishness" (which is the message of the cross) is attributed to God by unbelievers.
In reality however, it is the power of God (in the opinion of the believers). [v.18b]

God, on the other hand, made the wisdom of the world "foolishness", since people cannot be saved by it.

In that same context it is presented that the "foolishness" of God (which is the message of the cross in the opinion of the unbelievers) is stronger than man's wisdom, since that "foolishness of God" saves and the wisdom of the world cannot.

I'm not yet arguing either point, but simply saying that the phrase "if God did x, he is wrong, a liar, not loving," etc. is always a bad idea. If God did x, it was for a good purpose (obviously not deception), no matter how you interpret it.

Excellent statement.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Jay's LCMS.

Oh,
Then he probably thinks I am one of the other guys.

Actually I just found out that I attend an LCMS church due to all the debates here concerning the two.
Just last week I saw an LCMS plaque on one of the wall of the church. .

I guess it is not as simple to be a Lutheran by faith alone. .

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

... I hope that doesn't exclude me from any pot-lucks.

Peace, ...

Now, you do have a point here.


Ed

 

[Edial]

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."​

All things are possible with God.
Does that mean he does all things?

Of course not. He does them as he sees fit.
And what he sees as "fit" would not contradict the Scriptures.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutherNut]

And as for this brilliant (***rolls eyes***) statement:

...umm, in Genesis, the "greater light" was not merely "out-of-direct-line-of-sight", as is the case in Barrow, AK.

IT. DID. NOT. EXIST.

K

Let me first say that sarcasm does not become you... at all.

Second, Genesis 1 does not mention the word "sun' anywhere. How can you say that it didn't exist on Day One? Truth is, you can't.

Jay, (and anyone else who is concerned) I believe the Scriptures 100%: they are 100% inspired, 100% authoritative, 100% rock on.

Let us agree with this 100%... and move on.

PS- Meet me in the Sin Boldly Saloon and I'll buy you a pint bier... or two... or six...

 

[Melethiel]

Second, Genesis 1 does not mention the word "sun' anywhere. How can you say that it didn't exist on Day One? Truth is, you can't.

Assuming that you're right here, what then is the "great light" mentioned in the fourth day? It must be fairly obvious if you read it in context.

 

[Spidey76]

I haven't read the history of this thread, but I'm going to jump in here and hopefully help. I believe the Bible to be absolute, Holy, truth, and accurate.

1) the light mentioned on day 1 of the creation was NOT the sun, but the light of God's glory. The same light that does & will illuminate heaven.


Isiah 16:19 The sun will no more be your light by day,
nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you,
for the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory. (NIV) Isiah 16:20 Your sun will never set again,
and your moon will wane no more;
the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your days of sorrow will end. (NIV)

Revelation 21:23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. (NIV)

2) the lights on day 4 are the sun and the moon

3) the earth and universe are approximately 6,000 years old. If you add the dates from Adam to the flood you get around 1,600 years, from the flood to Jesus is around 2,400 years, and since Jesus there have been about 2,000 years.

4) the creation lasted 6 days + 1 day of rest. The NIV, NLT, and the original English translation, the KJV, all show a literal 7 day week of creation:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (KJV)

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (KJV)

etc. - It was not a first day, and it was not a period of time, but THE first day, THE second day, etc.

I hope this helps clear some things up a bit.

 

[Edial]

I haven't read the history of this thread, but I'm going to jump in here and hopefully help. I believe the Bible to be absolute, Holy, truth, and accurate.

1) the light mentioned on day 1 of the creation was NOT the sun, but the light of God's glory. The same light that does & will illuminate heaven.


Isiah 16:19 The sun will no more be your light by day,
nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you,
for the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory. (NIV) Isiah 16:20 Your sun will never set again,
and your moon will wane no more;
the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your days of sorrow will end. (NIV)

Revelation 21:23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. (NIV)

2) the lights on day 4 are the sun and the moon

3) the earth and universe are approximately 6,000 years old. If you add the dates from Adam to the flood you get around 1,600 years, from the flood to Jesus is around 2,400 years, and since Jesus there have been about 2,000 years.

4) the creation lasted 6 days + 1 day of rest. The NIV, NLT, and the original English translation, the KJV, all show a literal 7 day week of creation:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (KJV)

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (KJV)

etc. - It was not a first day, and it was not a period of time, but THE first day, THE second day, etc.

I hope this helps clear some things up a bit.

Maybe you should have read the thread.

Since there is not one verse proving that Earth is young (6,000 years), how do you explain that it is called ancient "olam" in the OT?

Thanks,
Ed